arent WW2 FPS's getting incredibly old? I hope they dont make it about WW2
15 more years! 15 more years!
They converted from WW2 in CoD4, so I don't think CoD5 will be WW2. It'll probably be future warfare *puke*Mitch wrote:
arent WW2 FPS's getting incredibly old? I hope they dont make it about WW2
Negative.Ryan wrote:
They converted from WW2 in CoD4, so I don't think CoD5 will be WW2. It'll probably be future warfare *puke*Mitch wrote:
arent WW2 FPS's getting incredibly old? I hope they dont make it about WW2
Infinity Ward has expressly shown intent to go back to the World War 2 time period, they just felt with the new technology and all that they wanted to try out the modern setting. Maybe not CoD5, I have no idea who it's being developed by, but hell, if it is dev'd by IW, ten bucks says World War 2.
Hey i hope it is world war 2 I cant get enough of those kind of gamesThe_Mac wrote:
Negative.Ryan wrote:
They converted from WW2 in CoD4, so I don't think CoD5 will be WW2. It'll probably be future warfare *puke*Mitch wrote:
arent WW2 FPS's getting incredibly old? I hope they dont make it about WW2
Infinity Ward has expressly shown intent to go back to the World War 2 time period, they just felt with the new technology and all that they wanted to try out the modern setting. Maybe not CoD5, I have no idea who it's being developed by, but hell, if it is dev'd by IW, ten bucks says World War 2.
They should make it so the game is realistic. You die easily, and if you die, you have to buy a new copy of the game.
ROFL ! That would teach the "we want realism" whiners xDnukchebi0 wrote:
They should make it so the game is realistic. You die easily, and if you die, you have to buy a new copy of the game.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Yes, it would.
WW2 would be good...becouse it would be the cream cut of all ww2 fps's ever...they know what worked in ww2 fps's, and they know what didn't.
but srs, vietnam would be proshit. but wait for the cod4 sexpantions to come out.
but srs, vietnam would be proshit. but wait for the cod4 sexpantions to come out.
I want modern combat, fuck WWII and Vietnam.
Modern Day ftw.
Modern Day ftw.
Exactly! M4A1 Grenadier > W1200 > All.TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
I want modern combat, fuck WWII and Vietnam.
Modern Day ftw.
OmniDeath wrote:
RandomSchl wrote:
damnit I still need to get Call of Duty 4
The 90s killed wwII by overdoing it,, you have to stop while it's still good... tbh i'm starting to get tired of Modern Combat too now... innovate plz... but no history shiteTimmmmaaaaH wrote:
I want modern combat, fuck WWII and Vietnam.
Modern Day ftw.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Lol. Who doesn't like shooting things that blow stuff up?haffeysucks wrote:
That mission was pure win!S3v3N wrote:
AC-130 Spectre Gunship.
I want more of that.
they already made a futuristic version, its called Crysis and it rapes CoD4 in the story aspect and graphic aspect.Poseidon wrote:
Pack of 100 soldiers.Flecco wrote:
Vietnam pl0x.
Move forward, get ambushed.
Move forward, get ambushed.
Retreat, get trapped in spider holes.
Retreat, get fucked up even more.
Dead.
Game over.
Sorry, I just don't think Vietnam would work. And it wouldn't make a lot of sense going BACK to WWII. I think they should stay in modern combat, but a more futuristic version. Say...2030?
No. Crysis sucks ass, enjoy your tech demo.seymorebutts443 wrote:
they already made a futuristic version, its called Crysis and it rapes CoD4 in the story aspect and graphic aspect.Poseidon wrote:
Pack of 100 soldiers.Flecco wrote:
Vietnam pl0x.
Move forward, get ambushed.
Move forward, get ambushed.
Retreat, get trapped in spider holes.
Retreat, get fucked up even more.
Dead.
Game over.
Sorry, I just don't think Vietnam would work. And it wouldn't make a lot of sense going BACK to WWII. I think they should stay in modern combat, but a more futuristic version. Say...2030?
Want to try and run both games on medium and see which looks best ???seymorebutts443 wrote:
they already made a futuristic version, its called Crysis and it rapes CoD4 in the story aspect and graphic aspect.Poseidon wrote:
Pack of 100 soldiers.Flecco wrote:
Vietnam pl0x.
Move forward, get ambushed.
Move forward, get ambushed.
Retreat, get trapped in spider holes.
Retreat, get fucked up even more.
Dead.
Game over.
Sorry, I just don't think Vietnam would work. And it wouldn't make a lot of sense going BACK to WWII. I think they should stay in modern combat, but a more futuristic version. Say...2030?
(COD4 does),,,
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
And remember kids, Graphics is all that is needed to make a game good!seymorebutts443 wrote:
they already made a futuristic version, its called Crysis and it rapes CoD4 in the story aspect and graphic aspect.Poseidon wrote:
Pack of 100 soldiers.Flecco wrote:
Vietnam pl0x.
Move forward, get ambushed.
Move forward, get ambushed.
Retreat, get trapped in spider holes.
Retreat, get fucked up even more.
Dead.
Game over.
Sorry, I just don't think Vietnam would work. And it wouldn't make a lot of sense going BACK to WWII. I think they should stay in modern combat, but a more futuristic version. Say...2030?
everytime i hear someone say crysis is good they always mention the graphics and thats basically all they mentionMajor.League.Infidel wrote:
And remember kids, Graphics is all that is needed to make a game good!seymorebutts443 wrote:
they already made a futuristic version, its called Crysis and it rapes CoD4 in the story aspect and graphic aspect.Poseidon wrote:
Pack of 100 soldiers.
Move forward, get ambushed.
Move forward, get ambushed.
Retreat, get trapped in spider holes.
Retreat, get fucked up even more.
Dead.
Game over.
Sorry, I just don't think Vietnam would work. And it wouldn't make a lot of sense going BACK to WWII. I think they should stay in modern combat, but a more futuristic version. Say...2030?
as far as i care
goldeneye>crysis
"and remember kids, graphics is all that is needed to make a game good" looks like you have your head in your ass for too long m8.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
And remember kids, Graphics is all that is needed to make a game good!seymorebutts443 wrote:
they already made a futuristic version, its called Crysis and it rapes CoD4 in the story aspect and graphic aspect.Poseidon wrote:
Pack of 100 soldiers.
Move forward, get ambushed.
Move forward, get ambushed.
Retreat, get trapped in spider holes.
Retreat, get fucked up even more.
Dead.
Game over.
Sorry, I just don't think Vietnam would work. And it wouldn't make a lot of sense going BACK to WWII. I think they should stay in modern combat, but a more futuristic version. Say...2030?
ive been gaming for eons, and good graphics alone dont entice me to get a game. i did not buy crysis because of two things
1) my rig can run it but it will look like dung
2) storyline is crap from what i hear.
if you think graphics makes the game, man i hope you do more Homework for a change. case in point. Warcraft III. crappy graphics by todays standards, but one of the top RTS games of all time.
Crysis aka 3dmark07 the game is like Far Cry, which shouldn't be a surprise really.
What I mean is that it most probably will set the new standards for graphics (like Far Cry did), but when it comes to anything beyond graphics it's utter shit (that is AI, storyline etc.)
It's just my opinion about the game.
PS. I think it was criminally short, but then again, Cevat Yerli was probably too busy trying to put his name everywhere he possibly could (the rest of Crytek were going to be pissed if he took all the credit, that's why it's not named Cevat Yerli's Cevat Yerli's Crysis by Cevat Yerli.)
YES, I know I ripped off Ben Croshaw there, but hey, his Jericho review was great.
What I mean is that it most probably will set the new standards for graphics (like Far Cry did), but when it comes to anything beyond graphics it's utter shit (that is AI, storyline etc.)
It's just my opinion about the game.
PS. I think it was criminally short, but then again, Cevat Yerli was probably too busy trying to put his name everywhere he possibly could (the rest of Crytek were going to be pissed if he took all the credit, that's why it's not named Cevat Yerli's Cevat Yerli's Crysis by Cevat Yerli.)
YES, I know I ripped off Ben Croshaw there, but hey, his Jericho review was great.
Last edited by Frotz (2007-12-08 16:05:15)
Dude, you should do YOUR homework because that comment was OBVIOUSLY sarcasm....specialistx2324 wrote:
"and remember kids, graphics is all that is needed to make a game good" looks like you have your head in your ass for too long m8.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
And remember kids, Graphics is all that is needed to make a game good!seymorebutts443 wrote:
they already made a futuristic version, its called Crysis and it rapes CoD4 in the story aspect and graphic aspect.
ive been gaming for eons, and good graphics alone dont entice me to get a game. i did not buy crysis because of two things
1) my rig can run it but it will look like dung
2) storyline is crap from what i hear.
if you think graphics makes the game, man i hope you do more Homework for a change. case in point. Warcraft III. crappy graphics by todays standards, but one of the top RTS games of all time.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
He said dung lolz.FloppY_ wrote:
Dude, you should do YOUR homework because that comment was OBVIOUSLY sarcasm....specialistx2324 wrote:
"and remember kids, graphics is all that is needed to make a game good" looks like you have your head in your ass for too long m8.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
And remember kids, Graphics is all that is needed to make a game good!
ive been gaming for eons, and good graphics alone dont entice me to get a game. i did not buy crysis because of two things
1) my rig can run it but it will look like dung
2) storyline is crap from what i hear.
if you think graphics makes the game, man i hope you do more Homework for a change. case in point. Warcraft III. crappy graphics by todays standards, but one of the top RTS games of all time.
Agreed, since BF:V blew testicles.Flecco wrote:
Vietnam pl0x.
It's probably going to be made by Treyarch (guys who did COD3) as opposed to Infinity Ward (COD 1, 2 and 4) since Activision want a COD game every year. I wouldn't get too excited about COD 5.
CoD5 will most likely be on consoles only (Treyarch is making it, thats how they are already working on it), so I'm hoping they cover as little as possible and leave room for CoD6, which will probly be for PC.
Last edited by Spearhead (2007-12-08 17:36:29)