Nothing New?

[[NF] Kodak']

I'm a huge Call of Duty fan and have followed the series since it's beginning, and I must admit I was afraid about how succesful CoD4 would be in the modern-warfare setting. After a few months of playing CoD4 (which I loved) and seeing the preview for the new Call of Duty, I have a few concerns.

It doesn't look like there's anything new! With multiple succesful titles in the WWII genre, I feel like CoD5 has to bring something new to the table. The graphics don't look like a huge improvement over CoD4, the maps (from what I saw) look average, and the only new/exciting features I've heard about are Co-op, the sniper climbing the tree, and the flamethrower. Sure they are cool, but simply a barrage of small installments such as those won't be enough to grab and hold my attention.

I understand that this is just a sneak peak into CoD5, but I was honestly expecting a bit more, such as improved graphics and gameplay mechanics. My question is: why should I buy/play this game instead of Call of Duty 2, other than the fact that it's a newer installment.

Now, I can't say that I'd really like too much to be changed. I simply adore Call of Duty gameplay, which I felt CoD2 took advantage of the most. I'm looking forward to the next installment in the series, but I think they need to add features/concepts that make it an actual leap from Call of Duty 2 to Call of Duty 5 (in the WWII area that is).

What do you guys think?

[xX5N1P3RXx]

aslong as it has decent sniper rifles and larger maps ill be happy.. if the maps are the same size i will be fu**ing pi55ed!

A ROCK SOLID multiplayer is all i look for.. Aslong as it has that i don't care how crap single player is.. I only play it 1-3 times.

[[NF] Kodak']

Yeah, I care more about the MP than SP by far.

While I was initially shocked at the size of CoD4 maps, it made sense. They were only slightly smaller than CoD2 maps, and it worked for competition play (5v5 was easily attainable on those maps).

CoD5 should be designed for PC, not another Console --> PC port. I hope they include Germany because I want my unscoped Kar98 back!

[Whiskey]

Let's see...

- new WWII settings of Pacific Theatre & Russia
- new Co-op mode for PC
- new Prestige mode for PC
- Vehicles added in again to Multiplayer
- new squad system in Multiplayer
- new flamethrower weapon
- new perks
- new directional occlusion sound system

Now, I can't say that I'd really like too much to be changed.

Well, you can't have it both ways - saying you want change, but also not too much change. There's quite a bit of change above...how much more do you want?

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"...COD4 was a smash success, so it makes a lot of sense not to fuss with the engine/graphics for COD:WW, but instead concentrate on some new features (which they have). WWII is also a "simpler" period in time, so if you add too many gimmicks, it will no longer feel like WWII. And it's only 1 yr after COD4...how much better do you think it could possibly look, while still running well on a wide range of PC's? (unlike a eye-candy game like Crysis).

If you're married to COD2, that's fine, but otherwise I think you're worrying too much and/or have unrealistic expecations. I think that if you asked people soon after COD4 came out what they'd think if they could have the same game in a WWII setting, fans of that genre would've been pretty happy.

[[NF] Kodak']

Well, the vehicles seem like too drastic a change for the average CoD gameplay (1, 2, and 4 didn't include vehicles), so that's not just modifying CoD4 to be in a WWII setting. Yes, I know that CoD3 had vehicles, and surprisingly it was my least favorite Call of Duty. What I meant by my quoted comment was that I liked the core gameplay of Call of Duty games, and that future games should build and improve on that core.

My main concern is that it will be the 2142 of the Battlefield series - a game released shortly after its highly successful predecessor, where not much can be changed as you said. New perks, a coop mode, and a weapon or two (setting aside the alternate campaign/era) are the basics for an expansion pack, just like what 2142 was viewed as. Yes it had an alternate story, different weapons, a few new features - but it was basically a modified Battlefield 2.

I'm not too sure you're catching my drift, as I'm having trouble properly explaining my concerns for Call of Duty 5. I just hope it has enough "WOW!" factor, similar to Call of Duty 4 - where it's worth the whole $50.

In my eyes:

- new WWII settings of Pacific Theatre & Russia
A nice change of pace from the U.S. v. Germany that has been seen quite often in the past.

- new Co-op mode for PC
Ehh, it's more of a novelty - basically expanding the duration of enjoyment for the SP campaign. Fighting bots is only fun for so long.

- new Prestige mode for PC
Ok... this is a rather simple addition that should have been included in CoD4 (for pc).

- Vehicles added in again to Multiplayer
In my eyes this addition strays from the infantry aspect that Call of Duty is so well known for. As in CoD3, I don't think this will be a smart addition.

- new squad system in Multiplayer
If the gameplay is similar to CoD1/2/4, I don't see the point of this addition. If people are really interested in tactical/squad gameplay most will already be on Teamspeak/Ventrilo. Yes, it may offer a few perks to being in a squad (spawnpoints maybe?), but I don't see why this feature is that important. The spawn system seen in all previous Call of Duty's seems fine the way it is - and the maps aren't large enough to truly benefit from (multiple) organized squads in public gameplay.

- new flamethrower weapon
Cool, I guess. It's a new gun...

- new perks
Of course - it's a new game, new perks. But nothing independant from CoD4.

- new directional occlusion sound system
Sounds cool :)

I don't mean to be cynical or pesimistic, I'm just concerned. I may also be biased as I am focused primarily on competitive play so I don't see the use for numerous additions to the game. But overall, about half of the additions mentioned above seem quite miniscule to me.

[youm0nt]

Well, we know that a flamethrower is in the game, but we're not exactly positive that the player can use it.

[Whiskey]

I don't think it's realistic to expect the same "wow" factor that COD4 gave. That game was several yrs in the making, and a huge change compared to what we had been playing up until then. "COD6" probably won't even have the same impact that COD4 had, just because it was such a drastic jump forward.

COD:WW will probably be more like the jump from COD1 to COD:UO, or perhaps COD1 to COD2. I think that's a more reasonable expectation.

Well, we know that a flamethrower is in the game, but we're not exactly positive that the player can use it.

Articles/interviews have said the flamethrower will be a player-usable weapon in both SP and MP.

[xX5N1P3RXx]

WOW veichles?.. that will be fun with the sniper rifles :D and having veichles means the map sizes in turn must be alot bigger :D:D:D As for the graphics I think CoD4's graphics are phenominal for the little power it asks.. unlike other games *cough* CRYSIS!!!*cough*.. Best just wait and see.. Don't go off what u see on youtube videos etc because it all looks 10 times better when ur actually playing it. As far as im concerned the CoD series has never dissapointed me before so im looking forward to another epic game :)

[^Garf*uk*]

it looks mint :D
i think this will be great :D

[J64[X]]

MY 2 CENTS QUICKLY...caps...soz :P

Cod3, everyone will agree was well...shambolic, i played it xmas morning, thinking this is guna b amazing, there it sits in my loft packed away never to b seen again. Dire game. Your all wondering where this is going, Tryeach,or w.e they are called made cod3, as they are making cod5. Dont expect anything tooo good. its not guna b a WoW factor cos 99% of their game do rly suck.

On the good side,

there is a LOT of changes tht ppl dnt relise, its just beeing brough out/annouced very fast(not out for another year) they will bring out more info soon


:)

[xX5N1P3RXx]

I loved CoD3 ^_^ imo it still P1ssed on anything MoH was releasing..

[Kyle]

Lol, regardless if how bad it kinda was. CoD3 was pretty fun. Me and my friends used to LAN up two xboxes and play 3v3 CTF on the bridge map. It was a lotta fun.

I personally think this will be a LOT different than CoD3 was compared to CoD2... because CoD5 will be using the same (if not improved upon) engine as CoD4! Thats what I'm looking forward too. We'll all end up buying it regardless... you know it.

[Spik3d]

Treyarch only had eight months to develop CoD3. They now have two years for CoD:WW.

[JoMaMaz]

Same CoD4 engine, but they have improved the physics of the game also.

They now have (trying not repeat anything above):
-Partially destructible environments. Such as buildings being able to be destroyed by bullets and fire,
-Fire can burn grass which with the wind affecting it could blow into a tree and have it burn,
-Grass will move when you move through it like in Crysis, it's not static
-You can swim above and under water
-Bullets will streak through water ie SPR unlike hitting an invisible wall when hitting water
-New kill assists
-A more mature, graphic WWII experience...finally.

[Irish Freedom]

Why is everyone bashing CoD3? I think it's the best of the CoD games, even better than Cod4. So if World at War has vehicles, it will basically be the superb infantry gameplay and graphics of Cod4 combined with the vehicular combat and large maps of CoD3, which would be great.

[JoMaMaz]

CoDUO would be the best CoD game. That wasn't on the consoles so I will not blame you for being misinformed. :p

[xX5N1P3RXx]

I just REALLLYY hope the maps are big and lush and the sniper is good :)

[JoMaMaz]

UO had bigger maps although some were too big for the CoD feel unless they had the vehicles on them.

Yes, I hope they make the sniper back to how it's been before. This random fire when no scoping is ridiculous. No scoping is fun, no need to code the gun to fire randomly as they did with CoD4.

[TrudgiN]

I just REALLLYY hope the maps are big and lush and the sniper is good :)

no gillie suits only

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/5717/belgieswq6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

:|:

[xX5N1P3RXx]

^^ i think u may have posted the wrong picture, all i can see is four trees..

[TrudgiN]

^^ i think u may have posted the wrong picture, all i can see is four trees..

:vollkommenauf:

[JoMaMaz]

^^ i think u may have posted the wrong picture, all i can see is four trees..

rofl! :laugh:

[ch3ch3n]

the only new thing is that you can climb in the threes

[JoMaMaz]

the only new thing is that you can climb in the threes

lol, nein! More than that.

[Drez]

Vehicles back in COD? now i want to give the woman who brought them back a good service - if a bloke then firm handshake will suffice lol

since the demise of uo with base assault i have struggled to find anything close to replace it, now i know there will be no bas but just to have the vehicles back is awesome!!!

i don't care about anything else i just hope it don't turn out to be another cod3

[Gunny]

They said that there will both type of MP maps vehicles and Infantry.
For me Im looking forward to this more than CoD:4, love CoD:4 but if I had to picK it would be WWII because Im A big WWII fan. Also there bringing somthing new to the table

[[11]T/9|MSgt.Pieman']

If you don' t like vehicles, go on the dedicated infantry only servers :)

while I'll be running around with AT mines and a bazooka... also on a infantry only server ^^

[[RS]F|Sgt.Hanley]

Vehicles are good change is good and there is **** load of new stuff in the game. Although are perks really going to be in it please say no. This is there one shot tbh to bring back classic CoD if they blew it with perks someone is going to be died.

[[11]T/9|MSgt.Pieman']

^I agree. CoD without the perks was better.

[[NF] Kodak']

Really? Classic Call of Duty?

You guys are confusing - you welcome the vehicles (which were a tragedy for CoD3) but you don't like the perks... They are both significant changes, and CoD was always meant to be an infantry-based game. You can see that just in the gunplay.

[[11]T/9|MSgt.Pieman']

Err... CoD obviously wasn't always an infantry game, seeing as the expansion to the first game had vehicles. I'll admit that CoD1,2&4 are infantry based.

CoD2 > CoD4. CoD4 is a pubbers game, and it's a hellovalot easier than CoD2, which isn't run n gun. CoD2 had no perks, everyone was pretty much even, no silly advantages. Which is why I would like no perks. However, perks have been announced, so I'll deal with it.

[[RS]F|Sgt.Hanley]

I hate perks there is honestly no point to have them. Also vehicles is classic cod. Uo imo was the best call of duty to do date large open maps fun sniping good gun play and vehicles. UO also had the option so you didnt have to play with tanks and jeeps too remember.

[[NF] Kodak']

T/9|SFC.Pieman';2226244"]Err... CoD obviously wasn't always an infantry game, seeing as the expansion to the first game had vehicles. I'll admit that CoD1,2&4 are infantry based.

CoD2 > CoD4. CoD4 is a pubbers game, and it's a hellovalot easier than CoD2, which isn't run n gun. CoD2 had no perks, everyone was pretty much even, no silly advantages. Which is why I would like no perks. However, perks have been announced, so I'll deal with it.

I do agree with that [the necessary skill level], although pubbing was quite similar in many ways to CoD4. There were the higher-skilled SD servers (as seen in CoD4, and I'm talking about the PAM4 servers, not the "PRO/Realistic" servers), but there were also the 30+ man TDM servers.

**But when you say CoD4 is a pubbers game... I thought you competed? In PAM4 (at least in CAL/TGN rule sets), everyone DOES have the same "perks" - so everyone is even. It takes much more skill than perk/noobtube whoring in a pub, even though the initial skill level may be far below what CoD2 was.

But, explain to me how by having 1 game with vehicles (I can't be bothered to call CoD3 a true game, it failed pretty hard compared to 1, 2, and 4) can make vehicles a "classic" part of the Call of Duty series.
UO was good with them, but CoD1, 2, and 4 were just as good if not better - and didn't have vehicles.

Well, I just hope CoD5 doesn't flop like 3 did. If CoD was so well known for it's vehicles, then Battlefield wouldn't be around (or as succesful as it is) - because Battlefield gunplay is far worse than CoD5 gunplay.

[[11]T/9|MSgt.Pieman']

The point is, CoD4 needed serious mods to change it, and nobody/no two league play the same mods. I just feel that it wasn't designed for competitive play as much as cod2 seemed to be. But yes, it is able to play cod4, as I do, competitivley, but ... in my opinion:

The Designers of this game designed it with Dollar Signs instead of eyes and all the while surrouded by Bags Labelled with "Swag Goes Here". It was made to sell, therefore detracting from the competitive play a bit more. Public play was definately their focus.