I was presuming it would be pacific ever since they said CoD5 would be back in WW2. I guess that's a good thing seeming another focusing on the European theatre would be tedium, but on the downside though it's being made by the usual shitty console developers Treyarch.

Oh, and who's up for a bet like all pacific/asian theatre games/films it will focus entirely on Americans vs Japs, totally neglecting Chinese and British Commonwealth forces?

lame, i'm getting so tired of WW2 games

Yeah, im getting sick of WW2 games.

We need a COD Vietnam or something.

Or COD Korea

There's still plenty of life in WW2 - someone just needs to go there, it's a much richer source than any other conflict. Personally I'd love playing pre-1942 American involvement, or as the Axis instead of the Allies, or even just a new genre - look at how CoH turned out, before release was billed as yet another rehash, but it turned out as one of the most significant RTS games since C&C1. Just because developers aren't yet brave enough to venture into that territory and all you've seen so far is post-1942 Europe, doesn't mean the others don't exist.

That's why I'm not too bothered about this game and the pacific theatre, yes it's been done once or twice before, but it's as good as we can hope for at this stage, and I can't name a single memorable FPS set there. I'm not saying it will definitely be good, and seeming it's by Treyarch most likely won't, but it doesn't warrant all the whining I've seen while researching the game about going back to WW2.

If you want Vietnam go find the game Vietcong. It's my favourite game of all time. Also best soundtrack ever.

Uhg...the last CoD Treyarch made was 100% shit.

heh, I liked CoD 3 but we all know I'm plum retarded don't we? I agree, the CoD team has proven they can succeed in experimentation with other genres of combat, IMO it would be awesome if they took on Vietnam or Korea. I've always wondered how a FPS based in the Civil War or American Revolution would fare. So Vietcong is a good game? I always assumed it to be pure crap... Might have to check it out now.

It was crap on the PS2 because of the over sensitive controller (or not sensitive enough).

American rev and civil war would be fucking boring.

Shoot, 5 min-reload musket.

Vietcong was alright, wasn't the best, but they did something that others didn't do.

Activision did a civil war video game (with History Channel). Used CoD2 engine I THINK.

interesting. I know the gun reload times and whatnot would be an obstacle and I'm only speculating but I bet a creative team of devs could make something interesting of it. Either way, unless this somehow manages to shock and amaze the masses I don't think I'll be picking this up... Still working on getting CoD 4 FFS.

Small niggle, ok, not small niggle, something fucking irritating I keep noticing and have to point out. It's the American Civil War, not the Civil War. Believe it or not, there is more than one, and they don't all take place in the 1860's America. Ontop of that, some countries, like my own, have had several of them on much more important issues than slavery, before America even existed. So kindly please stop perpetuating this ridiculous Americanism, it's insulting both to the rest of the Earth and to your own intelligence. Thanks.

And yes there was much more entertaining and interesting wars of that time period. But like already said, an FPS based on even the most exciting of them would still be horrendously boring, you know, with being stuck in one position and being told when to shoot and reload and all. RTS on the other hand...

Who says you would have to be fighting like "a gentleman"?

They could make it more "guerilla warfare"-like

But yeah, the reload time on the musket would suck.

Well EXCUSE me! I should be sued, huh? The AMERICAN Civil War wasn't because of slavery (although the abolition of slavery resulted from it). Do you seriously think that we are dumb enough to think that our civil war was the ONLY civil war? I don't understand how it could bug you so much. I'm sure people of other nations refer to some of their civil wars as just The/A Civil War.

Please let there be Iwo Jima missions, please please please.

^ Probably.


If I wanted to give a detailed analysis of causes and effects I would of. No I don't think you're all stupid enough to believe that, I do think though a significant portion of the population are either too uneducated/ignorant not to of learnt otherwise (which would certainly explain why they started, and continue to imply there are no others), or notice that what they're implying is wrong and use the proper name like everyone else does. Only Americans refer to their own civil war as the only one, and expect everyone else to do the same. For example, if I had said 'civil war' would it cross the mind of a single American on this board I was actually referring to the First English civil war? No, you'd all think of the American civil war. Should it cross their minds? No, because we're not all Englishmen talking about England, I didn't specify which civil war it was, and it deserves no more recognition than any others. Yet, Americans seem to think they deserve that. That's my point, that's why it bugs me.

Can't really get angry with the general public about that one, because in school that is how they teach people. They refer to it as THE Civil War, rather then the American Civil War. Of course people know that their are more Civil Wars, well at least the ones that read other history text besides American, however most of the public don't give a flying fuck about history (Personally history is one of my strongest subjects in school). Nothing to get all asshurt about it. Just the way things are unfortunately.

Also a scanny

Red Orchestra: Ostfront did a good job of taking the Russians' perspective of World War 2 into an FPS, which i thought was absolutely brilliant, but because the Americans couldn't play as Americans' you can't find that many american servers. El, i think your problem with there not being enough of English specific engagements in WW2 FPS's is because the English were almost always involved with the Americans, which video game developers aren't going to concentrate on when most of there profits are centered in Amerika.

Odd that the reichstag is in those screens...

Fortunately, reality isn't like certain heavily biased popular WW2 film and TV productions would make out. The British were actually involved in the war twice as long as the Americans, and even after they finally joined, there was plenty of campaigns that were British. There's plenty of ways to get them in there, and previous CoD games, CoD2 in particular, have done a good job of it. My remark was directed more toward the pacific/asian theatre, which is nearly always dominated with US marines/Iwo Jima/Guadalcanal/etc. I'm guessing this game will be no different, companies cater to their main audiences, unfortunately meaning everything has to revolve around the Americans and any British efforts in the pacific/asia will almost certainly be overlooked.

Why would you want to play an Iwo Jima mission? The japanese were screwed. They had no hope of winning.
I would personally be intrested in the more central asia conflicts around india. That or ww1.

lol... trench warfare.

The American Revolution could be an alright game though couldn't it? Guerrilla Tactics were what gave the Americans the upper hand over the British, making for what I could see as some pretty good skirmish/abmbush scenarios.

Actually that's a common myth, they were used nowhere near as much as is suggested and even though they were fond of surprise raids behind lines in some areas, nearly all significant battles followed the standard at the time. What gave the Americans the upper hand was having both the French and Spanish join their side, without them it would of been put down far easier. But of course your history I'm guessing would come from certain heavily biased and inaccurate universally criticized Mel Gibson films... Ontop of that the British had a few problems of their own, manpower and logisitcal shortages because they were already busy fighting elsewhere and didn't consider a civil revolt a big enough threat, American loyalists were essentially useless and if anything hindered progress on occasion, the native Americans who were fighting for their own freedom from being driven out of their rightful lands by the Americans should of done more and perhaps would of if it wasn't for the issues between them and the American loyalists, and a third of their manpower consisted of German mercenaries.

Nice to see at least Tut agrees with me about this game though. Less Pacific, more Asia.

historically yeah, you're completely right. that's not to interesting from a gameplay viewpoint though is it? I'm bored of European WWII, pacific is fine for me... not going to be too picky as to where else.

I don't think any FPS set pre-WW2 would be interesting.

Anything as far as WW1 and you'd spend half the time changing socks..

yeah i definitly agree with that

yeah trench warfare would be interesting, but very boring considering those guys where in them for months.

It really wouldn't be interesting at all. Sitting around rotting for weeks, only to get sent over the top to charge an MG head-on, if you haven't already died of disease or been gassed that is. Maybe you'll get lucky and be sniped when peering over the edge of the trench out of sheer boredom?

Nope, forget WW1. The most fun that can be had with trenches (and it's not that much) can be had in WW2.

ok, you've convinced that an American Revolution game is doomed to failure.

3rd. Especially if it were a CoD game (on Vet difficulty).

Wait...Just thought (title related)...wouldn't this be CoD 3.5?

4.5 because it is like a step back, it isn't really a new game. Same shit just reheated and put on a silver platter.

People want something new.

And being that said, i got back to Cod 4 multiplayer .

It should be 3.5...since it's going back to WWII (and graphically looks the same as CoD3, probably the same engine Treyarch used)...4.5 would mean a small step forward.

It's CoD4.5 because obviously it's newer than CoD4, on the same engine as CoD4 (says in the first post), but isn't CoD5 because that's being developed by Infinity Ward and will be the 'proper' sequel, and this isn't worthy anyway because it's just another spin-off by Treyarch.

So this isn't CoD "5" then.

Nope.

Well then...yay.


I've been playing a lot of CoD4...anyone down?

when I get my 360 fixed and the game itself, over the summer. my gamertag is Downloaded7

Me and crazy are starting a game so if yall want to play sned me a message on XFIRE or invite me on xbl @ MR X 47 and say ur from csdl too.

Playing as the Americans on Iwo Jima would be immensely fun for me. I just finished reading Flags of Our Fathers and loved it, so playing it would be awesome. I usually like the European theatre of WWII, but it has been beaten to death like everyone said. The Pacific theatre would be a nice change of pace because I haven't played it since the Medal of Honor series.

It better be fucking brutal (flame throwers, napalm, ambushes, cqb, banzai raids, bayonets and samurai swords (maybe lol?), etc) and not some nice walk in the park glazed over inaccurate nonsense like most WWII games set in the European theater have become. I kind of want some unbiased brutality, not some "OMG HEY GAIS THE GERMANS ARE ATTACKING US ALL AMERICAN APPLE PIE LETS GET EM" I think I got sick of WW2 FPS after CoD1, though Red Orchestra got me back into it for like a month since it was totally different, with Russians vs Germans.

YES PLZ

If they did that, well then, it'd be a good game. And we all know that isn't possible.

I personally am going to stick with my ww1 game. You have a lot of potential there. The Eastern Front had very little trench warfare compared to the western front. It would be less of a FPS though and more like a combination FPS/RPG living out the life in the trench if they were going to do one for the western front. But then again I'm very biased as I
personally prefer WW1 for a video game setting due to the over saturation of Apple Pie shit that you get from ww2 video games.
I played Medal of Honor rising sun. It was utter crap and put me off the pacific theater. Island combat could be fun but the fact that it is almost impossible for the Americans to lose it cheapens the experience for me. I feel (note the word feel) that Naval combat was the heart and soul of the Pacific theater and the most risky battles for the USA I played a WW2 naval combat simulator. It was boring as all get up.

@ Santana You know I was watching Iron Man and there is a scene where he fries the terrorists and that ruined the movie for me. I could swear i heard the USA national anthem in the background as the PG 13 rating crept in and as soon as they were lit up they fell behind some barricades. This is applicable because the brutality of WW2 is toned down for video games. You are never going to feel remorse for your pixelated foes.

On "historical" FPSes in General:
I haven't played the single player COD4 but the multiplayer screams AMERICA FUCK YEAH and my friends have told me that the SAS revolves around the sneaky brits. Then again we just play these games to "kill shit" don't we? This outlines my thoughts on this series and other American produced FPSes.

I'm also not sure the squad element is a good direction for CoD to go, it's always been very much focused on individual people, not really acting as a team. I do like the idea of it being scarier, I don't get the adrenaline rush from most WWII games that I think is necessary... It seems that considering I'd probably have crapped myself if I were actually in the fighting, I should at least feel a bit of intensity pass from the game to me.

Medal of Hono(u)r?

wut?

You always seem to shit your pants when changes are announced within a games formula...

The further it moves from 'individual people' as you call it the better. It tries to be at least a half-realistic game, adding squads and organisation into that isn't going to change the feel of the game, only make it easier to organise things and encourage teamwork.

I only make a big deal out of it because each game has a unique feel to it, I really like the feel of CoD and if the way the game is put together changes I'm always afraid that I won't like the new feel.

Uhh what? On all sides...CoD4 is run-n-gun multiplayer...in the single player campaign, all the sneaking around is scripted when 'OHES NOES! WE'VE BEEN SPOTTED' and suddenly there are waves and waves of enemies (typical CoD gameplay). Then the Americans get fucking owned by a nuke. I still haven't finished the game because that fucking mission where you carry MacMillan is fucking bullshit (and when I die, as I repsawn, I die in > 1 second.).