Call of Duty 5

[clint g]

Well, its officially announced (not as if we didnt see it coming).
http://www.gamespot.com/news/index.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;more

This part caught my eye though

In addition to announcing new platforms, Activision also revealed that Call of Duty 5 would again shift the setting of the series. "We'll bring the intensity of the recent Call of Duty: Modern Warfare title to a new military theater to engage our significantly larger user base which nearly doubled last year as new users came into the franchise," said Griffiths. (Emphasis added.) Recent unconfirmed rumors had the series returning to World War II, the conflict in which all games prior to COD4 were set in.

So where do you guys think the sequel will be set? Personally I hope its anything BUT World War II. It almost seems like a step back to me. I think a good idea would be to keep the franchise set in modern times/near future but with a different kind of conflict. Maybe a war with China like they had in Battlefield 2?

 

[firehawk12]

I think it was reported that it would be a pacific campaign. Either way, I dunno... I hate how Activision is just shitting the franchise to death. It dilutes the good CoD games made by Infinity Ward.

 

[clint g]

Yeah I kind of agree. I'm a firm believer in taking 2 or more years in crafting your sequels. This yearly installment thing rarely does a franchise any good.

 

[CommodoreKong]

Everyone seems to hate Call of Duty 3, but I really liked it. The single player wasn't quite as good as CoD2, but the multiplayer was much better then CoD2 (and from what I understand it was developed in less then a year).

I'm really looking forward to CoD5, hopefully it's in the Pacific Theater as rumored (and hopefully it's been in development since CoD3 development ended).

 

[Jax]

This is the last game being made by Treyarch and rumors are either Pacific Theater or Vietnam. After that IW will be making the next game and then rumors are it will continue in the 2 years gap but the franchisem ay take a small break.

I think after the 5th one its time to drop the number titles.

 

[Sheep]

I'm surprised that Activision greenlighted COD5 this soon, let alone one not done by Infinity Ward.

COD4 has enough longevity to be around a long time, at least as long as Halo 2 which was still one of the most played Xbox Live games when Halo 3 was released. Add on a few expansion packs and maps and they could easily go two years until Infinity Ward finishes the next COD game.

But I suppose the urge to push the COD name and try to get another $60 a pop from gamers while it's immensely popular wins out over common sense at Activision.

 

[CommodoreKong]

I'm surprised that Activision greenlighted COD5 this soon, let alone one not done by Infinity Ward.

COD4 has enough longevity to be around a long time, at least as long as Halo 2 which was still one of the most played Xbox Live games when Halo 3 was released. Add on a few expansion packs and maps and they could easily go two years until Infinity Ward finishes the next COD game.

But I suppose the urge to push the COD name and try to get another $60 a pop from gamers while it's immensely popular wins out over common sense at Activision.

I wouldn't be surprised if they green lighted CoD5 right after development of CoD3 ended. I'm sure Activision had no idea how well CoD4 was going to do, it could of been a major flop.

 

[firehawk12]

I don't know. I can't imagine anyone rightly thinking that CoD4 would fail. Still, I'm sure Activision thinks it will make more money with a full priced game than with map packs... this is why I don't think I'm ever going to bother with Activision expansions, unless for some reason I wait for their inevitable "gold" editions.

The rumour of IW exclusivity was false, from what I understand. Activision would never let the franchise rest. Hell, the fact that Tony Hawk isn't getting a game this year was probably the hardest thing for management there to do.

 

[CommodoreKong]

I don't know. I can't imagine anyone rightly thinking that CoD4 would fail. Still, I'm sure Activision thinks it will make more money with a full priced game than with map packs... this is why I don't think I'm ever going to bother with Activision expansions, unless for some reason I wait for their inevitable "gold" editions.

We can say that now, but don't forget hindsight is 20/20.

When I said flop I meant flop by CoD standards. I'm sure no matter what it would of sold reasonably well, but it might not of sold as well as the World War 2 installments. It was really impossible to guess at how successful the game would be after changing the settings to modern warfare. I'm sure no one at Activision thought it would be as successful as it was.

 

[Aragorn]

All my friends who play first-person shooters loved COD4 a lot more than Halo 3.

I'm still waiting for the Revolutionary War first-person shooter, with the fast-paced one-shot, reload, bayonet action.

 

[apostle83]

All my friends who play first-person shooters loved COD4 a lot more than Halo 3.

I'm still waiting for the Revolutionary War first-person shooter, with the fast-paced one-shot, reload, bayonet action.

I could be good if you did a calvary based game or a frontier based one. Imagine - hande to hand combat with a bayonett.

 

[unimatrix7]

I could be good if you did a calvary based game or a frontier based one. Imagine - hande to hand combat with a bayonett.

Gee, that sounds fun.

 

[apostle83]

I could be good if you did a calvary based game or a frontier based one. Imagine - hande to hand combat with a bayonett.

How boring.

No, not really!

 

[rType]

I'm still waiting for the Revolutionary War first-person shooter, with the fast-paced one-shot, reload, bayonet action.

http://www.bgmod.com/

You were saying?

 

[unimatrix7]

^^ Aww, you quoted me before I changed my blunt retort to cheap sarcasm

Anyway, I'm against hand-to-hand combat in the first person. It always just feels kind of wrong. I also remember one crappy game based on the American Civil War, where reloading your one-shot rifle took 20 minutes.

If somebody can do away with these minor historical details, I'm in.

Say, wasn't Call of Juarez set on the 'frontier' ?

EDIT: Dammit rType, you got in the way of my post

 

[Angel4576]

Although I think the rumours of a pacific theatre will probably end up being true, surely a Vietnam theatre at some point is a no-brainer.

I suppose the only thing going against that though is that it would be pretty much an exclusive American campaign, whereas with the WWII ones (and modern), they've been able to mix things up a bit with you playing Russians, Canadians, Brits, Poles etc.

At least with a pacific campaign you'd still be able to do that.

 

[firehawk12]

If you're talking about Vietnam as in the Vietnam war in the '60s? I think the fact that Vietnam has been done to death and has, for the most part, most Vietnam based games have bombed will preclude any games being set there in the future.

Of course, given the fact that CoD4 was "censored" so as to avoid offending anyone, I doubt Activision would give it a go anyway. With Nazis, it's sort of "okay" to kill them. With the Japanese, the line is "greyer" but I think it's still probably "okay" since it's wrapped into WW2. Unlike say, Rock Star, I don't think Activision wants to be in the news for the wrong reasons.

 

[apostle83]

What does Vietnam have to do with the Japanese?

 

[TheBrew]

If they do have a CoD in Vietnam, it had better have an awesome soundtrack.

 

[Mistral]

If they do have a CoD in Vietnam, it had better have an awesome soundtrack.

Hell, yeah! I could get into running and gunning with my 16 while the Yardbirds chews up the aural scenery. I just hope they keep kicking out stuff for the COD4 game-more maps and a leveling expansion would stretch the life of the game quite a bit...