WWII I think this setting is completely finished!

The largest most extensive war in the entire history of mankind and you think a dozen or so games and its tapped?They could release a dozen WW2 shooters a year for the next decade and still not tap all the possible settings.
Personally I think WW2 is the best setting for war games, that said some more games set in Vietnam would be nice.

Just playing through COD4 on the PS3 right now, nice GFX, on rails but all the CODs have been rail shooters. Really liked the Specter mission, that was sweet.

you should try the game 'mount n blade'

die by the sword was a great game

Treyarch? How sad then, to go from innovation, to "me too."

Modern day theme in CoD4 was nice. WWII is cool, but overused. Let's go back to modern day or pick another major war. I hope there's co-op. I will believe it when I see it.

"Being developed seperately"

I've been a PC Gamer since the Commodore days, haven't owned all that many consoles. I did however break down and buy a Wii, because the PC doesn't help much when you have several people at your home crowding your living room. So I bought a Wii, and quickly became dissapointed with the quality of games, as most seem to be bargain bin trash. Seems like most cross platform games that get great reviews for PC, XBox 360, and PS3, get horrendous reviews for their Wii versions. The Wii so far feels like the system that most developers don't quite know what to do with. Then it is taken a step further when many games, such as the Madden football games, which can only be played with the Wiimote and Chuk...which is more awkward than anything. There are a handful of games worth owning, such as Brawl and Kart for example, but all in all...the Wii has been extremely dissapointing.

That being said, I'll definitely buy CoD 5 for the PC, but the Wii version isn't something I'd hold my breathe for.

If someone could make a realistic hand-to-hand combat model, putting you in a situation like at the end of Saving Private Ryan...now that could add a nice spin to a tired genre.

That's what I was thinking too. To do WWI right, you'd need some kind of model for melee fighting with bayonet/rifle or just hand-to-hand. Of course you still have the problem of trench warfare being generally boring with brief interludes of mass suicide. Not sure what they'd do to get around that part.

The Pacific Theater for an FPS hasn't really been done right yet, so it's a good opportunity. I have a feeling it will have a fairly decent "Vietnam" feel to the engagements. Close combat, ambushes, unseen enemy, etc, all elements that make jungle combat a scary proposition. The only difference between that and Vietnam are the weapons.

Except it probably won't be like that. It will be just like the other games, except they'll replace stone walls and such with sandbags, and instead of assaulting old farmhouses full of Nazis, you'll be assaulting sandtraps full of Japanese. It'll still be a basically linear, heavily scripted run and gun experience. That's more boring than the setting.

We need a tribal FPS. Bows, arrows, spears, scalping, clubbing, being dragged by a horse, stabbed repeatedly with a dull ivory knife, etc.

If someone could make a realistic hand-to-hand combat model, putting you in a situation like at the end of Saving Private Ryan...now that could add a nice spin to a tired genre.

Attention whore says: "Don't ignore my brilliant idea for a WW1 fps!"

Blegh. More shit from Treyarch over the Call of Duty name.

Infinity Ward should ditch Activision and find another publisher who shows more respect for their IPs

A step backwards for the series returning to WW II. Mind you Treyarch make the shitty games in the series anyhow.

Hating on WW2 games is a great way to miss out on some really excellent games.

It's not hating on them but, like movies, there's only so many times you can do the same stuff before people get bored. What about the Korean War? Or the Gulf War (obviously largely air based but still had ground action)? Or Afghanistan? Or how about a non-western war... the Iran/Iraq conflict in the 80s? It's like every disaster movie featuring a pregnant woman or a divorced couple trying to get to their kids but falling back in love - it gets pretty tedious. I think the only reason they go for WWII is because they can throw in some dodgy British/Russian accents and pretend the game isn't just about the US.

Crysis went for Korea but fucked it up with aliens and other stupid shit. At least Call Of Duty hasn't introduced aliens or mutants yet.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn

No!!!!!!!!! PLEASE, no more WW2!!!!!!

WTF! COD4 was great BECAUSE it WASN'T a WWII game!!! ARG! welp I guess I'm not buying it till we go back to the future.

COD4 was great because its was incredibly balanced, very polished with an interesting story and a MP model that was nearly like crack in its ability to addict people. I'm sure they could've done the same magic with the WW2 era once again but they chose to try something different.

Theres not many war era's to choose from. WWI would bore people to death due to its reliance on non-automatic weapons. What else?....the civil war?

Hating on WW2 games is a great way to miss out on some really excellent games.

At one point, yeah. Now? Not so much.

It'll be fine. I enjoyed CoD3, I thought Treyarch did a good job for not being Infinity Ward. The single-player wasn't as good as IW's style, but the MP was plenty'a fun.

I feel the same way. I was surprised how decent of a job Treyarch did keeping the insane pacing of IW's gameplay intact.

Hating on WW2 games is a great way to miss out on some really excellent games.

It'll be fine. I enjoyed CoD3, I thought Treyarch did a good job for not being Infinity Ward. The single-player wasn't as good as IW's style, but the MP was plenty'a fun.

The Pacific Theater for an FPS hasn't really been done right yet, so it's a good opportunity. I have a feeling it will have a fairly decent "Vietnam" feel to the engagements. Close combat, ambushes, unseen enemy, etc, all elements that make jungle combat a scary proposition. The only difference between that and Vietnam are the weapons.

I have high hopes it'll be worth the money. Won't be ground-breaking, as CoD3 certainly wasn't, but it was worth the dough.

This comment was edited on Jun 9, 12:27.

Oh great, back to Treyarch. This probably won't be very good on the PC.

necrosis hit the nail on the head. Too many times games have promised co-op. Then at release everyone is like, "wtf is my co-op?" We are then told that there was not enough funding, resources, etc. to include co-op. I call BS.