Yes, it just came out, Yes, I'm still enjoying it, No, I'm not even thinking of the
 

next...



But this popped up at gamefaqs and I thought I'd share.


Friday, 07 December 2007 - 22:01 GMT
Call of Duty 5 back to World War II
Story By Jay Filmer
Thought Call of Duty 4 meant no more WWII? Think again
Those of you who enjoyed the latest Call of Duty’s modern-day approach may be saddened to learn that Treyarch (the dev team responsible for three, and, who will quite possibly end up doing seven) is taking the series back to World War II for the fifth game in the series.

Well, that’s if a job ad on the Treyarch website is anything to go by.

The ad, which is for a level builder, in case you’re interested, doesn’t give away any concrete info as such, but after asking for applicants with “working experience with First-Person Shooter or Third-Person Shooter genres”, does go on to add, “if you’re a fan of World War 2 shooters, then even better!”.

Which if you ask us is a bit of a giveaway. Why would the ad say that if the person lucky enough to bag the job ends up on designing levels for a modern-day or futuristic shooter anyway?

What do you reckon? Are we reading too much into it? Also, what do you make of the step back to WWII? After the success of COD4, is this what you really want? As ever, let us know in the comments section below.

Oh, and cheers to forum user ‘farquad92’ for the heads up. Your stock is rising number 92…

That better not be fucking true. What the hell is the deal with treyarch making some, and Infinite ward making others?

They're doing WWII again?

Can't they pick another theatre or something?

I'm getting pretty sick of WWII games...

how about a civil war era shooter?

How about we keep it in the modern era, as thats what will work best in terms of new weapons and attachments.

This isn't a case of "if it ain't broke , don't fix it."

Its a case of "You'd have to be a fucking retarded monkey to fix it"

Call of Duty are the only WWII games that I enjoy. I always thought the COD multiplayers were lackluster. (except COD 4's, but i'll be damned paying for xbox live) . 4's singleplayer was ridiculously short, which pissed me off.)

BF2 owns COD's Multiplayer, but WWII COD Singleplayer is where its at baby!

It's because Activision want one COD game per year and Infinity Ward didnt want to work on substandard sequels one year after another so decided to let Treyarch make COD3 while they worked on COD4. Looks like it's gonne be a similar situation here.

I like the WW2 era.

None of the technological stuff.

Just gritty war.

We've had an EXTREME abundance of gritty war for the last decade. Time to move on, for gods sake. I think every battle and inor skirmish which occured in ww2 has been done in a video game at least three times over now.

It's all opinion.

What I think would be pretty awesome is have a story where it starts in WW2 and traces the family tree all the way to modern combat.

Then have multiplayer levels from different eras. So maybe it would look like WW2, Vietnam, Korean conflict, Desert Storm, terrorist(?)

So just pick whichever era you want or randomize it.

I dunno, I'd like to play as the Germans during a campaign, even though I'd be set for failure.

:n:

Oh ok. So this won't be postponing the next modern era COD, its just quick filler.

Thats a relief.

I'm surprised not many people are screaming "who cares" by this point.

I personally don't see the appeal of these. Maybe because I've never played any of them or something, but if they keep making as many as they are this frequently, they may see it go the way Army Men went into (not that Army Men was any good of a franchise anyway, but needed a good example).

If you're gonna play any, COD 4 is the way to go.

How is comparing Army Men (shit) to CoD (awesome) a good example? :wtf:

Or even WWI. I don’t think that’s ever been covered in any of the major first-/third-person shooter game series...:-\

Cause nothing really worth replaying happened in WW1.

It was a world war. I'm sure that if they can make two desert storm games, they can find enough material for a ww1 game.

They should take do some shits in Korea and Vietnam. Want to add "controversy"? Do Afghanistan, Kosovo or Lebanon.

Plenty of shit to choose from.

A call of duty in Vietnam would be awesome. Battlefield: Vietnam was tons of fun, but if it was made by the Call of Duty people it would be even more amazing.

When it first came out, AM had good press, but then continued to churn out game after game with less and less of any reason to care, or reason to think they DID care about the quality of the games.

CoD could go that same route if they churn out too many sequels too fast. That's how that can be a good example. A franchise that had potential getting fucked over.

Dynasty Warriors has a similar problem. It was the cat's pajamas when it came out. Now, alot of people either hate it, or just don't give a rat's ass.