Activision hit the video game lottery when it released Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It was an updated version of its award winning WWII series with new weapons, a revamped multiplayer, a thrilling campaign, and great visuals. The game was an instant masterpiece and cemented the franchise for anticipated sequels. We now get the next installment, CoD: World at War, which takes us back to WWII again. Has Activision allowed history to repeat itself with another great title, or are we taking a huge step backward?
Activision did the unthinkable. They took on arguably the most anticipated video game in modern history and held the Xbox Live charts for weeks, even months. When Game of the Year awards came out, many writers gave the nod to Call of Duty 4, not Halo 3. Furthermore, CoD 4 was multi-platform and therefore available to a much wider audience. If there was one thing fanboys could agree on, it’s that Call of Duty 4: Modern Combat was an amazing game and the multiplayer experience we all hoped for. The question is, what’s next?
It was only a matter of time until we heard the official news on Call of Duty: World at War. Fans alike assumed the game would stay in the modern era. When the news broke that we would be traveling back in time to none other than World War II, many gamers as well as myself let out a collective sigh. How can they tease us with laser sighted carbines and attack choppers then drop us back to bolt action rifles and attack dogs?
I’ve taken virtual dumps on Call of Duty 5 in the past for going back to World War 2. We’ve been there and moved on with CoD4. But with the solid engine and added co-op gameplay, I might have to eat my words. World at War looks pretty solid. Check out this gameplay trailer from a co-op level called Subway. If you don’t know where the level is set, you’re dumb.
Anyone wo has played COD4 knows COD5 will take many of its good ideas and try to expand on them. The perks here are not as cool judging by the fact we have been transported back to the 19-fucking-40s, but nevertheless they are very similar. It is also hinted that players will have upgrade perks just like COD4, which again means we get another great game just in the most played out time period in gaming.
Recon Plane (3 Kills):
Kill three enemies without dying and you are given the ability to call in a recon plane to mark enemies temporarily on your radar map. The only enemies that won’t appear are ones using the Reconnaissance perk.
Artillery Strike (5 Kills):
Kill five enemies without dying and you are given the ability to call in an artillery strike. This is very similar to the Airstrike command in COD4, however, instead of a line of bombs going off, the area in which you select for the drop is completely obliterated in a long series of cannon fire.
Unleash the Dogs (7 Kills):
Kill seven enemies without dying and you enable the ability to call in attack dogs, which will sniff out any enemies on the map. Unlike COD4, attack dogs will find you regardless of where you hide, making it exceedingly difficult to avoid them. Furthermore, killing the attack dogs will only save you temporarily as the hounds will respawn if killed until their time/kill limit has expired.
Is this the best looking WWII game I have ever seen? Yes. Am I insanely disappointed that this is a WWII game? Absolutely. I can’t get excited to shoot weapons that are almost 70 years old. I’m looking forward to COD6.
Hello ballsiest statement of the week. In an interview with MCV, Treyarch creative boss Richard Farrelly said “We want to make CoD5 the best game ever.” Not the best Call of Duty, the best game of all time.
Ok, ease up there buddy. Sure, it’s using the CoD4 engine, which is fantastic. But the story is almost a step backwards moving back to World War II, even if it’s set in the Pacific. I have my doubts about this being the best Call of Duty game ever. I wouldn’t even try to touch the best game of all time.
Seriously, do they think this will be better than Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 3, Goldeneye, Half Life, Metal Gear Solid? I’m going to have to go with a strong no on that one.
Going back to World War II might bite Activision in the ass. Even though it’s in the Pacific and not Europe, it’s still a step back from the terrific strides made by Call of Duty 4. Modern Combat is what gamers want these days. Either way, check out the trailer and decide for yourself.
We all know now that it will be a WWII game that takes place in the Pacific. It will use the same physics engine that COD4 used. I am very disappointed with this much. This is a giant step backward in my opinion.
“The next Call of Duty® revealed! Watch the premiere of the worldwide reveal trailer for Call of Duty®: World at War only on Xbox LIVE Marketplace June 21-June 22.
Call of Duty®: World at War redefines WWII, challenging players to survive the most harrowing and climactic battles of the Pacific and European theaters.”
This one I really don’t understand. Developer Treyarch-responsible for the debacle that was COD3, has announced Call Of Duty 5. The peculiar thing is the series’ return to the WWII time period. Why on earth would you release another WWII shooter when your series has a hit with COD: Modern Warfare? Especially when you screwed up the release before?! Hit the jump for more »
Recent Comments