The Official Call Of Duty 5 Thread
Discussion
Ok, it's countdown time to probabably what will end up a very contraversial subject. Will the 5th edition of the series be as bad as some would have you believe?. Will it surprise everyone and turn out to be one of the major games of the year?. Well from November 14th onwards I guess we will find out. Whatever your opinion on who should have made it or what it may be like, it will definitely be a talking point for sure.. I for one am looking forward to it and will judge it on it's own merit.. Bring it on..
Mods, any chance this could be made a sticky?
Mods, any chance this could be made a sticky?
Edited by jack_daniels on Saturday 27th September 10:04
t hot to be better than COD4. OK, I'll go out on a limb here.
I played COD3 online quite a lot. Games were fun, but a bit flawed and no sense of overall progression as no benefit to keep playing. That said I came back and back until COD4 came out.
COD4 took a few days to complete the single player missions which were fun and different and the online play was in a new league. Good weapons, a lot of interest and want to continue "Just a few more games to get the P90..." great maps and good play.
I played the thing for a good two months and racked up tens of hours of online play. Then I just lost interest.
I have not played for six months. You know which of the CODs I want to pick up? COD3. Despite the lack of the huge amount of gameplay benefits that COD4 has, the game just had an awesome atmosphere. It is hard to pinpoint, but the authentic nature of the whole thing just felt right.
If they can produce a COD3 with the gameplay benefits and online progression of COD4, I'll be there. From what I have read the physics have improved from 4 to 5 and if they can get the atmosphere right for me, they'll have a killer.
If 'the kids' want the new modern weapons to shoot with laser sights and whatnot, let them have it. For me, a Bren or the M1 Garand just feels more real.
I played COD3 online quite a lot. Games were fun, but a bit flawed and no sense of overall progression as no benefit to keep playing. That said I came back and back until COD4 came out.
COD4 took a few days to complete the single player missions which were fun and different and the online play was in a new league. Good weapons, a lot of interest and want to continue "Just a few more games to get the P90..." great maps and good play.
I played the thing for a good two months and racked up tens of hours of online play. Then I just lost interest.
I have not played for six months. You know which of the CODs I want to pick up? COD3. Despite the lack of the huge amount of gameplay benefits that COD4 has, the game just had an awesome atmosphere. It is hard to pinpoint, but the authentic nature of the whole thing just felt right.
If they can produce a COD3 with the gameplay benefits and online progression of COD4, I'll be there. From what I have read the physics have improved from 4 to 5 and if they can get the atmosphere right for me, they'll have a killer.
If 'the kids' want the new modern weapons to shoot with laser sights and whatnot, let them have it. For me, a Bren or the M1 Garand just feels more real.
I played 3 and occasionally still do. it had more of a fun factor online whereas 4 is faster, darker and more of a serious game. the 2 games are different, but i agree that if they can get the mix right for 5 then they will have another hit on their hands. Good point about the weapons there though. I enjoy both old and modern. Picking someone off with an M1 Garand was pleasing, as was blasting with the shotgun. I wonder whether there will be medics in the new one or not... A mix of elements of 3 and 4 has the potential for such a good game.
I hope it's good, but it's disappointing that Infinity Ward haven't produced it.
Also disappointing is the fact it's yet another WWII 'Americans save the world' fps (I'm doubtful about how much importance will be placed on the Eastern Front section of the game). At least COD4 had a mix of nationalities, a Clancy-esque plot, and was all the better for being a bit different. Anything with the Call of Duty tag is going to be popular, so why didn't they take a risk and do something more, well, 'special'?
Still, waiting to play it before judging - I'll have to stop playing COD4 first (far too addictive!).
Also disappointing is the fact it's yet another WWII 'Americans save the world' fps (I'm doubtful about how much importance will be placed on the Eastern Front section of the game). At least COD4 had a mix of nationalities, a Clancy-esque plot, and was all the better for being a bit different. Anything with the Call of Duty tag is going to be popular, so why didn't they take a risk and do something more, well, 'special'?
Still, waiting to play it before judging - I'll have to stop playing COD4 first (far too addictive!).
Edited by Taffer on Saturday 27th September 20:12
Edited by Taffer on Saturday 27th September 20:18
Gameplay and graphics of COD4 are excellent.
On the PS3, the structure of multiplayer let it down big time. If COD3 could handle the host leaving, COD4 should have too. Dropping you into games which are just ending could be fixed very easily and they haven't bothered.
Very simply, people want control over their multiplayer experience. If I've got 1/2 hour to have a play, I want to start a game at the beginning, or choose the map. I don't want to be dropped into a game with 2 mins left, three times in a row on a map I don't like, or where the host leaves just after the start, or back into the game I've just left.
The scope for DLC was huge, and they've done one map pack with four maps in 12 months. They did all the design a map competition stuff, so they had ideas and pre-made maps. But really quite poor overall.
Being able to play with friends online was easier in COD4 than COD3 on the PS3, but seriously, IW should take a look at how Treyarch did multiplayer and learn from it.
Bring on COD5 though... can't wait to get that flame thrower!
On the PS3, the structure of multiplayer let it down big time. If COD3 could handle the host leaving, COD4 should have too. Dropping you into games which are just ending could be fixed very easily and they haven't bothered.
Very simply, people want control over their multiplayer experience. If I've got 1/2 hour to have a play, I want to start a game at the beginning, or choose the map. I don't want to be dropped into a game with 2 mins left, three times in a row on a map I don't like, or where the host leaves just after the start, or back into the game I've just left.
The scope for DLC was huge, and they've done one map pack with four maps in 12 months. They did all the design a map competition stuff, so they had ideas and pre-made maps. But really quite poor overall.
Being able to play with friends online was easier in COD4 than COD3 on the PS3, but seriously, IW should take a look at how Treyarch did multiplayer and learn from it.
Bring on COD5 though... can't wait to get that flame thrower!
Polarbert said:
I won't be getting this. It just looks like another WW2 shooter, of which I've played plenty. Doesn't look anything different or remotely special.
I might rent it sometime.
The real gems are going to be Fallout 3 and Gears of War 2.
Lies!I might rent it sometime.
The real gems are going to be Fallout 3 and Gears of War 2.
The first thread that pops up with everyone who has it will make you go out and buy it.
Is it because your hiding in the rafters will be thwarted by us roasting your arse?
Mattygooner said:
Polarbert said:
I won't be getting this. It just looks like another WW2 shooter, of which I've played plenty. Doesn't look anything different or remotely special.
I might rent it sometime.
The real gems are going to be Fallout 3 and Gears of War 2.
Lies!I might rent it sometime.
The real gems are going to be Fallout 3 and Gears of War 2.
The first thread that pops up with everyone who has it will make you go out and buy it.
Is it because your hiding in the rafters will be thwarted by us roasting your arse?
I'm really looking forward to it.
I don't know why a COD4 fan wouldn't - unless they just wanted COD4 for the modern weaponry.
I think with a multiplayer shooter like that it is so much more than the type of guns you have. For me it is the whole atmosphere - does it feel real and exciting. Secondly, how does it play - are the online matches good, and how well thought out are the levels.
I think all things equal, I would have enjoyed COD4 just as much if it were set in WWII. If they can build on the good ideas of COD4 then I don't see that it won't be better. I thought for the time Treyarch did a great job with COD3. I don't see they wont do a better job in 5.
I don't know why a COD4 fan wouldn't - unless they just wanted COD4 for the modern weaponry.
I think with a multiplayer shooter like that it is so much more than the type of guns you have. For me it is the whole atmosphere - does it feel real and exciting. Secondly, how does it play - are the online matches good, and how well thought out are the levels.
I think all things equal, I would have enjoyed COD4 just as much if it were set in WWII. If they can build on the good ideas of COD4 then I don't see that it won't be better. I thought for the time Treyarch did a great job with COD3. I don't see they wont do a better job in 5.
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff