New Call of Duty 5 tidbits

360 News | World at War.

News has surfaced revealing that Call of Duty 5 will be officially known as Call of Duty: World at War, with development duties being handled by Treyarch.

According to the new issue of GamesTM, the game will be hitting the PC, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Wii, with the latter being handled by a separate team in Treyarch - but all will be powered by the Call of Duty 4 game engine.

World at War goes back to the World War II setting of the first CoD games, this time tackling the Pacific front. All formats of the game will be graced with the presence of co-op multiplayer, as well as come packed with squad-based combat features. Vehicles will also play a role in the game.

The magazine also emphasised that the game is ultra super gritty, if that makes you feel any more warm and fuzzy about the game.

More on World at War as it inevitably surfaces.

Related Call of Duty 5 (working title) Content

Activison details future Call of Duty plans
09 May, 2008 Next instalment to be set in a 'new military theatre'.

Call of Duty 5 heading back to World War II?
08 Dec, 2007 Maybe not-so-modern warfare...

Activision takes, then retracts a shot at Brothers In Arms
01 Jul, 2008 First, 'crappy war game', then 'nothing but respect'.

Page12 Next

44 Comments

RXWAG

3 years ago

why more WWII....im sick of WWII...bring it back to more present conflicts...i mean how good was COD4?? its unreal and it was so good cause it got away from WWII...not saying that COD5 want be good cause we all know it will be..

Gtpod

3 years ago

Treyarch? Pacific WWII?

Wake me when CoD6 is announced.

Hrysicos_Ho

3 years ago

After all the praise COD4 got for doing something DIFFERENT.... I don't get it... I'll pass.

LeonJ

3 years ago

Note to self, only buy Call of Duty titles that are even numbers. Odd numbers are bad.

Samboy

3 years ago

^ CoD1 begs to differ.

Cerebral

3 years ago

Technically, that game was titled 'Call of Duty', not 'Call of Duty 1'.

LordPaludis

3 years ago

Hrysicos_Ho wrote

After all the praise COD4 got for doing something DIFFERENT.... I don't get it... I'll pass.

It's because Infinity Ward take "too long" to make a game (because they actually want to make a good game) so now they only do every second CoD. So the even numbered ones are good and the odd numbered ones are crap.

Mullet87

3 years ago

Cerebral wrote

Technically, that game was titled 'Call of Duty', not 'Call of Duty 1'.

And technically, this one is called 'Call of Duty: World at War', not 'Call of Duty 5'.

I've got a feeling this game will be quite good. Wait and see.

LordPaludis wrote

Load of waffle. Each variation gets the same amount of development time now, this one in particular has had twice as long as CoD3 ever did, that has to count for something.

Spanca

3 years ago

I'll be buying this. I actually like WW2 games.

Damn kids these days and their laser guns and their Dooms and their Counter Quakes. Back in my day we'd play what we were damn well given. Oh wait...

Eyce

3 years ago

Erghs:
It's another WWII Game.
It's by Treyarch.

Glimmers of Hope:
CoD4 Engine with apparent improvements.
Perks from CoD4 online Multiplayer to be in this one.
You can burn things.

I'm torn on this until a demo or something comes out.

LordPaludis

3 years ago

Mullet87 wrote

LordPaludis wrote

Load of waffle. Each variation gets the same amount of development time now, this one in particular has had twice as long as CoD3 ever did, that has to count for something.

I never said they didn't, but why else would Activision have 2 developers alternating on the series? It's because IW can't pump them out fast enough. And IW >>> Treyarch hence why the odd numbered ones aren't going to be as good.

drunknmonkey_au

3 years ago

After playing the crap that was COD 3 it'll take something special for me to touch this game. I have very little faith Treyarch can make a good game let alone a good COD game

mipac

3 years ago

I must have been playing a different game, Call Of Duty 3 on 360 was pretty awesome at the time...

Spanca

3 years ago

mipac wrote

I must have been playing a different game, Call Of Duty 3 on 360 was pretty awesome at the time...

I'm so sick of people whinging about CoD3. It was a lot of fun. Not groundbreaking or a perfect game by any means, but it was a lot of fun.

ObsoletE

3 years ago

Mullet87 wrote

LordPaludis wrote

Load of waffle. Each variation gets the same amount of development time now, this one in particular has had twice as long as CoD3 ever did, that has to count for something.

but the only reason CoD3 was handed to Treyarch was because IW were "too busy" making what would become CoD4. if Activision weren't so greedy to exploit the franchise, CoD3 wouldn't exist.

look at the release dates:
CoD - October 2003 (Infinity Ward)
CoD: United Offensive - September 2004 (Grey Matter - who became Treyarch)
CoD: Finest Hour - November 2004 (Spark)
CoD2 - October 2005 (Infinity Ward)
CoD: Big Red One - November 2005 (Treyarch)
CoD3 - November 2006 (Treyarch)
CoD4 - October 2007 (Infinity Ward)
CoD5 - Q4 2008? (Treyarch)

IW have always had 2 years to complete their games, with the exception of CoD1, as this was 18 months after MOH:AA (IW were formed after members of 2015 - devs of MOH:AA - left) but you are right in that CoD5 will have had twice the development time as CoD3 did, so hopefully that shows.
EDIT: there's also a rumour floating around that after the success of CoD4, IW have regained control of the franchise from Activision, and will be sole developers of future CoD games after 5.

i, personally, don't mind WW2 games. i'm pretty fascinated by the whole conflict, and i really like the way the COD games don't try to hoodwink players into thinking that the Americans were the only ones involved in the war. i guess it would be more interesting to see some of the battles fought before December 1941 (ie: before the US joined the War) but i doubt that will ever happen, or if we do, it'll be re-written so the US forces were there.

and the Pacific Theatre is still relatively untouched by games, so it does have that in it's favour.

EDIT: for the record, i didn't mind CoD3 either, but the problem i had was (and it was mostly self inflicted) i had only just finished CoD2 when 3 came out, so it was a case of more of the same, too soon.

LeonJ

3 years ago

I just hate to see good franchises get turned into money spinners. It's one of the reasons I respect Nintendo so much. You never see them try and cash in on Mario platformers or Zelda games.

Spanca

3 years ago

LeonJ wrote

I just hate to see good franchises get turned into money spinners. It's one of the reasons I respect Nintendo so much. You never see them try and cash in on Mario platformers or Zelda games.

I like that you added that clarification there.

Mr Waffle

3 years ago

ObsoletE wrote

and i really like the way the COD games don't try to hoodwink players into thinking that the Americans were the only ones involved in the war.

Given that fact... do we dare hope for an Australian character in this game?

ObsoletE

3 years ago

Mr Waffle wrote

ObsoletE wrote

and i really like the way the COD games don't try to hoodwink players into thinking that the Americans were the only ones involved in the war.

Given that fact... do we dare hope for an Australian character in this game?

given it's the Pacific Theatre, there really should be.

Spanca

3 years ago

Yeah we would have been in the top 3 major allied nations operating in the Pacific, right?

Frozencry

3 years ago

I'm interested in this because like Spanca, I like my WWII assuming it's done right. CoD3 wasn't bad either.

Daniel Golding

3 years ago

Given the emphasis placed on Australia during the production of The Pacific, it'd be a good guess that there'd be at least one Australian character in a game set in the same theatre.

Now, let's just hope that they actually get an Australian to do the voice acting.

Lord Haart

3 years ago

^Yup my big fear as that the Aussie will have a thicker accent than the TF2 Sniper and a bigger mustache than the guy in CoD4 has.

It's a war game: stereotypes are a way of life.

I'm putting this in my mental bin until someone tries hard to convince me otherwise.