Why Call of Duty World at War?

[Vreki]

Re: Why Call of Duty World at War?

What i'm saying is that BF2 should take CoD's gameplay ideas, but CoD shouldn't take BF's ideas. That way you have a combined game in the form of BF3 but for those who prefer proper CoD, you also have CoD7 or whatever.

And for those who prefer BF, you will have..... nothing? :cry:

But nevertheless, BF with COD gameplay is on its way.

[=98=]

Re: Why Call of Duty World at War?

I can't see how BF2 style infantry is better than CoD style infantry. I actually see no bonuses...

[Kreepy Kitteh =^o.O^=]

Re: Why Call of Duty World at War?

No no.. I want CoD4 style gameplay and infantry BUT on bf2 size maps and vehicles That would be awesome!

[Silenthunter8]

Re: Why Call of Duty World at War?

BF Games focus on the whole spectrum, because its got vehicles and gigantic maps, in no way do i see the infantry better when i can hardly keep interest with the dumb things people do (IE Jumping and prone dropping). I know 1/UO did use vehicles, but otherwise its mostly focused on infantry warfare, and more close quarters for the most part. Why they even put in these half assed BF2 Features i dont know. I havent used squads (or meant to) or the little attack feature. The tanks, imo, are horribly used and put into the game, especially on the console.

[sithdemon]

Re: Why Call of Duty World at War?

Squads were necessary, especially now that severs are regularly running more then 32. easier to follow blue names, and if you get lost from your squad, pop up the map and bam easy to find. In COD4 if you got seperated you had to get your friends on VOIP to tell you where they were. I'm still waiting for squad VOIP, can't stand 16 people mostly talking about nonsense, which is why I turn it off for COD. with BF2 the VOIP system was beyond perfection. Commanders talk to squad leaders, squad leaders pass on the info, squad members see something, tell squad leader, and they can summerize and pass up relevant info to commander. even with out a commander, if the squad leaders could talk to each other in this game, it would help focus the voip traffic.

It's also funny how you are ALL talking about a BF2/COD4 combo like that could be the ONLY mode in the game. BF2 had infantry only mode ( it sucked IMO ), COD5 you can turn off the tanks. BF2 had 3 sizes for each map. So alot of the complaints here are moot.

Also If you haven't played alot of tribes/planet side/Bf2 the tank can be jaring to be added into this stage of the series, but its a somewhat realistic game, and other vehicles and weapons systems are part of the battle field. plus the developers have to push and expand their product, there is only so much left to be done with infantry combat.

Heck at this point like a lot of developers I wouldn't be surprised if they switched entirely, they've been making the same type of game for 5 years. They aren't making cars or chairs, it's a art form, and creativity requires variety, Infinity ward presents sing star opera might not be that far off.

[Kodakk]

Re: Why Call of Duty World at War?

You can't have CoD-style infantry battles with BF type maps and vehicles. That's why BF infantry combat is so much different - you can't just slap the two games together to get one "super-mega-amazing-game." CoD is good because it lacks what Battlefield is famous for, and vice versa.

[AvalancheDiode]

Re: Why Call of Duty World at War?

I agree with Alex and Solace. COD and BF series reflect two different aspects of FPS genre. COD focuses on intensive infantry fight, while BF's selling point is always massive maps and combined vehicle/infantry fight. I like both for their distinctive features. However, mixing them will not be the best thing since sliced bread. Too many good ideas do not make great result, like Far Cry 2.

Squad system of BF series is great. Implement it to COD? Not that great actually. COD has the spawn system worked well. If squad is introduced, then they have to tweak it and hence will change the formula.

Customize your gun in COD4 is also great. Certain customizability for BF2 follow-up would be great. BF2142 already has weapons customization, and all weapons are already scoped. The only option left untouched in all these games is bayonet. WaW's implementation of bayonet is crude at best. Why can't I attach bayonet on demand? Why only certain rifles can have bayo? I want every weapon capable of attaching bayonet to has it as an option. Not just Arisaka s and M1 Garand, not just M16A4 or M4A1, but also Baur and Krylov.

BF series can sure use some zombie mode, oh wait, somebody already did that.

[Kreepy Kitteh =^o.O^=]

Re: Why Call of Duty World at War?

Hmm, my idea of cod4 + Bf2 was meant in a very generalized way, Ofcourse there would have to be tweaks (mainly in the infantry department), but I preffer the more agile feel of cod4 than I do the rather rigid one BF2 has. The other main feature that CoD would bring to the table is obviously the graphics. I know if Bf do bring out another addition it will look great and all but with nothing else to compare I was just putting the two together as a general idea of what I think would make a killer game. I didn't mean just grab CoD4's point and kill snipers and across-the-map shooting smg's and throw them in BF2's playing arenas because it's obviouse that just wouldn't work.

[Minmaster]

Re: Why Call of Duty World at War?

wtf? bf:v was awesome. one of my favorites of all time. i think eventually we might see vietnam and maybe even korea because they can't be doing WW2 and modern warfare every release. the problem with korea is that it is still somewhat of a flashpoint (as no peace treaty has ever been signed) and it might not be smart to touch such a controversial setting. vietnam is different because the commies won and took control of the whole country where as korea is still under a 50 year cease-fire. remember ghost recon series? they canned the one set in north korea because it was too sensitive subject and they didn't want to start a controversy.

that said, seems like westerners have no qualms about putting middle eastern factions in video games, but it's usually set as some random fictional middle eastern faction usually.

[Soldat]

Re: Why Call of Duty World at War?

BF:V was a good game, but when it launched it had terrible game balance issues as well as some weird lag, especially on certain jungle maps and this large monastery. I still recall the horrible lag on Ho Chi Minh map

And who can forget the terrible team stacking that went on? The US had the M60 gunner with LAW and a M79, just a walking Rambo. Many games I quit because the NVA had 3 players and the US had 12

I prefer total wars games like BF and find the CoD series to be arcade like but still fun at times.

So whatever works for the moment, but give me a tank or a jet as well as a violent infantry battle any day to just infantry only.

[NQ Sonic]

Re: Why Call of Duty World at War?

I think this whole discussion proves there's room for both styles of combat. Both games have issues and areas that need work, but they're both great series for the type of game that they're designed to be. I personnally enjoy both series for different reasons.

One suggestion though; CoD could copy BF2 and skip a singleplayer story for their next game. I say that after enjoying the singleplayer story in CoD4 entirely. But, the longevity of these games is in MP mode so why not commit ALL the devs resources to building that format.

[ChemicalWarfare]

Re: Why Call of Duty World at War?

Battlefield 2142 is an awesome game, EA might need to fix some internet problems, then it will be good, I like Battlefield 2142 better cause, the graphics, guns, mechs, titans, customizing kits, etc.
But I wounder that yes Battlefield games are better.... Cause you do get to make squads, be commander and call radar, artry, emp artry, supplies, vehicle drops, drive vehicles (I know COD, and COD5 you can); but, Battlefield games you get more to choose what to drive, and drive your own teammates over!

[RW-RogueWolf]

Re: Why Call of Duty World at War?

Mmm, Vietnam is technically still very controversial.

And the world wars arnt...what about Iraq, thats the biggest crap hole of them all, no need to be there, its all for the oil baby, talk about controversial.

and Korea wasn't anything special that companies would make a game about.

ROFL, frig me dont ever run for anything in politics, The Korean war was one of the most devistating wars in history, its effects are still felt today, its still divided the entire country.

So no i dont agree with the...anything special part, the game companies wont make a game based on it because Korea would probably kick off about it and start sme more wars, Korea and Vietnam are both very aweful and controversial :dead:

As for the idea's, i agree, they tryed to make a WW2 game with the cruddy COD 4 engine and failed epically