Why I think Call of Duty 5 will suck!

[Sniper_Zegai]

Hey, what's to stop them from having both D-Day and China?

I'm not very familiar with any COD game, but from what I understand, it has three campaigns - one American, one Russian, one British.

Here's an idea:
COD 5 has five campaigns. The Russian and British campaigns will resemble their older counterparts, though the British campaign does deal with D-Day (dropping you on Gold or Juno instead of Omaha).

They did that already.

Then there are the American campaigns. There are two. The Airborne one takes place in Western Europe, and has you at D-Day... as a paratrooper. You start off being dropped into a swamp, and you have to find your unit before the Germans kill you. The Marine campaign takes place in the Pacific, and will be the toughest campaign of all. Combat is mostly amphibious landings under fire and jungle warfare.

Airbourne! sweet lord when will those dudes leave me alone, there are so many missions based on the airbourne troops its not worth getting into. And there was also Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault if you want a WW2 shooter there, I know its not CoD4 but it has been done.

Finally, there is the Resistance campaign. This would be the best option for a Chinese campaign, though they could just as easily go to Europe and put you in the French Resistance. It is mostly stealth based. It would be harder than most, but it doesn't pit you against as much firepower, and you have the element of surprise 99% of the time.

The french resistance was done in Call of Duty 3 in the British campaign. Mostly involved hitting people with the butt of your rifle, which is a shame becuase in the first CoD there was an excellent section where you used a silenced sten with the SAS and infiltrated a fortress to destroy some costal defenses.

I do like the idea of a Korean War shooter. Or, if CoD is willing to delve into a bit of alternate history, maybe have the Cold War go hot?

I guess I would'nt mind this as much but Call of Duty as ridiculous as it is most times does tend to stick to history, I could'nt see them using a cold war campaign.

Also, the reason for no shooters using blackpowder weapons: 3 rounds per minute rate of fire, which translates to 20 seconds between shots. I guarantee that 99% of players will fire one shot, then fix bayonets and charge.

Finally some one gets it! A game based on the American Civil War or something along those lines would SUCK ASS!

My final idea isn't really one that CoD can do, because the campaign options are rather limited, and the political baggage weighs about three metric tons: the Six Day War. It offers a new conflict, a new set of weapons (1960s era + uzis), and a campaign that literally spans the entire war. Plus, there's a chance for a really emotional battle in Jerusalem. Maybe some Israeli developer could do it?

Dont know much about that. Sounds cool but I dont really see it happening, as welcome as it would be.

 

[SilentScope001]

Also, the reason for no shooters using blackpowder weapons: 3 rounds per minute rate of fire, which translates to 20 seconds between shots. I guarantee that 99% of players will fire one shot, then fix bayonets and charge.

You convinced me.

Bring on the American Revolution! I want to do a bayonet charge!

My final idea isn't really one that CoD can do, because the campaign options are rather limited, and the political baggage weighs about three metric tons: the Six Day War. It offers a new conflict, a new set of weapons (1960s era + uzis), and a campaign that literally spans the entire war. Plus, there's a chance for a really emotional battle in Jerusalem. Maybe some Israeli developer could do it?

Throw in the Arab side of the conflict as a playable campagin as well, and for any biased statement you make in favor of Israel, make the exact opposite biased statement in favor of Palestine, you'll probraly do fine.

 

[Meshakhad_v1legacy]

Also, the reason for no shooters using blackpowder weapons: 3 rounds per minute rate of fire, which translates to 20 seconds between shots. I guarantee that 99% of players will fire one shot, then fix bayonets and charge.

You convinced me.

Bring on the American Revolution! I want to do a bayonet charge!

Yeah, but you almost always use rifle fire beforehand. Maybe one where you play as a cavalryman...

My final idea isn't really one that CoD can do, because the campaign options are rather limited, and the political baggage weighs about three metric tons: the Six Day War. It offers a new conflict, a new set of weapons (1960s era + uzis), and a campaign that literally spans the entire war. Plus, there's a chance for a really emotional battle in Jerusalem. Maybe some Israeli developer could do it?

Throw in the Arab side of the conflict as a playable campagin as well, and for any biased statement you make in favor of Israel, make the exact opposite biased statement in favor of Palestine, you'll probraly do fine.

Well, the problem is, the Israeli side is perfect fodder for a video game. They had fewer numbers, defeat meant annihilation, but they had better training and equipment, not to mention they pwned the Arabs. The idea of one soldier holding off tons of enemies is actually realistic - there are many stories from the Six Day War like this.

But by the same token, the Arab side is not good fodder for a video game. They got pwned. Their sole advantage was massive numeric superiority, but they had poorer training and weapons. Frankly, I don't see how this could be done and actually be fun.

The solution, as I said, is for the game to be developed by an Israeli developer. It would solve many of the problems. Not only would they not care that a lot of people won't buy a game where you play as an Israeli soldier (since that same group of people wouldn't buy any Israeli-made game), but they would do it right. Being Israelis, they'd all have military experience, so we could expect very realistic gameplay, something like America's Army. They'd also be historically accurate, quite possibly to a fault. All the battles they depict took place within a couple hundred miles of company HQ - and many took place closer.

I just did an Internet search, and it turns out that there are some Israeli game developers. The most prominent one is ImpactGames, which made a game, Peacemaker, about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I can't really see them making a shooter that is inevitably pro-Israel. But there has to be someone who can do it. Someone who is less concerned with politics, and more concerned with making good games.

 

[eggdog14]

What is there left to shoot? We've pumped everything in videogamedome full of lead. Where is there left to go?

We'll go in to. . . the FUTURE!

Oh wait, thats been done.

Shit.

 

[Jumplion]

I'm all for a war-time shooter that doesn't involve the US barging in on some foreign land. Infact, i think a game with the Israeli army would be pretty good, along with some other armys.

Bring on World War 5!

 

[FireFox170]

Have some country invading the US! Wouldn't you love to fight a battle around the Statue of Liberty or something? Yes, I'm American.

 

[Meshakhad_v1legacy]

I think we've established that a game about the Six Day War, if done well, would sell well.

If it does it poorly, I think we give the devs' addresses to the Mossad.

And there's a new game "World in Conflict" that features the Nazis invading the US.

 

[Jumplion]

I think we've established that a game about the Six Day War, if done well, would sell well.

If it does it poorly, I think we give the devs' addresses to the Mossad.

And there's a new game "World in Conflict" that features the Nazis invading the US.

Hey, i'd pay for that game (if done correctly)

 

[Meshakhad_v1legacy]

Though one thing about a potential Six Day War game. Specifically, the idea of doing fighter sections.

Would you do a fighter campaign that had no dogfights? Where all you did was air to ground missions - some taking out specific targets, others supporting ground forces? Where the only danger apart from crashing was AA guns and SAMs?

Because that's what we'd get.

The first mission would be the all-important one that sparked the war - the destruction of the Egyptian and Syrian air forces on the ground. After that, Israel had total air superiority. It's part of why they won.

So they might include it, but there would be no dogfights.

 

[Karmic]

I'd like a WW2 game to be set in China. That would be sweet.

yea...except china wasnt IN WW2

Two things. First, just because Yahtzee doesn't punctuate doesn't mean you can do it. Second, learn your history. Japan invaded and did horrible things to China. They actually had a few days after they took a village where all the troops did was rape the women and children, and then murder them... So yeah, Shooting some Japanese as a Chinese person would be interesting.

First point, thought dealt with to death, I still feel need to comment on: China not involved in WW2? Oh dear.

Secondly, I feel that though an interesting concept, an FPS game involving war between China and Japan is probably not likely. Unless you've spent time in China, you're not likely to realise just how politically sensitive an issue Japanese war crimes are here (I speak as a British person working as an English teacher in China, before anyone challenges my credentials to speak on the matter!). In the West people remember that WW2 happened 60 years ago, we don't forget what happened but neither do we hold the same lingering grudge that my students seem to towards Japan and its people. To us, it's just a game. Talk to a group of Chinese students for ten minutes and it doesn't seem so game-like.

A second, more pragmatic reason the game would most likely not happen is that it'd be censored in China, probably banned in Japan and I don't know how favourably other Asian countries would look upon it.

 

[SilentScope001]

But by the same token, the Arab side is not good fodder for a video game. They got pwned. Their sole advantage was massive numeric superiority, but they had poorer training and weapons. Frankly, I don't see how this could be done and actually be fun.

Poor training and weapons? Playing as the underdog? Sound fun to me.

Think of it this way. Why do people play Halo on Legendary mode? Because of the challenge associated with that level, not due to the special powers up. Why should we play as a hero who has the greatest armor and weapons and all that junk? Why not play as a normal grunt with no special assistance, just cannon fooder?

But the reason I'm more interested in the Arabs is the storyline purpose of the game. The American media has expressed some pro-Israeli bias, so I'm interested in Arab-style bias here.

And, of course, the most important reason of all: You don't want the game to be accused of being pro-Israeli. Targeting the pro-Arab crowd can gather some more sales, and ensures that the Six-Day War game does not get too politicalized. But, /shrugs.

As for Peacemaker, I have downloaded that game. It's pretty interesting, altough pretty overpriced. It's actually about trying to end the Palestine-Israel conflict, but just wanted to stress that.

 

[Meshakhad_v1legacy]

But by the same token, the Arab side is not good fodder for a video game. They got pwned. Their sole advantage was massive numeric superiority, but they had poorer training and weapons. Frankly, I don't see how this could be done and actually be fun.

Poor training and weapons? Playing as the underdog? Sound fun to me.

Think of it this way. Why do people play Halo on Legendary mode? Because of the challenge associated with that level, not due to the special powers up. Why should we play as a hero who has the greatest armor and weapons and all that junk? Why not play as a normal grunt with no special assistance, just cannon fooder?

But the reason I'm more interested in the Arabs is the storyline purpose of the game. The American media has expressed some pro-Israeli bias, so I'm interested in Arab-style bias here.

And, of course, the most important reason of all: You don't want the game to be accused of being pro-Israeli. Targeting the pro-Arab crowd can gather some more sales, and ensures that the Six-Day War game does not get too politicalized. But, /shrugs.

As for Peacemaker, I have downloaded that game. It's pretty interesting, altough pretty overpriced. It's actually about trying to end the Palestine-Israel conflict, but just wanted to stress that.

The real problem is, your side has to win some of the time to be interesting. The Arabs got crushed.

 

[CommanderCool]

ACK. WW2 SHOOTER NO WANT.
Cant we have it in the future or did Frontlines FOW take that away?

 

[Jumplion]

Targeting the Arab crowd with a game of the 6-Day war would be hard, and i could imagine it would leave alot of controversy somehow.

The dogfighting part, though, they could do something similar to that certain part of CoD4, of course with differences. You would obviously get hurt and could crash.

But like i said, it would be a fairly interesting game, and i could learn what my dad went through (though i don't know if he participated or not, probably some other battle)

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I think we've established that a game about the Six Day War, if done well, would sell well.

If you want a game that has some semblance of challenge, model the '73 war instead. In that one, there was (momentarily) some doubt of the outcome and therefor some room for drama. The Six Day War was on rails from the first missions of the war and from a gaming standpoint would be drier than the Sinai.

One underexplored venue for CoD-style play is the Korean War; rearguard down the peninsula, land at Inchon, drive to the Yalu, retreat past Chosin... plenty of dramatic moments there. It gets a bit more dubious after that, but still plenty of mission-fodder. The downside would be that there'd be a lot of WW2-era equipment, so some parts may not be different enough from previous CoD titles. Edited to add: Though playing a Chinese footsoldier would be a heckuva change... massed bayonet charges to bugle calls and artillery...

-- Steve