If the series goes futuristic, I'll probably lose interest. What I liked about the Call of Duty series, starting from the first one, is the historic part of it. The way you are playing as someone who actually existed in the past. That's why I like Brothers in Arms so much also. It gives tribute to the people that fought for freedom and won't let us forget. It brings emotion to the games.

IMO Call of Duty 4 should have been a different series. They should have kept the Call of Duty series based on true stories.

They need to take Call of Duty into a new war. How about the Civil War? Or the Hundred Years War? World War II is just too modern and played out.

Does anyone else see a franchise racing towards mediocrity and self-destruction?

Good thing, im not interested in Cod5 so will wait for Cod6.

I do.

Call of Duty 4 was definitely not, therefore, Call of Duty 6 won't be either (both are from IW), so no, not yet anyway.  And if Infinity Ward stay the sole developers of the game, no, not really, they can take it in new and interesting direcctions. 

Remember, CoD4 won plenty of awards, including a few GotY awards.  Don't hold your breath for mediocrity and/or self-destruction.

They said this when Call of Duty 3 released. Then Infinity Ward unveiled COD 4 and everything was right in the universe again. Basically, on odd numbered years COD will be praised and on even years people will question it's viability.

5 new Guitar Heros seem more reasonable......

Shooters really shouldn't be 1 a year =P

I can understand GH and Madden to a lesser extent but I don't see the need for a yearly shooter =P

do people live under a damn rock?


COD 3 sucked because it was rushed and had a short developement time.

Didn't anyone read that Activision have changed to a rotating developer strategy? This means that each developer will now have two years to make the game not 1 year.

As soon as COD5 is done they will start making COD7, which obvously will be out in 2010, hence 2 year developement.