[Multiplatform] Call of Duty 5, World At Bore

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by GARUDA-2

Ok, I can understand having pride in your work, and confidence in your work

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Vampiro

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Vampiro

Better to play it safe and make a good game then try something different and make a bad game.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?