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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Call of Duty 3 was rushed. 5 has development three times as long.

LordTheNightKnight on 23 June 2008

Call of Duty 3 Needed More Time For Greatness

Infinity Ward's Call of Duty 4 was fantastic. Treyarch's CoD3 wasn't as fantastic. Granted, it was pretty good! But honestly, not as good as Infinity Ward's CoD2. (See where this is going?) Says CoD5 senior producer Noah Heller:

I'd say that one of the things that's hard for a player to understand, I'm sure you guys can understand it because you have a lot more insight into the industry, is that Call of Duty 3 was about eight months end to end for development... And it's very hard to make a great game in that time. Call of Duty 3 is a very good game. It sold very well so a lot of people must have liked it... But it's not the game this team could have made if it had the time to polish to the level they needed to... Look at the great games of just this last six months or year. Look at Modern Warfare, look at BioShock, look at GTA 4. What these games have in common is enough time to polish and iterate on it, and I think as an industry we're learning how important that is... I feel like it's a little bit of an underdog story almost. Here's a team that's never had a chance to actually make a game with this much time. Modern Warfare comes along and raises the bar really high and now the team says, we've got to show what we've got, we've got to show up with a great game or else the players aren't going to want to play it. Expectations are so high.

They are, they really are. Treyarch was given a two year development cycle for CoD5, so hopefully that extra time in the oven will pay off. Willing to give World War II another spin if the game dazzles.

World at War First Look [Videogamer]



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
Squilliam on 23 June 2008

I think they should be given a chance to perform. Its not fair to write them off before they've had a chance and this one does have a good feel to it. It would be brilliant if COD5 is a AAA game because its available for all consoles... Especially great for the Wii guys to have a 85+ traditional shooter on their console.



Tease.

LordTheNightKnight on 23 June 2008

And this doesn't look to be a "The Greatest Generation" game, which was so milked with past games, it's almost turned into a parody of it (which I feel really cheapens what they did).

So this one focuses on the less "glorious" parts of the war, the Pacific Theater and the Russian Front.

Trivia: the American troops who landed in Japan were all from the European front. No one who fought in the Pacific Theater was allowed to come. This was because the fighting was so brutal, the top brass feared some soldiers would take some kind of retaliation on the Japanese civilians. This was because similar things did happen when the Russians took Berlin, in retaliation for the brutal fighting on the Russian Front.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Munkeh111 on 23 June 2008

Let's hope this pays off



sc94597 on 23 June 2008

I don't even see why people thought CoD 3 was horrible. It got in the 80s of most reviews. That is above average.



Around the Network
DMeisterJ on 23 June 2008

So if this game sucks, does that mean that Treyarch sucks?



sc94597 on 23 June 2008
DMeisterJ said:
So if this game sucks, does that mean that Treyarch sucks?

What is your definition of suck? Cod3 scored an average rating in the 80s for all consoles with the exception of the wii.

 



DMeisterJ on 23 June 2008
sc94597 said:
DMeisterJ said:
So if this game sucks, does that mean that Treyarch sucks?

What is your definition of suck? Cod3 scored an average rating in the 80s for all consoles with the exception of the wii.

 

But in hindsight, we all see it as a game that's grossly inferior to Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games (especially 4).  By suck, I mean not that good in terms of stale gameplay, or time/place.



sc94597 on 23 June 2008
DMeisterJ said:
sc94597 said:
DMeisterJ said:
So if this game sucks, does that mean that Treyarch sucks?

What is your definition of suck? Cod3 scored an average rating in the 80s for all consoles with the exception of the wii.

 

But in hindsight, we all see it as a game that's grossly inferior to Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games (especially 4).  By suck, I mean not that good in terms of stale gameplay, or time/place.

Then I guess they suck if this games does, but I'm sure they have alot of pressure to make it good so it sells well.

 



LordTheNightKnight on 23 June 2008

Well the thing is that they have the time, they have the resources (using the same engine as CoD4), and they have the support (I think), so if they can't make it make at least decent, it really would reflect poorly on them, as they would have no excuses.

Then again, I'll just wait and see on this. Plus I want to see how the engine scales to the Wii.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs