Call of Duty 5, World At Bore
 

Developer: Treyarch
Publisher: Activision (Minus Blizzard)
Release Date: November 11 / November 14


CoD5 will be using modified CoD4 engine. Meaning now you can shoot through walls with your M1 Grand!





Okay guys, PC beta started today and Xbox will start either today or tomorrow. I don't know about PS3.









This is going to be fucking epic.


PS. Couldn't find any articles thats useful.

Discuss.

AW YEAH SON TREYARCH BACK IN THE MOTHERFUCKING SADD-wait.

:biggestsadface:

I'd be excited if Treyarch wasn't making it. Now I just have to sit back and see if it's any good once it comes out.

I know I'm the biggest loser ever for having this opinion, but I actually liked CoD3 way more than I liked CoD4 (as far as single player goes, anyway). Thus, I don't mind that Treyarch is developing it, and I prefer the move back to WWII.

so what you are saying is that you have in fact, not grown tired of ww2 shooters despite the fact that there are about fifty of them out there now

Hey Kimchi, you're really pushing it with these OPs. Do the world a favour and improve them some before making more of them, eh?

That said, CoD3 was pretty fucking abysmal, so anyone being excited for this somewhat frightens me. The trailer looks like horseshit to boot, what a fucking surprise that is.

Has Treyarch made any good games lately? I am real dissappointed that infintyward isn't doing it I'd rather let Sega do it.:p

No! Ubisoft

Yes. :(

One of my most anticipated games at the moment is Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway, which just goes to show that I'm a sucker for these things. I'm a history major, so sue me if I at least don't have a reason to find this stuff interesting.

You'd think a history major would be even MORE tired of the same thing repeated ad infinitum with various levels of factual inconsistency than someone who doesn't study it, no?

BiA at least has an interesting game mechanic going for it. I definitely can't say the most interesting thing about it is the setting.

These are the bastards who don't even make PC ports, right? Ugh. I didn't miss out on CoD3. Although, I must say that this pisses me off. FINALLY, a Pacific War game and it'll probably be shit.

Pacific Theater strikes me as way more interesting than the European Theater, but it largely gets underplayed on attention. Oh well... :(

I believe Metal of Honor did it already. It wasn't a great game by any means though.

It's not only the Pacific. You can clearly see Germans in the trailers/screenshots.

Yep. Some missions will be European Theater, playing as Russia.

Ugh. Back to the WW2 theater. Still, wanna see how this will end up.

I prefer the WW2 to the modern stuff, I think it more balanced and fun to have more slightly 'crappy' weapons. that way the rifles and snipers have an even chance too.

I prefer the WW2 environment, but will expect that once again, the single player campaign to suck dong.

Also, OP, pre-rendered hardly counts as a worthy screenshot. Most of that "doesn't count." Glad to see that once again they're screwing their origins by neglecting the PC most likely.

Didn't spot Krauts. Guess I need to re-watch it, but... Meh.

Manny Biggs --
Yeah, I know Medal of Honor had a few Pacific games, but that series has been an embarrassment for years. I won't even acknowledge those "games" =x

But history is nothing but the same thing over and over again, so if I was tired of it I probably would have changed my major by now. :p

Seriously though, it's not like I play every single WWII game that comes out, or else I probably would be tired of them. The only ones I've really played are MoH (back in the early days, before it started to suck), BiA, and CoD.

I don't understand. Are you angry because you feel that a PC port won't be made? Every source I have read about this game has listed that there is a PC port.

I find it odd to "port" it to the platform that it was originally designed for, but Treyarch didn't make Call of Duty 3 for the PC.

Call of Duty 3 was a decent enough game, but it's not a patch on 2 and 4 really, so Treyarch being back at the helm is a little concerning. That they've had 2 years to work on this gives me a little more hope, but then the fact that it's set in WWII (AGAIN) dashes most of that on the spot.

This could turn out to be a good game, but I'm not even the slightest bit excited about this title, which is crazy given it's the follow up to a fantastic game that I've ploughed copious hours into.

I'd love a FPS based on the Korean War or Vietnam. Vietcong was pretty fuckin' nice for its time, and the Korean War in itself largely gets ignored, but there are some pretty impressive battles/encounters that took place during its duration.

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/4...8419900la4.jpg

Korean war FPS? Nothing. But there are strategy games that relate.

They do have a Korean FPS, its called the first half of Crysis.

Great, just what we need, more WWII. I think I'll possibly rent it and choose to buy Battlefield: Bad Company. I don't know, I just prefer war games set in the future rather than the 50 billion titles that reflect on the past.

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.

It's really not that big of a deal. The bolt-actions are some of the best guns in the game with stopping power, and assuming you can aim they'll serve you well at any level. Not to mention the MP40 is one of the best guns in the game and it unlocks really early. And it's far better than the PPSH. Plus, you have the rifles like SVT and Gewehr that kill in a couple hits and have almost no recoil. They're beyond adequate.

I mean, really, most of the guns in each class are almost identical in terms of damage. You can do well with most of the guns you start with or unlock by level 10, as they're comparable to the later guns. Only time it's an issue is with the MGs and Bolt-Actions if you use them as snipers. For the former, the later MGs outclass the early ones in almost all regards. For the latter, the PTRS is by far the best sniper rifle. But, those are the only two cases really.


It only takes one satchel charge to blow up a tank. It's ridiculously easy to kill them.

CoDWaW isn't great, but it's not that bad either. I was pretty surprised at how well it turned out, considering CoD3 was abysmal.

It's not terrible because they've basically ripped off CoD4 added stupid shit and given it a WWII theme, and CoD4 was a fantastic game, so a poor-man's CoD4 was never going to be outright bad (though if anyone could do it Treyarch were the team).

The fact remains that the next Call of Duty should have built on the excellent work done with CoD4, not aimed to try and match it at best. In some respects I'm glad Treyarch stayed away from modern day combat, since it means they've not managed to tarnish that theme with their poor design yet. Bring on IW's Modern Warfare 2 I say.

Well, it is a sequel. I don't know what you really expect. Why wouldn't Treyarch rip-off CoD4? They tried branching out and doing something different with three and we all know how that turned out. Better to play it safe and make a good game then try something different and make a bad game. Hell, I'm actually enjoying multiplayer and I never really expected that.

As for MW2, at least we know it'll be great. The jump from 1 to 2 was pretty big and from 2 to 4 was massive, so it's pretty clear we'll see CoD4 trounced in terms of quality. But now, I just view the odd numbered CoD titles as an expansion/reskinning. I could continue playing CoD4, or I could just play CoD5 and have a "new" experience. If treyarch keeps that up I won't really complain. It's a pretty good value considering the Variety map pack was 10 dollars, right?

Do you work for Activision? (i.e. you are wrong with that statement right there). Previously it would have been EA, but as recent years have shown they are actually trying something different, and whilst it's not turning out amazing games every time I will applaud them for at least trying.

Your attitude there is what leads to mediocre efforts like World at War, and why we suffer with crappy sequels that 'play it safe'. Sequels have their place, but the best ones expand on the formula, they experiement and they try new things.

You're saying "better to play it safe" is wrong? If anything that's the motto for this generation. Of course Activision would rather play it safe and have a good game ship than leave it to chance and see another CoD3. Let's face it, Treyarch isn't a good developer and most publishers as is would rather play it safe than try something fresh and new. Obviously innovation is always needed, and new IPs will always come out, but with the cost of developing huge titles ripping off CoD4 is a pretty damn good idea. Leave the innovation to proven developers with the skills to pull it off.

Really, Treyarch's role in the franchise is that of a stopgap, something to keep the cash flowing in while IW takes the time to develop a brand new game. Their role isn't to go crazy and do something new and exciting. That's just the reality of it. My attitude isn't what leads to games like CoD5, it's a publisher wanting to make as much money as possible. I'm only impressed with the game because it wasn't a miserable failure, but I'll still enjoy it if it's possible. I can accept what the game is, and whether that was the case or not, Activision will still put out a CoD7 that's likely to be a reskinned CoD6.

Valid points for the most part, results of styles of play I assume. I will contend that the PPSH is better than the MP40 because of how silly the MP40's recoil is. If you take more than 3 consecutive shots with it, at a target 10 feet away, one shot will hit where you pointed, one shot will hit about 5 feet to the right, one shot will hit somewhere else entirely. It's main advantage is that it has a silencer. I only play hardcore, so I generally don't worry about showing up on the radar. But as I said, I am willing to consider your other points as style of play issues. All I know is that my k/d was about 0.80 when I hit level 37 and got the MP44, and I'm now at 64 and have a k/d of 1.05, using the MP44 since 37, and the PPSH in Hardcore S&D since I unlocked it.

I probably have about a 10:1 k/d ratio in tanks. Blowing one up with a satchel charge is easier said than done considering how difficult it can be to get close to one.


Also, Infinity Ward has exclusive development rights going forward for the Call of Duty franchise, I believe, so the great game vs. Treyarch reskin debate will not matter much longer.

The MP40's recoil is highly manageable if you burst the gun. It's one of the few automatic guns that do 50+ damage without stopping power, so two bullets should be a guaranteed kill no matter what. And since the firerate is as slow as it is, bursting or shooting single-shot is very easy, and thus, it's a very deadly gun handled right. Though if you play hardcore I guess it's a moot point anyways. Everything is basically a one or two hit kill.

But yeah, MP44 is one of my favourite guns. It's just such a smooth gun.


As for tanks, idk, I have no problem blowing them up. The average tank driver is incredibly dumb. I usually just run up behind them when they're looking forward, toss a satchel on the ground behind it, shoot my pistol to get their attention and then proceed to run away. 8 time out of 10 times the driver will promptly turn around back back up right over the satchel.

Otherwise I just toss it in a choke point.

I think the point is though, that it's rather counter-intuitve for the low level weapons to be the ones that require some skill to get kills with and the higher level ones being easier, seeing as how one would assume that people who've been playing the game longer in order to reach higher levels would be the more skilled ones and therefore be the ones able to get the kills with the shittier weapons, no? The whole concept of giving better guns to better players is a stupid one as it introduces a needlessly steep learning curve for new players.

What works better in my opinion is a system like Frontlines has where your secondary weapons upgrade during the match as you get kills and capture objectives. This means everyone starts from a level playng field and the huge point bonuses you get for capturing objectives as opposed to killing people encourage people to play tactically rather than treating as just a deathmatch. By the time you get to the third round of most matches there are people with the full on sentry guns, air bombs, rocket drones and so forth and yet none of these are particularly game breaking as they all have a long recharge time.

If you must have weapon unlocks for experience, do it like in Rainbow Six where the guns available at the start are by and large as effective as any you unlock later. I've unlocked everything in the game and the MP5 which is available right from the start is still pretty much my weapon of choice. Any other differences are in recoil, aiming speed and so on and not so huge as to give someone a huge advantage, so much as just suit a style of play perhaps a little better. It just makes for a more balanced game and stops new players getting murdered all the time because their equipment isn't up to scratch.

Ideally? Yeah, sure.

If there's one thing that COD4 has taught us, it's that ranking up ain't no fucking thing and it's about as useful a barometer for player ability as TrueSkill is in Gears or the rank system is in Warhawk.

Considering even the worst player just has to grind for levels/rank since there's no real backwards progression, the unlock order really doesn't mean shit except for the first half a day the thing's out for.

Too bad the Mtar and Famas were so horrible unbalanced. And the MP7. And the Spas. But yeah, I get your point. Though CoD4 had it perfect honestly. Some guns were definitely superior but you could own right from the get-go seeing as the M16, MP5 and M40 were all unlocked from the start.

But like Spread said, it's pretty moot. You level up very quickly in CoD and you'll have a decent arsenal in an hour or so. Not to mention what you do start with is pretty good like I said. SVT, Thompson, trenchgun, Type 99, Springfield, etc are all really good guns.

The thing with CoD games is that, generally, weapons in the same class do similar damage and have similar stats. It's just that there's one or two standouts that people like to focus on. Also, yeah, the typical high leveled player in CoD is amazingly bad. Even with "better guns" they can't do shit with them so it's not like it really gives them an advantage.