Call of Duty : World At War

[Aslanna]

aka CoD 5

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/35412.html

Trailer up! But it wont be out until 2009 so it will be awhile yet. I guess it's back to WW2? I'm some people wont be pleased with that but oh well! Only bad thing I could probably say is that Treyarch are the ones doing it and not Infinity Ward.

[Fairweather Pure]

I'm surprised to see a return to WW2. It looks good though. I'm sure I'll buy it.

[cadalano]

pacific theatre this time. CoD has not gone there yet, unless my memory is shit.. maybe in CoD3 they did? I kinda erased that game from my brain.

i'm happy theyre going back to WW2. Treyarch doesnt deserve a second chance so they'd better not fuck this up

[Fairweather Pure]

I want to see a WW1 game. I'm talking trench warfare, biplanes, mustard gas, no man's land, the whole deal!

[Funkmasterr]

The less games based off real wars, the better. I have zero interest in playing another WW2 game, CoD or not.

[cadalano]

you'd just suck at it and get upset anyway

[Truant]

you'd just suck at it and get upset anyway

Gonna be honest, I LOL'd.

[Sartori]

I heard this was gonna be a Treyarch game on console only, but looks like PC /shrug
Pacific theater might be interesting.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I heard this game was going to be based from a Japanese perspective. You will be a Kamikaze pilot in the Pacific. The game from training to completion will be 7 minutes long and then you can play multiplayer.

[Boogahz]

[Aslanna]

Treyarch has explained to MCV how it is collaborating with the developer of COD 4: Modern Warfare, Infinity Ward, on new title World At War.

Treyarch’s senior producer Noah Heller (pictured) told MCV that both studios have passed ideas back and forth – and that they will not let the title be published “unless it is very high quality”.

Treyarch was responsible for Call Of Duty 3, released back in 2006, and has praised Activision for allowing it a two-year development cycle on the new title.

Heller told MCV:

“We began working on World at War after we finished Call of Duty 3. During the course of Modern Warfare development we were taking builds and we were getting involved in the game, and after Modern Warfare shipped we were providing builds to send back to Infinity Ward for comment.

“There is a degree of collaboration that exists there because the goal is to not let anything out the door that is Call of Duty unless its very high quality.

Call of Duty 3 was a great game with a review average of 82/83, and was created in eight months. That’s startling and was a great effort by the team. But now they’ve had time to polish the build and iterate on the game they wanted to make.

“The player doesn’t know how long the game took to make when they sit it in the box, all they know is if it is high enough quality and with extra time we can make sure of that.

“We do trade builds back and forth we do share thoughts studio to studio and team member to team member. Both teams are separate; they have their own game they want to make. But neither team is comfortable with a Call of Duty being on the market that isn’t a great game.

“It’s what Call of Duty is all about. It has to be the best shooter, it has to be the best WWII game. Modern Warfare has to be the best Modern Warfare, We didn’t choose the World at War name lightly. We chose it because this is the premiere World War II game, this isn’t a dumb catch phrase, it is the World at War, that’s what WWII was.”

World At War will be released on PC, PS3, Wii and 360 in the autumn.

Autumn.. Guess it wont be 2009 then!

In an exclusive interview, Treyarch creative boss Richard Farrelly also explained why the developer decided to take the fifth title in the COD series back to a World War II setting after the success of Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.

“We knew we had to approach the WWII genre different as it was getting a little stretch,” Farrelly told MCV.

“We had to hit the reset as to what people would expect from it. We took a lot of tips from the success of Modern Warfare, in terms of how they presented the game, the pacing, the different approach for the music and the way the characters speak in the game… right down to the level of maturity of the content. Which really sets a different tone for any WWII game.”

He added: “We put a lot of pressure on ourselves. But a two year cycle now enables us to test the game and make sure what goes in the game is real quality. We want to make the best game ever made.”

[Siji]

Maybe that means they'll have more than three phrases that repeat until you turn off the volume.

[Funkmasterr]

Maybe that means they'll have more than three phrases that repeat until you turn off the volume.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

It's funny that just because I wasn't joining some boner-fest about how great this game is gonna be I get pounced on by the usual tards right away.

[cadalano]

no, its not really that. i'm pretty sure that you would find most of the CoD community unwilling to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt in producing a quality game, especially one that measures up to CoD4.

my angle is that you have an established precedent of declaring games that you fail at as being bad games..one example being CoD4. now here you are projecting that same adolescent pouting onto the next installment. I felt compelled to discredit you on that basis, lest some poor reader take your comments as anything but the usual whinings of a sore pussy

[Funkmasterr]

no, its not really that. i'm pretty sure that you would find most of the CoD community unwilling to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt in producing a quality game, especially one that measures up to CoD4.

my angle is that you have an established precedent of declaring games that you fail at as being bad games..one example being CoD4. now here you are projecting that same adolescent pouting onto the next installment. I felt compelled to discredit you on that basis, lest some poor reader take your comments as anything but the usual whinings of a sore pussy

Right, and my point being you have no clue what you are talking about. I would wager a guess that any game I've made an effort to get good at, I've been ranked in the top 5-10% on live. That being said, if something is too tough for me, it must be too tough for the 90% of people that aren't ranked/haven't scored higher than me. And if that high of a percentage of people is annoyed by something/can't beat something in a game, it's probably a valid point, not the whinings of a sore pussy.

When I get into a game, I play it enough that the littlest shortcomings become apparent. Another thing you would know if you actually play these games online a lot like I do, would be that people converse about the shit that bugs them, and I almost never have people in game disagree with me like I do here.

I guess the point being, you don't know what you are talking about. You were trying to crack a joke at my expense, but you are one of the many here that aren't aware of the difference between funny and obnoxious.

[Bagar-]

I'm surprised to see a return to WW2. It looks good though. I'm sure I'll buy it.

PROLLY CAUSE IT'S TEH LAST LEGITIMATE WAR 'MERICANS WAS INVOLVED IN.

Anyhow, i'm disappointed. But maybe it'll be a fantastic game that will blow me away. I certainly enjoyed all three hours of COD4.

[Aslanna]

This is out now btw.

Nothing really unexpected here. A little more of the annoying 'funnel-points' though in certain missions than I found in CoD4. Sometimes it's not bad. Other's it's just apparently obnoxious and frustrating. Especially near one of the last missions where you see your guys over somewhere you can't get and it's not really apparent what you need to do. Solo missions are probably a little longer than the campaign in CoD4 but not by much though so I'm not really sure I'd recommend this at full purchase price unless you care about online play. One could probably finish in ~8 hours.

Overall it could probably be an Infinity Ward release. Treyarch didn't seem to screw it up as least as far as the solo campaign goes. The AI is a bit dumb in places. Instead of explaining it myself will just cut a section from this review:

As great as this game is, it does have a couple small problems worth mentioning. My biggest gripe with the game is the squad A.I. There are times where it malfunctions. Sometimes your squad mate blocks you off, this is especially annoying when there is a grenade in close proximity that you cannot throw back, but it is close enough to kill you. Grenades will kill you repeatedly because of this bug.

Yep. Found that. In previous CoD games if you tried to shoot one of your guys in a position (at least CoD2) they would move. Not so here.

There are times where the friendly A.I. is just dumb, I have seen them completely ignore enemy soldiers and even walk past them. Or, they'll engage enemies over a wall or some other obstacle, but for some unknown reason become stuck in an infinite loop, shooting at each other, neither dies because they never make contact. So, they continue until you kill that specific soldier or else they will not stop.

Agree on this point too. It's nice getting shot in the back because your guys are totally ignoring the enemy. Nice teamwork there!

The other problem is the enemy respawns endlessly until you hit a trigger, so you have to move forward or you will never get through the game.

This is nothing new. Just about anyone who has played Call of Duty has figured that out by now. The thing about that is in most cases in CoD5 it renders the sniper rifle useless if you happen to run across one. Because if you snipe off one bad guy from a distance another will just take it's place.

I heard this game was going to be based from a Japanese perspective. You will be a Kamikaze pilot in the Pacific. The game from training to completion will be 7 minutes long and then you can play multiplayer.

As far as I can tell that's not the case.

And this game has parallel missions in the same way that CoD4 had. So you're a Russian over in Europe and an American in Pacific.

[Fairweather Pure]

I cannot add any more to the discussion other than to stress that this game is CoD4 in WW2. It mimics CoD4 in everything from mission overlays to the overall "feel" of the game. It's not a bad thing at all. I'm finding it very satisfying so far, just like CoD4 was.

I've yet to play multiplayer, but I don't see it veering too far off course. If you liked CoD4, I think you would also like CoD5.

[Tuberok]

Ran through the coop multiplayer missions with a buddy this weekend. Took us about six hours. So, stress again if you are not buying for online play, price is a bit steep for the afternoon it takes to complete the single player campaign.

[Soreali]

For the record, the Nazi Zombie multiplayer mode you unlock after beating the solo campaign fucking owns..

[Aslanna]

I remember the point when the enemy replaced bullets with grenades. It happen towards the beginning, when they have snipers up in the trees and you have to run through a trench system in the jungle. Fuck that shit. I would get hit with 3-4 grenades at once with no way to avoid all of them.

I finished on Veteran! I think this turned me off on all future Call of Duty games to come. Treayarch sucks. They could have made it more challenging without giving the enemies unlimited grenades. Well maybe not unlimited. Each one might only have 4 (I can't confirm!) but with them constantly respawning it pretty much equals unlimited. It's also awesome when you do try running away and having your own guy blocking you or getting stuck on shit. I remember one grenade being throw like 80 feet and through two windows and landing right in my face. I don't see how the nazis could have lost the war when they had such mad grenade throwing skills.

I finished Call of Duty 2 on Veteran and while a bit frustrating at times I don't ever remember feeling it was being cheap.

To sum it up: Fuck Treyarch!

Veteran was much better in co-op!

No trophies for that!

[Funkmasterr]

Treyarch did a lot of things better in multiplayer, though, compared to the modern warfare games.