Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I just hope they keep the Spec Ops the same way, those were the best part to me. Maybe add some weapon challenges (kill these 20 guys using only the Scar, for example).

I just saw that...
I personally don't like it so much because BO picture Russians as bad guys - again. And i expected after 4 games of same graphic they will get something new and improved.
Also, I liked the story. But overall game - not so much. ( again I am pro-Russian oriented so it doesen't really mean the game is so bad...)
Zombies are nice change, I liked them in WaW to
I just hope that CoD 9 will be sci-fi...we have seen enough of MW and WW...

I thought Black Ops' story was hilariously bad. As in, I actually laughed.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Karon wrote:Have you played Black Ops?

That is Vietnam and the Cold war, it sounds exactly what you're looking for.

Call of Duty: Black Ops also jumps around a lot and requires a huge amount of suspension of disbelief. It's not very grounded in the reality of the Vietnam War at all. Weapons, blind guerilla warfare, the incredibly hostile environment, and actual historical events are not accurately represented whatsoever, and the game is not based completely in Vietnam at all. I want a game that represents the Vietnam War as accurately as possible, not a fictional espionage thriller that touches down in Vietnam briefly. Vietnam-based multiplayer would also be awesome, and Black Ops did not provide it.

It's probably the closest the series will ever come (because of the overall negative reception of Black Ops), which is unfortunate.

Yep. The closest to the Vietnam Call of Duty we'll have is the level with the Huey gunship supporting.

Kanluwen wrote:And yet...WWI would be a fantastic campaign.

Since the majority of the first World War was stalemate trench warfare carried on for months on end, this would require a lot of creativity on the developer's part to actually make things interesting from a gaming standpoint. This is probably why World War 2 was such a popular setting for so long; it provided all of the 'best' aspects of World War I and then some.

Then again, wars are always embellished in games, so they could probably figure something out.

I don't know how much embellishment would really be needed. If it goes back to the original format of CoD there's plenty of things that could be done to 'excite'.
Things like playing as a biplane pilot(maybe even the Red Baron?), an Anzac at Gallipoli, a French or German stormtrooper at the Somme, etc would go a long way to make it less "hurr stalemate!".

The Korean War was similar to Vietnam, but the setting and method of warfare (as well as some of the weapon technology) were not nearly as interesting as Vietnam. The Korean War is also basically overlooked as a source of societal outrage. So therefore, World War I is to World War II as The Korean War is to The Vietnam War.

See above. Korea had some really interesting facets going on.

As for the Civil War, I've always wanted a good Civil War game, but I don't think Call of Duty is the series for that. Same goes with the Revolutionary War (which also sort of acts as the 'less interesting' Civil War in a sense).

I've always thought the Civil and Revolutionary Wars belong more as RTSes than FPSes.

But the Kinect would make it hilarious. Quick! Reload your musket, they're marching...again!

It'd be hard to do a civil/revolutionary war game in the modern FPS setting. It takes too long to reload and all that. Unless you played as one of the groups which had a Henry Repeating Rifle.

Melissia wrote:It'd be hard to do a civil/revolutionary war game in the modern FPS setting. It takes too long to reload and all that. Unless you played as one of the groups which had a Henry Repeating Rifle.

I play 'The Battlegrounds 2', a Revolutionary War mod for the Source Engine, regularly, and it is actually quite enjoyable. The length of the reloads makes things incredibly frantic and tense, and the low accuracy of most muskets makes every single shot you take count. It is a completely different dynamic from playing a relatively modern first-person shooter.

The Civil War would make for a much better first-person shooter, as the weapon technology was much more advanced than the weapons utilized during the Revolutionary War. Most musket shot was pre-packaged at this point, and there was plenty of access to lever-action firearms and revolvers, along with a few bolt-action weapons. Tactically, the Civil War was far removed from the conventions of the Revolutionary War. Most conflict resembled modern-day skirmishes, as opposed to the incredibly moronic 'wall of death'.

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Korean War or World War I.

There's been basically nothing about those two eras.

Probably because WWI was nothing but bolt action rifles and trench warfare (similar to why there's never been a high budget civil war game) and the Korean War is the nerd on the playground no one cares about.

Ahem, WWI saw the first use of Mustard Gas, Tanks, and actual Machine Guns.

Pfft! Call of Duty is SO mainstream.

halonachos wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Korean War or World War I.

There's been basically nothing about those two eras.

Probably because WWI was nothing but bolt action rifles and trench warfare (similar to why there's never been a high budget civil war game) and the Korean War is the nerd on the playground no one cares about.

Ahem, WWI saw the first use of Mustard Gas, Tanks, and actual Machine Guns.

Heavy machine guns that couldn't be carried during attacks practically (and because of doctrinal stupidity). No assault rifles. They may have just been coming out with SMG's, but most of the weapons developed during WWI didn't come into their own until WWII.

WWI was a bunch of guys with bolt action rifles running towards a bunch of guys with bolt action rifles and machine guns in a trench and dying. Interesting campaign probably. Really boring multiplayer which is the bread and butter of FPS.

LordofHats wrote:
WWI was a bunch of guys with bolt action rifles running towards a bunch of guys with bolt action rifles and machine guns in a trench and dying. Interesting campaign probably. Really boring multiplayer which is the bread and butter of FPS.

...You've played MP on the Call of Duty games, right?

"Guys running towards a bunch of guys" is exactly how it goes.

In fact, it'd be one of the easiest ways to do respawns too! There's a huge No Man's Land in the center with teams battling over objectives in the middle. There's a few mortars(requiring the team to work together to not blow themselves up) and machine guns in each team's base allowing them to 'reach out and touch' the middle.

Things like shotguns, pistols, knives, shovels, et al were all tools of the trade for trench warfare. To say it was simply bolt action rifles is a fallacy.

Instead of knives they could have instant kill shovels! And Shovel battle servers where everyone runs around hitting each other with their shovels.

And my point is that there isn't a weapon variety. Effectively there'd be some bolt action rifles and some machine gun emplacements on the map. It would get old fast for most people having so few options.

Kanluwen wrote:
(similar to why there's never been a high budget civil war game)

Not sure, how High Budget was A Nation Divided?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Heavy machine guns that couldn't be carried during attacks practically (and because of doctrinal stupidity). No assault rifles.

Not what I've heard; We (The U.S.A.) had the standard issue Machine Gun that we used in WW2, way back in WW1. We didn't use them because we feared that they would fall into enemy hands.

Now, if that's true, I don't know, since I just remember my dad talking about it. I'll ask him when he gets home tonight if he remembers.

Slarg232 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
(similar to why there's never been a high budget civil war game)

Not sure, how High Budget was A Nation Divided?

I'm pretty sure that wasn't actually my post you replied to.

I can't speak as to how "high budget" A Nation Divided was...but it was published by Activision 'Value'(no joke. That was the publisher) and developed by a studio called "Cauldron HQ".

LordofHats wrote:Heavy machine guns that couldn't be carried during attacks practically (and because of doctrinal stupidity). No assault rifles.

Not what I've heard; We (The U.S.A.) had the standard issue Machine Gun that we used in WW2, way back in WW1. We didn't use them because we feared that they would fall into enemy hands.

Now, if that's true, I don't know, since I just remember my dad talking about it. I'll ask him when he gets home tonight if he remembers.

We had quite a few guns that qualified as 'machine guns' in use during WWII that came into being during WWI.

The Browning Automatic Rifle first saw some limited service in 1917, the Lewis Gun saw some usage during WWII, the M1919 Browning just barely missed WWI but was widespread during WWII(still is, in fact) but was of course the air-cooled improved version of Browning's 1917, etc.

LordofHats wrote:Instead of knives they could have instant kill shovels! And Shovel battle servers where everyone runs around hitting each other with their shovels.

And my point is that there isn't a weapon variety. Effectively there'd be some bolt action rifles and some machine gun emplacements on the map. It would get old fast for most people having so few options.

How is that any different than the fact that there's already very little options used? Play MW2 sometime. You'll see the same guns used over and over.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't actually my post you replied to.

I can't speak as to how "high budget" A Nation Divided was...but it was published by Activision 'Value'(no joke. That was the publisher) and developed by a studio called "Cauldron HQ".

My bad

Fair enough on the value. I just wanted to point out that there was alreayd a Civil War game made

LordofHats wrote:Heavy machine guns that couldn't be carried during attacks practically (and because of doctrinal stupidity). No assault rifles.

Not what I've heard; We (The U.S.A.) had the standard issue Machine Gun that we used in WW2, way back in WW1. We didn't use them because we feared that they would fall into enemy hands.

Now, if that's true, I don't know, since I just remember my dad talking about it. I'll ask him when he gets home tonight if he remembers.

We had quite a few guns that qualified as 'machine guns' in use during WWII that came into being during WWI.

The Browning Automatic Rifle first saw some limited service in 1917, the Lewis Gun saw some usage during WWII, the M1919 Browning just barely missed WWI but was widespread during WWII(still is, in fact) but was of course the air-cooled improved version of Browning's 1917, etc.

Ah, glad I'm not talking crazy then

There being a game isn't the same as it being a high budget game though.

Kanluwen wrote:There being a game isn't the same as it being a high budget game though.

True, but doesn't it being completely worked through with the History Channel make it about as accurate as it can be?

Maybe. But that doesn't make it a good or high budget game either.

Kanluwen wrote:Maybe. But that doesn't make it a good or high budget game either.

Very well then, I have learned one thing from this.


There is no pleasing you

Seriously, though. Could you imagine Surivival Zombies where you have to reload after every shot?

Slarg232 wrote:Not what I've heard; We (The U.S.A.) had the standard issue Machine Gun that we used in WW2, way back in WW1. We didn't use them because we feared that they would fall into enemy hands.

Now, if that's true, I don't know, since I just remember my dad talking about it. I'll ask him when he gets home tonight if he remembers.

Indeed. The M2 was first developed towards the end of the war, alongside the Thompson and the BAR (Browning apparently was pretty good a making guns EDIT: and Thompson apparently, for some reason always though that one was another Browning...). But they saw little service in the war as they all entered production too late or were still in development. Most of these things didn't even get going until late 1918, and by then the war was practically over.

It's actually kinda cool when you think about it. Almost 100 years old, and we still use what are conceptually M2's because it still works just fine

PS. The BAR didn't enter production until 1918, and the batch was faulty. There were many similar weapons in use, but there were so few as to consider them non existent.

WWI also had hand grenades and a tank would be an amazing enemy to face.

"Blow up the tank, Ramirez!"

"There's no rocket launchers, or C4... I can't."

The whole squad dies, except for Ramirez and from that day on he swears that his children, and his children's children will always do everything.

The BAR didn't see full production until 1918. There was a proof of concept that was sent over, reputedly to Browning's son.

As much as I'd like to see a continuation of the story of Soap and Price, I wish they would put some time into these games instead of rushing them out all the time.

Also, I actually liked Black Ops. Not so much the campaign (Gameplay was great but the plot wasn't.), but the multiplayer was just as good as any other CoD.

Oh well, I may have to wait on this one.

filbert wrote:Well yes, but the same could be said for pretty much any series of games. Doesn't stop one enjoying a game of FIFA though...

In my neck of the woods people spend $60 a year for the new Roster Update game... also know as Madden. It's the ultimate hardcore game, next to the UFC games...

http://kotaku.com/5800758/is-this-modern-warfare-3s-cover

BS or not? I'm not buying the idea of them actually putting an acronym on the cover. Why not just stamp "CoD: MW3" onto the cover while you're on it?

Kotaku wrote:Modern Warfare 3 opens as Modern Warfare 2 closed: The United States under siege by Russian forces, ultranationalist Vladimir Makarov on the loose, Captain John "Soap" MacTavish and Captain John Price wounded and on the run with the Russian informant known as Nikolai.

http://kotaku.com/5801345/where-youll-go-how-youll-kill-and-who-will-die-in-modern-warfare-3