I think he meant Korean War as in back in 50's...

Does it make a difference? War is war. :p
If it's not WWII, people are going to eventually get sick of this current war era after a while.

See, at least with current/future war eras, the developer can have some fun and get imaginative with the equipment that you can use. We all know what gear people had access to in WWII. Shit is boring.

Right, we need more Soul Cubes in games.

Sure, and add a flashlight to the mix and every level should just be damn dark. I mean damn, let's push the envelope all the way while we're at it.

Also hopefully this time vehicles should be accessible. Then again I am setting my hopes way too up.

Also sure, make the MP at least as fun as 4 once was: airstrikes and artillery support should be integral.

Obviously, both of you would make shitty developers.

Looking forward to Call of Duty 6: Malaysian Massacre FREEDOM.

Got my sights on you, Blah~ :mad:

If this is the kind of shit that PC gamers like, you guys can keep Treyarch. The less terrible console titles they make the better.

I don't know you guys, but I am wondering what kind of games we are going to get.

We had SnD on CoD4, but I am sure that would be kind of 'out of place' for CoD5. We had HQ, which would perfectly suitable for CoD5. I hope they add some fun extras.

It is pretty dead in here.

Beta for Xbox 360 started, so did PC. If you want more info you can check it out on, I got in to the beta except my friend is going to be using code (too buzeh).

Call of Duty World at War Beta on FilePlanet.

The release date its November 11th for US and Nov 14 for Europe.

Cheers.

Just want to point out that this game isn't Call of Duty 5.

Just like how Finest Hour wasn't Call of Duty 2.

Going to try it once I actually get to see my BLOODY BETA KEY AGAIN! I closed the window because they assured me it would also be emailed to me, but NO! GAAAAAH!!!

I've heard somewhere that Treyarch is actually Gray Matter, the makers of CoD: United Offensive expansion, which I thought was pretty decent, though I've never played CoD3 so maybe I missed out on the one hell of a clusterfuck that was to have given Treyarch such a bad rep.

Although having finally jumped back to the modern day with CoD4 I'm not sure I want to go back to the 1940's as great as WWII is. I think I'll just wait for CoD5, I've heard IW is going to stay with modern warfare.

I saw some of this on GTtv the other night and it actually looks halfway decent, like they put CoD2 and 4 together. Online Co-op looks like it's going to be fun, and I'm interested in what kind of perks they'll have for vehicles.

Also, zombie nazis.

Someone call me the day Treyarch have a vaguely original idea for their games and stop ripping off everyone else (i.e. never). I thought CoD3 was an OK game, but it's not as good as CoD2 and is not a fucking patch on CoD4.

Given Treyarch have taken the CoD4 engine, ripped off as much as they could from CoD4 (from the sounds of it even placing things in a WWII that don't make a lot of sense) I wouldn't hold your breath for a great game. It probably won't be terrible, because let's face too many talented people have done the real leg-work for them, but I doubt the level design, story or any of that stuff will be anywhere near as good as CoD4. Also, it's another fucking WWII FPS.

They should have made it a WWI game. You could have a Battle of the Somme level where you have to walk across no-man's land with your rifle slung over your shoulder into the field of fire of German machine gun emplacements and you're limited to 40,000 respawns.

Treyarch: 'We've got the best shooter this Christmas' | Gaming Industry | News by MCV

WHY ARE THESE MEN ALLOWED TO TALK TO THE PRESS?

I swear to God, rage.

Ok, I can understand having pride in your work, and confidence in your work, but to say these things when you haven't even played the games that you're suggesting your game is better than? Well, that is just irresponsible.

This would be acceptable if it was there work, but it isn't given they've basically reskinned someone else's game, using someone else's engine, and stealing other people's game mode ideas.

In truth what Treyarch actually have is last Christmas's best FPS with a new lick of paint on it, and probably broken in a number of places.

Zzz downloading the client.

6 more minutes to go.

Hope I don't have to unlock perks... or HAVE THAT ANNOYING ACHIEVEMENT BUG LIKE BF 2104 or w/e its called had.

EDIT:

Fucking awesome. 5 kills, shell strike. 7 kills = dogs >=O

EDIT2: The game feels RUSHED. Fuck you Trey.

COD WAW...Better Than COD 4?
 

As we all know COD WAW has now been out a while and many people(including myself) have been playing it a lot. But the same arguement pops up time after time that is, does COD WAW beat COD 4 or is it just a failed attempt at bettering it?

Now many points can be made for both sides of that arguement and as you can imagine, and many have. The fact that it is now Treyarch (again) who are working along side Activision and how people think they weren't going to do well with the new COD.

Now i'm not going to voice my personal opion because to many of you it might seem biased, but i am interested in your opions, hopefully we might be able to put the arguement to bed and come to some sort or conclusion but if not, i suppose it will never end.

What the fuck? You have a biased opinion? We don't want your kind here.

Opinion is biased, that's sort of the point, something your post thoroughly lacks.

I've already posted about why I'm against World at War, but to summarise: it's lazy development of a mediocre game that rides on the glory of a better game. The next Call of Duty should have been amazing, it should have taken the work with CoD4 and turned out something even better. To turn out little more than a WWII themed tribute to Modern Warfare is not something I consider worthy of praise.

I agree with Omagnus.

While it is still a good game, There is nothing really different from the game (Other than the theme and the story) I know COD4 engine was good, The developers solely relied on the fact that it was a good engine, and that was one of the few let downs of the game. They didn't deliver anything new this time, And that was one of the reason why COD4 was successful, it was because everything was new that time, and i believe the change of story/timeline was one of the thing that made COD4 a great game.

Although Sutherland is <3.

Well, let's examine this issue for a moment. I will discuss the multiplayer issues, since who cares about single player? CoD4's multiplayer is fairly balanced (when you throw out glitching and such). When you start the game as a lowly grunt, you have access to the M16 (an excellent assault rifle) and the MP5 (a more than adequate submachine gun). You can be a lowly level 10 dude and be competitive with players who are at max level with all weapons unlocked. Sure, the P90 is better than the MP5, and perks like three frags or dead silence aren't available to you, but you can still be successful without those. In WaW, the low level guns suck. The low level assault rifles are all single shot and have tiny clips. You don't get access to a useful AR until level 37 with the SGT-44. The low level submachine guns suck. They are weak, inaccurate, and have unwieldy levels of recoil. That would be ok, except the the top level submachine gun that you get access to in the 50s, has a huge clip, insane rate of fire, very good power, and very little recoil. The only weapons truly worth using in WaW are the high level weapons in each weapon class.

In CoD4, there is a perk called Last Stand. This allows the player to pull out his pistol once he would have otherwise been killed. In regular play, it is just a minor inconvenience, but in hardcore mode, where one pistol shot can kill you, it is frustrating to shoot a guy only to have him kill you with his Last Stand because you shot him during the few frames between standing and laying on the ground during which he was invincible and then had to reload. Ok, still irritating, but whatever, the Last Stand only lasts a few seconds before the guy dies anyways, no big deal. In WaW, not only does Last Stand (now called Second Chance) last 30 seconds or so, if you go into Second Chance, and your teammate also has the Second Chance perk equipped, he can heal you. Take all of the stuff that was irritating about Last Stand, and then increase the time that it is active and allow the guy to be revived. Retardarch.

Also, there are tanks. In multiplayer matches. Tanks. Multiplayer. Broken.

Treyarch took what was, at its core, a really good game, and instead of tweaking it to make it more balanced, they went the opposite direction. The least they could have done in return was fix the reload glitching, but alas, my very first multiplayer death in WaW showed a reload glitcher in the killcam.