Call Of Duty Games "Didn't Finish Telling The Story"

Call Of Duty Games "Didn't Finish Telling The Story"

image

The military adviser on the Call of Duty series says Call of Duty 5 is returning to a World War II setting because they "didn't finish telling the story" in the first three games.

Following the runaway success of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, the first game in the series not to take place in the heavily-used World War II setting, there was a widespread assumption that Activision would leverage that popularity by continuing in the same direction. The decision to return to the Second World War with Call of Duty: World at War, which will take place primarily in the Pacific theater of operations, was met with some surprise and skepticism, but retired Lieutenant Colonel Hank Keirsey said differences in the nature of the game's enemies will result in a changed experience for the player.

Referring to the war in the Pacific against Japanese forces, Keirsey said, "[It was a] very difficult fight, a very close fight, and a very gritty fight - Treyarch did a good job of bringing that fight out and telling the story." Treyarch had previously developed Call of Duty 3, before passing the series to Modern Warfare developer Infinity Ward.

"Treyarch put out [Call of Duty 3] in eight months," Keirsey continued. "And for an eight month product, they put out a hell of a game. But now they've been given a two-year development cycle, so the lads were actually able to put a lot of polish on this game." He also claimed the "intensity" of the combat will be borne out in the game's M (Mature) ESRB rating. "The only thing we're missing is the smell, the heat, the bodies being rotted with maggots crawling over them, and we're putting that together in an expansion pack," he said.

Call of Duty: World at War is currently in development for the PC, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Wii, and is slated for release in November 2008.

Source: Eurogamer

Permalink

In my mind, this could be good if done right. However, if its not, then it will probably be the greatest mistake the company has ever made.

And a major concern of mine is how will they do the multiplayer? I really, really don't want them changing it up because in my opinion, COD4 has some of the best FPS multiplayer ever and fooling around with that system is definetly not a good idea.

cod4 is awesome... but i think going back in time again could either be very fun... or horribly bad... only time will tell.

Call of Duty had a story?

Ha, I love the guys comment about the smell, the bodies, the maggots and how they're working on the expansion pack...

We won. There, I saved you all £40 (or whatever it is in your local currency.)

DarkSaber:
We won. There, I saved you all £40 (or whatever it is in your local currency.)

That's an even bigger spoiler than the time someone ruined the end of the Passion of the Christ.

PedroSteckecilo:
Ha, I love the guys comment about the smell, the bodies, the maggots and how they're working on the expansion pack...

It's always a good thing when game devs have a sense of humour.

Johnn Johnston:

DarkSaber:
We won. There, I saved you all £40 (or whatever it is in your local currency.)

That's an even bigger spoiler than the time someone ruined the end of the Passion of the Christ

Well I'll do you the courtesy of not telling you the Titanic sinks then. Ooops.

Infinity Ward needs to just declare mutiny and abandon the good ship Activision.

This game could be amazing if done right, with lots more stealth missions like "All Ghillied Up", but could also be crushed under its own expectations.

even though this is probably gonna be a sweet game, i always kind of laugh because no matter what i think the allies won the war and all shared soft serve ice cream and apple pie afterwards.

Spoiler: Allies win

There had better be a sequence where I get to drop the A-bomb or I'm out.

DarkSaber:
We won. There, I saved you all £40 (or whatever it is in your local currency.)

Pretty much.....I am LOVING your avatar by the way. Best movie ever.

Anyway, what more can these cheesedicks have to say that every other game hasn't said yet?

DarkSaber:
We won. There, I saved you all £40 (or whatever it is in your local currency.)

Being the History buff that I am, I have to say, that is incredibly "boring" way of putting it, let's get into details and make a game out of it! *insert WWII has been done to death argument*

Anyways, hey, if "Prequel" games can do it then heck, maybe CoD can do it too.

Maybe....

retired Lieutenant Colonel Hank Keirsey said differences in the nature of the game's enemies will result in a changed experience for the player.

No more whack-a-mole time now?

What are they going to consider the end? A situation that you peek through a hole and watch Hitler commit suicide? That was an awful rational, the idea to go to the Pacific was an interesting idea however, it worked with MoH... the only problem there was the dodgy compatibility with PCs.

Ares Tyr:
In my mind, this could be good if done right. However, if its not, then it will probably be the greatest mistake the company has ever made.

And a major concern of mine is how will they do the multiplayer? I really, really don't want them changing it up because in my opinion, COD4 has some of the best FPS multiplayer ever and fooling around with that system is definetly not a good idea.

You can upgrade your iron sights to more better iron-sights, put a strap on your Garand, bayonet stabs do more damage, and get a bigger drum for you pppssshhh! The possibilities are endless!

all the call of duty games had to do with WW2 except cod4 but the first call of duty games never talked about allot of very important stuff like the wars on the beaches so i think call of duty world at war (#5) will most likely finish the rest of ww2

Call of Duty 3 was made in only 8 months? Wow, no wonder.

 

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.