By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Munkeh111 on 26 March 2009
Edit Thread
Onyxmeth said:
Munkeh111 said:
Onyxmeth said:
Munkeh111 said:
Onyxmeth said:
Munkeh111 said:

I can't believe they would make another WW2 game... though I would probably still end up buying it, assuming you are meaning that CoD would stay WW2, and MW would be as the name implies. I agree about the idea of buying branded every other year, but the sales of WaW would seemingly go against that

I still think Treyarch should stick with a war though. Maybe it's time they venture to Vietnam finally. I would be all up for it, but they would probably have to tone it down a bit from the reality.

I'm not sure about Vietnam, it would certainly make for a different game, I'm not sure what Treyarch should do, but they can't keep making WW2 games forever

They definitely can't keep up WW2 forever, but they need to progress forward. Going back to World War I or earlier is going to get less fun to play. The weapons will get more primitive. Maybe they need to branch out how the game is played. Maybe a wartime game will feel fresh if it's more army based like Battlefield and Warhawk, however people were none too pleased about tanks in COD: WaW and wanted them removed.

Overall it's going to be hard to tell Activision that WW2 is burnt out when COD: WaW is selling as well as it is. Sales do not reflect people tiring out.

Going backwards is certainly not the way forward, though there was a Konami WWI shooter announced (to end all wars) but that could well be vapourware. Anyway, I am not sure about going into the Battlefield territory, that is not really Call of Duty. Yeah we are going to have to wait until the sales start dropping