It looks like it is two steps forward and a giant leap back, if Gamesradar are to be believed. They are stating that CoD5 will be placed into the hand of Treyarch or from now on known as treyarse and that they will use the pacific rim for the battles that will ensue.

Here is the link to the site.

http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/xbox360/game/news/article.jsp?articleId=2008011416525312084§ionId=1006&releaseId=20070214121220634011

Atleast we can expect it to suck :) maybe they should only let Infinty ward make the sequels and Treyarch could make spin offs!

I think that this would really suck a$$ and hope it isn' t what is going to happen. Although I think the creators should read the article that gamesradar put up, those guns would be sweet.

a ww2 game where you' re fighting the Japanese, well that will improve the 360 sales in Japan, and will this appear on the PS3 as well?

I can' t see this as anything other than several steps back. Not only will graphically look no better then Cod3.5 the weapons will be rubbish, and there is no way the mp will have the perk-related goodness from CoD4 and that is a huge minus.

And I like ww2 shooters too. Maybe we' ll have to wait for Infinity Ward to do 6.

The medal of Honor series did rising sun which I believe had the worst sales of all the series...all though I could be wrong.

Doesnt Eddie already have a thread about this or did something new happen?

I did, about a month or so ago. My opinion there still stands here as it did there. I' d rather see Treyarch screw up World War II than something present-day. It appears that the old rumor of Treyarch doing the odds, and Infinity Ward doing the evens is still holding strong, which brings me to my point.

Why the hell do they even bother letting them produce the games?! I mean, really. Three blew, and they blew their one shot. Why are we giving Treyarch the right to rape a fantastic franchise... again?

If Activision were smart, they would release Treyarch titles as offspin games, and leave the real Call of Duty franchise to the big boys.

They' re letting Treyarch handle it because they know it' ll sell regardless.

The series belongs to Infinity Ward and there' s no way they could maintain the quality releasing yearly sequels... so the only way for Activision to make the maximum amount of money is to give Infinity a 2 year turn around and let Treyarch fill the gaps.

Call of Duty 3 wasn' t as good as Call of Duty 2. That' s indisputable. It was great graphically, but the single play campaign was a serious disappointment, and i personally only got any satisfaction out of the American campaign. The class based Battlefield-esque multiplayer fared better though... and was actually pretty fun for a while.

I highly suspect that the quality of the game was compromised by pressure from Activision to a) get 5 versions of the game (360, PS3, Xbox, Wii and PS2) out in the same month, and b) to do it in a year.

The game was announced in May 2006 and released in November 2006, which explains the half-assed campaign mode and historical inaccuracies. It sucked, but the games quality had mode to do with Activision than anything else.

I still have hope for the 5th game. Not much, but they' ll have had 2 years like Infinity Ward, the help of Gray Matter Interactive and no doubt assistance from Infinity Ward themselves.

Am I the only one that liked COD3? I don' t give a rats ass about single player (still haven' t played the COD4 campaign yet) but online was a blast.

COD3 single player sucked real bad. It was like your average no-name brand FPS single player experience.

I' m with agent, I loved the multiplayer for COD3. The war mode was really sweet. They did really well keeping frontlines and the battle to one area, it felt like you were fighting a real war. The vehicles were pretty fun too, not as good as UT' s or Halo' s, but good. The only thing I didn' t really like about the multiplayer was the aiming wasn' t quiet as tight as in COD2 or COD4. Might have been because the framerate wasn' t smooth enough, or maybe it just wasn' t done right. The aiming system was still really good though.

Oh yeah, another thing about the COD4 multiplayer. THE TEXT COVERS THE WHOLE DAMN SCREEN. They gave you the ability to do 4 player split screen online, which is awesome and a shame more games don' t support it, but the text was ridiculously huge and heavily hindered the gameplay, it covered up the whole middle of the screen, along with the radar you could barely see the actual game.
Seriously, that is a really easy thing to do right, make the text smaller or just take it off, it is pretty ridiculous it wasn' t taken care of.

ORIGINAL: locopuyo


Oh yeah, another thing about the COD4 multiplayer. THE TEXT COVERS THE WHOLE DAMN SCREEN. They gave you the ability to do 4 player split screen online, which is awesome and a shame more games don' t support it, but the text was ridiculously huge and heavily hindered the gameplay, it covered up the whole middle of the screen, along with the radar you could barely see the actual game.
Seriously, that is a really easy thing to do right, make the text smaller or just take it off, it is pretty ridiculous it wasn' t taken care of.

I believe this is being fixed in the next patch that is due out, along with the kill cam fixes regarding airstrikes, claymore and sniper kills.

Am I the only one that liked COD3?

In all honesty, Call of Duty was not terrible. The campaign was the terrible part, and campaign had always been the main draw to the Call of Duty series for me. The multiplayer was fun for a while, but it simply wasn' t Call of Duty. It was like they took a generic, run-of-the-mill game, added a world-war two backdrop, and added a flawed Battlefield 2 multiplayer clone.

(For those who say it wasn' t flawed, how many times did you find yourself rushing the opposing team' s one spawn point on the map to pop them before they could get out of the gate?)

As long as the multiplayer is still good and they dont do the stupid shit like " Press Y to plant bomb. Move RS to the left to arm the bomb. ZOMG Someones attacking you! Press every button on the controller and it' ll be okay."

Yeah, the " battle-actions" sucked big time.

Objectively speaking though, if there is one thing IW could use to pick up from Treyarch, it' s foliage design. It looked nice in three, and then four hit, and we were back to that flat stock-still scrubby stuff. I' m not sure why they didn' t decide to use something similar in four.

Ive been wondering about the COD4 menu screen where is shows the IW emblem slightly faded at the left of the screen. It has there logo and the number 3 next to it. Is that their way of saying that COD4 is in their eyes actually number 3? Whats the deal with that?

Yep, you' re absolutely right. It' s no coincidence. On top of that, the assets file names in CoD4 are labeled as if it were the third game in the series.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot. Listen to the rap at the end credits. They distinctly mention it being " The third installment" .