Call of Duty: World at War

Chase

Chase

CAGiversary!
Feedback
8 (100%)
#2
Call of Duty: World at War introduces co-operative play, bringing fresh meaning to the “No One Fights Alone” mantra with up to four-players online for Xbox 360, PS3 and PC, or two-player local split-screen on consoles. Nintendo Wii will also support a unique co-op mode for two players. For the first time ever players will experience harrowing single-player missions together for greater camaraderie and tactical execution. The co-op campaign allows players to rank up and unlock perks in competitive multiplayer by completing challenges and earning experience points, adding continuous re-playability and team-based gameplay. Whether playing competitively or cooperatively – if players are online with Call of Duty: World at War – they will always gain experience points. Based on a player’s experience rank and rank of the player’s friends, Call of Duty: World at War will scale dynamically to provide a deeper level of challenge.
Click to expand...


#1
The next installment of Call of Duty, set in World War II and being developed by Treyarch.

Developer: Treyarch
Publisher: Activision
Players: 1-2
Online (Co-Op): 2-4
Online Multiplayer: 2-16


Call of Duty: World at War will utilise the Call of Duty 4 engine but the developer has also added various enhancments, such as the ability the burn down buildings and foliage. The game takes place primarily in the pacific, with the US forces fighting Imperial Japan. Frank Kearsy, military advisor and Gulf War Veteran, has made sure that the way the Japanse fight is both tenacious and shocking.


You’ll also be fighting as the Russians, who are invading Germany. With the Nazi forces on the back foot they will start fighting even more ferociously in an attempt to defend their strongholds such as in Berlin. There is also a new party system that will allow the leader to issue commands to his troops in single player.


Mutliplayer perks are also back, including some of the favorites from Call of Duty 4, but there will also be new ones that better suit the time period. The game also features new weapons for the series, such as the flamethrower, which according to OXM, can melt the skin off of your enemies and set ablaze grass and wooden buildings. You are also able to shoot throw materials depending on the strength of the material.


Treyarch is promising that this new installment of Call of Duty will be the darkest one yet and are dedicated to making the best game they can. They have had two years of development time, rather than the 11 months they had for Call of Duty 3. And this time they have specific teams working on all the different versions, with the Xbox 360 version acting as the lead.
Click to expand...
This is how I imagine the life of a Treyarch employee.

Treyarch, wakes up refreshed and happy: "Ah, what a beautiful day. I wonder how excited Call of Duty fans will be to know there is a new Call of Duty game coming out. Ah, 'World at War' will allow me the ability to send my kids to what ever college they desire."

Everyone not working at Treyarch: "Dear Treyarch, you fail at life, and tarnish the Call of Duty franchise with every game you make. Please do us a favor by creating a spaceship out of the turd you call Call of Duty 3 and launch yourselves into space. Explore Mars, and tell the Biker Mice we said 'You can keep Treyarch.'"

Treyarch: :[

That said, someone please tell me I just didn't read that Treyarch is developing Call of Duty in yet another World War II setting. Despite Treyarch, I will remain optimistic for World at War (even if Treyarch is the developer) as they were given a lot more time to get it right (did I mention Treyarch is developing another World War II Call of Duty?) - and by "get it right" I mean stick to the formula left by Call of Duty 4 but with a different theme and themed details (damn you, Treyarch).
 
Why are they stuck in that time period? There are other scenarios that could be played out, Korea, Vietnam, or The Gulf. I think I have killed my fair share of Nazis over the years,
 
Oh great.

2 things will be funny:

1.) When casual fans buy this up thinking it's a "true" CoD sequel.

2.) When more people play CoD4 online over this.

I'll give it a rent, but my expectations are VERY low.
 
[quote name='mwynn']Why are they stuck in that time period? There are other scenarios that could be played out, Korea, Vietnam, or The Gulf. I think I have killed my fair share of Nazis over the years,[/quote]

More importantly, why isn't infinity ward developing the game? They did such a good job with COD4, I don't think anybody but them can make a game to rival COD4.
 
Haven't we already fought as the Russians in Berlin in COD2 ?
Or maybe that bit was in Russia, I forget.

I'm not holding out much hope for this, I was playing a bit of COD3 at the weekend, it's not great.
 
SIXTEEN PLAYER MULTIPLAYER?!??!!

LESS THAN COD4?!!?!?

GARGGHHH!!!!!


I will skip this one (apart from a rental) and continue to play COD4 throughout the year!
 
I think that this pretty much confirms that Activision signed a shitty contract years ago between the two developers (Infinity Ward & Treyarch).

The only question now is how long is that contract for? I think in a few years, this will call for photos of everyone's Call of Duty collection containing only the even numbered games.

~HotShotX
 
Why is Infinity Ward not developing it? Because they're working on their next Call of Duty game and this gives them more time to work on that one. Blame Activision for wanting yearly releases of the title if you blame anyone.

That said there are no shortage of modern shooters anymore and there's not that many WWII shooters in the next gen market compared to futuristic or modern day ones.

Vehicles in multiplayer, new perks, and 4 player co-op. Doesn't sound that bad to me.
 
[quote name='eliter1']More importantly, why isn't infinity ward developing the game? They did such a good job with COD4, I don't think anybody but them can make a game to rival COD4.[/QUOTE]

They alternate years. Activision wants to shit out a CoD game every year as it's one of their main franchises.

By having two developers alternating, each gets 2 years to work on their game, rather than having to rush them out every year.

Hopefully this one will turn out better since Treyarch had less than a year to do CoD3 and has had 2 years to do this one. But I'm not very optimistic.
 
You know, I get that CoD3 wasn't as good at 2 or 4. Fine.

But let's be realistic: the game was decent (the 360 version has an 82 on Metacritic, actually one point better than Perfect Dark Zero, from fabled and "beloved" Rare), and that's with a rushed, 11-month dev time. A full two years could have some real positive returns.

And I'm sick of WW II as well, but I'm also sick of modern warfare, and there's yet to be a decent Pacific theater game (for the history deficient, that means you shoot the Japanese, not the Nazis). Let's at least wait until we see the game before we start treating a generally pretty solid developer like they're DIMPS or something.
 
When more people play CoD4 online over this.

Yes, it doesn't matter how good this game is or how well it's received, the above statement will most likely remain true (unless they get very aggressive very early with the price point). Half the reason people flocked to CoD4 in the first place was because of the "modern day" theaters of war. For some, this was just a simple desire for some variety. For others, it was a way to live out their neopatriotic fantasies from the safety of their sofas, which is as close as they want to get to the actual fighting that they very vocally 'support'.
 
what else are they working on? Spider-Man: Web of Shadows? World at War better be good seeing as they're not working on that much.
 
[quote name='trq']You know, I get that CoD3 wasn't as good at 2 or 4. Fine.

But let's be realistic: the game was decent (the 360 version has an 82 on Metacritic, actually one point better than Perfect Dark Zero, from fabled and "beloved" Rare), and that's with a rushed, 11-month dev time. A full two years could have some real positive returns. [/QUOTE]

First of all, Perfect Dark Zero is much better than CoD3. Secondly even if CoD3 was decent why would I want to play CoD3 when CoD2 (and 1) are similar but superior. I'll play decent shooters if they are unique but anything set in WW2 (no matter which theater) obviously isn't unique.

The only positive thing I saw in that press release was that it'll have 4-player co-op, but it's unknown what that will actually entail.
 
[quote name='evanft']When will I get to play as the Nazis?[/quote]

You win the game when you lose the war. Fantastic concept!
 
Seems like Treyarch can't do anything original, they're always piggybacking on other companies success. They copied Neversoft(Tony Hawk & Spider-man) and now Infinity Ward for COD.

I wish Activision would just sell them off to EA, so that the WWII games would just come from EA. Not to mention it would give someone else a chance to have something original for a Spider-man game.
 
call of duty 3 plummeted in price very quickly and to me was a good budget title. here's hoping COD5 will be a fun $15 expansion of COD4. Treyarch isn't so bad, they're only bad compared to infinity ward. Everyone in the know, knows to only look forward to even numbered titles at this point.
 
[quote name='PenguinMaster']First of all, Perfect Dark Zero is much better than CoD3.[/QUOTE]

You'll note I included the Metacritic scores for a reason. You're welcome to like PDZ more. But by an objective accounting, CoD3 is better. Sorry. Take it up with "numbers" if you don't like it; maybe they can make "81" more than "82" for you.

[quote name='PenguinMaster']Secondly even if CoD3 was decent why would I want to play CoD3 when CoD2 (and 1) are similar but superior. I'll play decent shooters if they are unique but anything set in WW2 (no matter which theater) obviously isn't unique.[/QUOTE]

As opposed to ... contemporary warfare? Futuristic, sci-fi warfare? Guess you don't play shooters much at all.
 
donotwant-4.png


No Iw = no $$$ from Pojo
 
The 4th installment sucked, so it only fits that this one will suck more.

For those who dont know, the agreement is that infinity ward makes the EVEN numbered COD's, while trec makes the ODD numbered ones.
 
[quote name='trq']
As opposed to ... contemporary warfare? Futuristic, sci-fi warfare? Guess you don't play shooters much at all.[/QUOTE]

Not sure what his point was, but I defintely like contemporary war fare and futuristic, sci fi war fare more than WWII settings.

It's more fun to play with modern weapons, or weird futuristic weapons/vehicles etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not sure what his point was, but I defintely like contemporary war fare and futuristic, sci fi war fare more than WWII settings.

It's more fun to play with modern weapons, or weird futuristic weapons/vehicles etc.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, personally, I'm not much of a fan of "realistic" shooters, regardless of setting, which is why I'm surprised I liked CoD4 as much as I did, but it's really all about the game itself; eventually everything just becomes "targets," rather than "Nazis" or "the Covenant" or um ... "Iraqis" ... anyway. But I'm not going to pretend any of those settings are unique or interesting at this point.
 
IW has been trying to modify whatever agreement they have with Activision to get Treyarch off CoD5. No one expected CoD4 to be as good as it was or sell as well as it did. By the time the reviews and sales were in Treyarch was already hard at work on CoD5, so Activision had already invested in the game.

My guess is that Activision in the end went to IW and said if you want Treyarch off CoD5 you have to sell X many copies of CoD5 in 2009. That X number was inflated because it had to offset sunk costs at Treyarch. The guys at IW didn't want the added pressure of hitting that elevated number, so they gave in on CoD5 with the catch that they would get all titles after that.

I don't know why any gamer would be upset about getting an extra game in 2008. If the series goes solely to IW there will definitely not be a CoD released in 2010.
 
[quote name='jkanownik']
I don't know why any gamer would be upset about getting an extra game in 2008. If the series goes solely to IW there will definitely not be a CoD released in 2010.[/QUOTE]

I think that's a good thing. There's no need for yearly installments of any franchise IMO.

I like seeing a new game in a series every 2-3 years. Gives them time to make it good, keeps it from getting stale and gives me a break from the series so I don't get sick on it.

That said, I'll probably just skip CoD5 and achieve the same thing, so no skin off my nose.
 
It could be because I'm tired from the lack of sleep, but I want a World War III scenario that progresses in the game to an apocalypse then post-apocalyptic setting. Just imagine the maps for the online multiplayer. The variety in design would be fun. They could make soldiers for all the world's major players, giving us a vast array of characters to become.

Of course, Call of Duty 8 would have to be World War Z. ;)

And again, I am exhausted. Apologies if that doesn't make any sense.

*dies*
 
[quote name='trq']You know, I get that CoD3 wasn't as good at 2 or 4. Fine.

But let's be realistic: the game was decent (the 360 version has an 82 on Metacritic, actually one point better than Perfect Dark Zero, from fabled and "beloved" Rare), and that's with a rushed, 11-month dev time. A full two years could have some real positive returns.

And I'm sick of WW II as well, but I'm also sick of modern warfare, and there's yet to be a decent Pacific theater game (for the history deficient, that means you shoot the Japanese, not the Nazis). Let's at least wait until we see the game before we start treating a generally pretty solid developer like they're DIMPS or something.[/quote]Yeah, people are too quick to dismiss COD3 as being a sucky game. It was a perfectly fine, WELL above average first person shooter. And like you said, they have more than 2 years of development time, instead of 11 months. Gamers are just grumpy cynical bastards these days.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Yeah, people are too quick to dismiss COD3 as being a sucky game. It was a perfectly fine, WELL above average first person shooter. And like you said, they have more than 2 years of development time, instead of 11 months. Gamers are just grumpy cynical bastards these days.[/QUOTE]

Definitely true. I'm very pick and selective with my gaming these days. I have very limited time to game, so I don't want to play games that are just well above average. I want to play only the cream of the crop.

I don't even have time to keep up with the AAA games, much less to waste on a game like CoD3 that was decent but a waste of time when there are so many better FPS games out there.
 
I didn't like Call of Dute 3 that much.. but it wasn't a bad game.. I need to finish it. Also, I know that Call of Duty WaW is going to be good, but I just don't want to play anymore World War games... damn.. I rather play some fictional scenarios like Rainbow Six vegas.
 
From what I heard, this was the situation. Infinity Ward wanted to do a more modern war game, but Activision was very unsure about the idea. Originally, they were going to give CoD4 a new name since they weren't sure if it could sell (due to dropping WWII, what CoD was known for). They went ahead calling it CoD4 and became a big success. CoD5 was in development before Activision even thought CoD4 would have been huge (and CoD5 might have been CoD4 if Activision decided to change the name of CoD4 due to different setting). So basically, there wasn't much Activision could do because CoD5 was already in development as a WWII shooter. If Activision knew all along CoD4 would have been a success, they have not have developed CoD5 at Treyarch at all.
 
*sigh*

I really want a good WW2 game set in the Pacific. The US campaign across Europe lasted less than a year. The US campaign in the Pacific lasted about three years. There's a massive amount of material that has never been covered well in a FPS when it comes to the Pacific.

Here's hoping Treyarch takes advantage of this opportunity. I'll be waiting for review scores.
 
CoD3 wasn't a bad game which I think is widely known by now. However when put up against its predecessor and successor (CoD2 and CoD4), it just wasn't up to par. It didn't add anything to the series or shooters in general but was a fairly well done shooter in any case. Basically Treyarch keeps the seat warm for IW while they make the better CoD game that everyone will essentially praise and buy.
 
I don't get why everyone hates on COD3. I haven't played it, but it is unanimously considered good (8/10 or so) by every major review site. This upcoming game will use the COD4 engine and feature 4 player co-op, so I think it'll be good.
 
It's just because CoD2 and CoD4 were damn good games in the 9-10 range for most people. CoD3 wasn't terrible, it was above average, but it's in the 7-8 range which doesn't cut it for fans of a series who are used to AAA games in the franchise.
 
I really enjoyed Call of Duty 3 (and I just don't understand why it gets so much hate online, it's really not that much different then Cod2 or 4) and I can't wait to see what the developers do with 2 years instead of 1 year and the Pacific Theater.

Hopefully the multiplayer will be similar to CoD3, I really loved the way it was set up with classes in CoD3. Hopefully they bring back Eder Dam, Mayenne, and the free DLC level (I can't remember the name, there was a barn in the middle of the level) as multiplayer levels in CoD5.
 
argh back to world war 2?!!?

Why can't we get something like from Vietnam, the gulf war, Korean war or any other war like others have said?

This is gonna be like the 4th WW2 call of duty game?
 
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the addition of co-op into the game. The game will be a drag, having been set in WWII again, but the addition of co-op was the only thing the COD franchise was missing. If Infinity ward takes co-op into the next good COD, then I think all other FPS's will cower in fear.
 
Treyarch will be sure to drop the ball even with IW's engine and online infrastructure in place.

Hell going back to WW2 is proof enough of that, "A fresh new perspective on WW2" Huh? I'm pretty sure Medal of Honor beat them to the punch 4-5 years ago with the Pacific front. Got my expectations real low for this one.
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']argh back to world war 2?!!?

Why can't we get something like from Vietnam, the gulf war, Korean war or any other war like others have said?

This is gonna be like the 4th WW2 call of duty game?[/quote]
I'm sure we will eventually, I bet they want to wrap up WW2 before moving on to other wars.
 
Should be cool in multiplayer if nothing else. I hated Call of Duty 3 singleplayer, but really enjoyed the multi.
 
I really wish they would make a COD set in Vietnam, or at least some next gen shooter during that war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top