By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Call of Duty: World War II

I feel like treyarch should be working on this, but I hope this COD turns out to be really good.



Around the Network
roadkillers said:
Well shit, first BattleField 1, then Resident Evil 7, now Call of Duty. Games are really pandering to the loud mouths on the internet haha.

I see two problems. First, I really do not believe that tons of people were clammoring for Dice to make its next Battlefield game set in WWI. There was interest and excitement once it was rumored and later got announced, but honestly the idea was so out there most people assumed that no publisher would even try. The time period presents a lot of challenges for making a fun game. Same can (generally) be said of RE7. After RE6, fans of the series universally agreed that the series needed a change, but who was saying it should go first person? Anyone arguing that either BF1 and RE7 should be the way they ended up at the time of their conception would have been a massive outlyer. 

Secondly, both of those games are well liked by both their audiences and critics (BF1 was maybe my favorite game last year)... so are they really examples of what you're talking about?



Sledgehammer = no buy me. Their games are garbage.

Also that image is 100% photo shopped. The "W"s aren't even the same size and the "II" is the Black Ops 2 logo. 



People must not want to play any shooters.....since all the biggest ones have microtransactions. No one should play Battlefield either i guess



Preston Scott

LudicrousSpeed said:
My interest would be 1045% more peaked if it were called World at War 2. A sequel to the last good (imho) CoD game.

For reals!  WAW despite being yet "another" WWII shooter at the time had a really engaging story and campaign.  All of the later Modern / Advanced / Infinite Warfare and BLOPS campaigns in the series just got more and more ridiculous, and after awhile the multiplayer grew stale for me.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Around the Network
PenguinZ said:
The micro-transactions have honestly ruined Call of Duty for me...

Well. They certainly haven't made the game better that's for sure. I think that is ultimately the crux of all Microtransactions, they don't make games better.

LudicrousSpeed said:
My interest would be 1045% more peaked if it were called World at War 2. A sequel to the last good (imho) CoD game.

Agreed.

I did complete Ghosts... But holy hell was that shit. Advanced Warfare was about as enjoyable as poking a rotting carcass with a stick.

Never did like any of the Modern Warfare games except the first one... But the first one was way to short.

Call of Duty 1, 2 and World at War were solid. Call of Duty 3 was okayish.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Am I the only person that buys CoD for the single player :'^)



Well, they weren't kidding when they wanted to bring CoD back to its roots. Cautiously optimistic. Haven't really played a CoD since MW2.



Intrinsic said:

why don't they make one based on Vietnam.....

now that would be something i buy

Because WWII much more interesting and diverse than Vietnam.



It would be an even better COD if they got rid Supply Drops, greedy bastards.