A feeble attempt to gain some credibility. COD5 is a non starter as far as I'm concerned.

IronsUK

@karasu is my homeboy: I know you like Mexican food. Don't lie.

HenryHSH

I seriously hope Treyarch do well with this, they deserve it after all the stick they have received for a game that isn't even released yet with little information regarding it either.

Eon.

Regarding hate.

My girlfriend always protests when I say that I hate something. What she (and many others here) doesn't understand is that I do not really hate what I say that I hate. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I do not really love tacos, but I still say i love them, even though I dont't. Is this so hard to understand? ;)

Btw: I hate Trayarch.

Fisketryne

Personally, I cant wait for CoD:WaW.

I've been really itching for a Pacific theater WWII game lately. And I really liked the trailer, it certainly gave off a gritty vibe, so I'm looking forward to the game.
The fact that it's a WWII doesn't matter. Yeah, you can feed me that "Well the games have gone longer than the war itself!". But that's a crap point. We really don't get that many games, perhaps a couple a year if any. And, how many of those are even worth playing? Unless you've played every single WWII out there and completed them all, I think it's unfair to say a game will be crap just because it's set in WWII.

I don't even understand why Treyarch gets such a bad rep, either. Sure, they've underwhelmed lately, but they made Spider-Man 2 (and Die by the Sword! :D), and to be honest, their other CoD games weren't bad at all, I enjoyed them.
They can (and have) made amazing games.

Coquiton

@karasu is my homeboy: All my life I've had to associate hatred with despise. That's what I get for being in too many bad relationships.

HenryHSH

Or maybe a different setting? just sayin...

Gantz: Your Trusted Friend in Science.

@garytek: I understand. I agree that game prices are high and games should probably have different prices depending on quality, but that's not likely to happen.

Your job, as a responsible hard working adult is to know whether this is a product you want or not.

You can't hate Treyarch for doing their job. If you don't like their product then you don't need to support them.

I'm a graphic designer. I don't force people to be my clients. They choose me after looking at my portfolio. I might have 50 unique hits a day but get 4 emails a week. It shows that either not everybody liked my work, can't afford it or simply browsing. I don't have perfect designs, there are plenty of better designers out there but there are people that choose me because it's what they want.

What I'm saying is, Treyarch are just people doing their job. They're not as good as Infinity Ward, but they're still okay. The best part is, you don't have to buy it if you don't like it.

I don't see what's so bad about it? If it's good, then buy it. If not, avoid it.

These days, it's a little easier to pick a game. Go to youtube, watch user reviews, gameplay videos or maybe rent the game... You're not obliged to spend big money on the game.

So I'll ask again, why hate them? They're just trying to earn a living.

HenryHSH

Even if this game is not as good as CoD4 (and it won't be), Treyarch needs to learn from the few mistakes that were made with CoD4 and make the single player campaign less linear and scripted than the previous CoD games.

XbhaskarX

That reveal trailer left me so un-interested. As soon as I saw the Allied soldiers in that same 'ol drab uniform with the little penis tip-shaped helmet it didn't matter what that content was, it's just more of the same...Although climbing trees for a clear sniper shot looked pretty pimp.

Lazlo

@HenryHSH: Hate is not as strong a word as some people make it out to be.

Hate
dislike intensely; feel antipathy or aversion towards; "I hate Mexican food"

karasu is my homeboy

It may be hard for some to fathom, but Call of Duty 4 had 2 years worth of work put in. That's an eternity compared to 8 months, as far as game design goes.

That's more time for ideas to be added, more time to test them, debug them, and polish them.

When you're on a short deadline, you can't add features down the home stretch, it's just not in the cards.

LULCATS

I call BS.

the problem wasn't the "lack of polish" or time.

the problem was the complete lack of imagination.

they were just doing it by the numbers, pumping out another copy of the previous game, WWII, without any meaningful innovation.

and guess what? they're doing it again. only this time, they're taking a step backward instead of just treading water.

he really blew it by saying that since it sold good it must be quality. right there he blew it completely

crappy developers should be put out of business, great developers should be rewarded. otherwise, there'll be no incentive to make great innovative games.

so fuck treyarch

Pete193

Shouldn't their development time be shorter because their reusing the COD4 engine that Infinity Ward created? I mean, I'm not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to game development, but they've got the tools. All they really need to do is create the characters/environments/story/yada yada...

That shouldn't take 2 years.

unicronband

tbh, it'll have to be fucking amazing for me to even consider it. WW2 shooters got old years ago.

noliferuin (PSN)

@HenryHSH: He took the word right out of my mouth. Life is getting much harder. And in a time where a $60-per-unit hobby is hard to maintain, you'd think developers would work thrice as hard to make a game that's worth the exorbitant price tag. People shouldn't counter my argument by flaunting their preppy lifestyle like the rest of their rich, elitist brethren. That's why piracy exists people. That's the less-fortunate trying to get a slice of the pie not because they want to steal it but because greedy bastards don't want to share it.

garytek

Can we stop calling this game COD5? Official material doesn't number it, and I doubt it's a case of "ooops, we forgot".

When the "real" COD5 comes along, are we going to call it COD6 just because?

Antiterra

All the time in the world won't turn cheese into milk.

That's what I would say if I actually believed that. It sounds nice. Unfortunately, I'm with Treyarch on this one. Damnit, I just can't come up with a snappy, somewhat folksy, one-liner for that one.

Ghede (Follow me for no raisin)

@karasu is my homeboy: Hate them? Hatred's a strong word.

Also, you seem to misunderstand insult. What you said about Treyarch is insulting, not what they said to the "CoD fanbase".

Honestly, why does it bother people so much that Treyarch aren't as good as Infinity Ward? They still deliver an OK game, worth renting at least.

Besides, I wouldn't blame people's reaction if they were even slightly arrogant. They're a down to earth, honest team.

HenryHSH

If they are improving on the COD4 mechanics and bunch of new stuffs, with a compelling and deep story I cant see where they can go wrong.

Dayvie

sorry it could be a 4 year developement, doesn't change the fact that its WW2, and i cant bring myself to play a WW2 game, (yes modern warfare gets the same treatment too)

there are just so many other wars to explore to "think outside the box" with.

Dakobah

@Coldgunner:

Most games that are considered to be awful, unplayable etc were rushed and had less than a year in development.

I'm looking forward to Cod5 now. If treyarch could make cod3 in 8 months then they should be able to do a lot more with cod5.

CCCombobreaker

Vehicle multiplayer is NOT Call of Duty. Its Battlefield. Why the hell do they think they need to throw vehicles at every FPS under the sun these days?

CoD4 is great online because its simple yet deep perk system, great maps, great weapons, great netcode. Thats what we need!

King of Fun UK

@Coldgunner: And wasnt Vice City made in about 9 months too?

Arnold Rimmer's Garden Strimmer

i liked COD 3, dunno why a lot of people treat it so harshly. Sure it wasnt as good compared to Cod 2 or 4, but its still a good game and nice to fill the wait between infinity Wards games. With more time, im guessing they could make an even better game.

ciabb64

I bought COD3, and while it wasn't the greatest game on the planet, I think its bad reputation is overstated. The game was better than average but most people seem to think it was another 'Hour Of Victory'. If they really only had 8 months to turn that around then I think they did an exceptional job. It certainly makes me hopeful for COD5.

kevlar35

"It sold very well so a lot of people must have liked it..."
So did 50 Cent:Bulletproof. Sales do not equal quality.

It's not that COD:3 was a terrible game, it was just lackluster in comparison to the rest of the games in the series, especially the multi-player which seemed to not have been balanced for consoles properly.

aka Bitter

@gamedismantler: It wasn't bad, it lacked "wow."

If COD5 also lacks wow or doesn't compare to COD4, then they now have no excuse.

karasu is my homeboy

No Treyarch. You should have kept your mouth shut. You just gave an excuse for COD3's suckage that COD5 is exempt from. So now if COD5 sucks, you have no excuse and we will hate you more.

By the way, thanks for insulting the Call of Duty fanbase. "I'd say that one of the things that's hard for a player to understand is that Call of Duty 3 was about eight months end to end for development"...holy shit! I understand that! I must be one of few.

karasu is my homeboy

My expectations are a bit low. But admitingly COD3 wasn't a bad game. I'll be renting the game because i've always loved CoD. But honestly to me, even with the 4th amazing game in mind. I still prefer the first game.

gamedismantler

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, but still gonna wait and see what my fellow Kotakuites say when it comes out.

mphz

Well, I for one hope they succeed. I understand his argument about the limited production time on CoD3 but that game lacked a lot more than just polish. I mean those quicktime events (with sixaxis functionality for added vomiting on the PS3) were arghhh...

dionion

One of my favourite games ever, X-Wing Alliance, was made in just 9 months. I don't think having loads of time helps as much as they say.

on the other hand KOTORII was rushed, a great game but the the bugs were more ropier than a mast.

Coldgunner

heh, if they really can make something to rival 2 and 4 with the extra time I will be suprised. I'm waiting on COD6.

Rhaedaw

Oh, poor Treyarch. My favorite part of his comment was Call of Duty 3 is a very good game. It sold very well so a lot of people must have liked it. Really? I was under the impression that most people who bought Call of Duty 3 did so because Call of Duty 2 was fantastic. Isn't that the reason MOST people buy sequels?

And I think pointing this out in an interview is totally fair, but it's also utterly foolish. It's kind of like calling out your audience, which I've got to imagine isn't a smart business move. And even if I accept the whole time-constraints excuse, Treyarch, you've still got to answer for the flaming turd that was Spider-Man 3.

Come back, Infinity Ward!

wild homes and gardens

Must only be the haters posting these days. I happen to remember many late nights playing CoD3 online with full servers. People really did like it, including myself. I dug the mission variety, vehicle segments, and improved online over CoD2 (24 players vs. 8 players). I bet if half the folks here didn't pay attention to who developed it they wouldn't be whining. And anyone who doesn't think extra time makes a better game knows very little about game development.

Bring on World at War.

billnabors65

@mornelithe: I admire your resolve, and I'm not being sarcastic. I understand that you feel backstabbed by the company that you faithfully followed, but I don't think boycotting purchases is the answer.

You mentioned COD4's length, but honestly I don't think COD1 or 2 was all that long either. CoD4's online multiplayer is really where it truly shines, they redefined so many conventions in multiplayer gaming, one could even say it's the new Counterstrike.

Also keep in mind that no PC game sales = even less support for PC games in general, not just the COD franchise.

I know I probably can't change your mind if you just like WWII games too much to try a modern take on the series, but you really do owe it to yourself. Like you said yourself, there's not that many gaming gems out there.

Back on topic though, I'm jumping on the "no more WWII games please" bandwagon. I'm not sure what Treyarch is whining about really, I mean there's absolutely nothing wrong with gamers having high expectations, is there? If gamers lower their expectations, then we'll never see anything innovative or games that strive for excellence. It's called progress, Treyarch: making games better, faster, stronger. If COD3 wasn't as good as you wanted it to be, then just suck it up, learn from your mistakes and move on.

EloquentZen

@Sniper_Zegai:

Say what?
[uk.gamespot.com]

CoD1 IW interview:
GS: Any plans for new weapons or vehicles in multiplayer?

GC: No.

I can remember playing alot of CoD on the PC, I thought I was going mad...

King of Fun UK

I didn't like what I bought after I got COD3, but recently I went back and got addicted online again, and the veteran is extremely fun. I think it's story is way better than 4's.

RomieYO

@Hobb3z: You obviously didnt play 3 then. Since 3 had a tank stage in it.

Witzbold

@ HenryHSH & GameDismantler:

You're 2 of several who've indicated CoD4's greatness, however, I'm not interested in paying 50+ for a 6 hour game. Not to mention a game that lacks the gameplay value of a predecessor that's 5 years old. My brother, father, and many friends have played CoD4, and while they do agree it looks 'nice'. It lacks alot of what CoD1/UO had that made us fanatical about the franchise.

I, personally view this issue as ethical, for me. I feel that IW/Activision & Co. Used the PC community to garner fame, then abandoned them, for a piece of crap on the console. To reverse step, just because the next iteration is back on PC, doesn't truly portray how stabbed in the back we felt, after the CoD2 to CoD3 debacle. I bought CoD1, UO and CoD2 on launch, if not preordered. And this is how they repay us? No way.

Morne

mornelithe

How much time does it take to give the player an option of skipping the cutscenes?
Nobody plays these games for the elaborate stories & charming characters (which 3 lacked entirely).

Dr Terror

@King of Fun UK: Actually vehicles have been in CoD's multiplayer since the first one for the PC.

"It sold very well so a lot of people must have liked it..." yeah because if something sells alot it must be awesome. To me CoD3 felt like a bait and switch, I was expecting the qaulity of CoD2, I got something that let me down on almost every level.

Sniper_Zegai

@mornelithe: Wow you missed one of the best PC games in forever by skipping CoD4...

gamedismantler

I hate when video game execs make the specious remark of "it sold well, so people must have liked it". Well, no, actually, it's called brand name devotion. CoD2 was amazing. Then a new CoD comes out, it's made by different guys from the last CoD, but hey, I'm a big call of duty fan so I'll buy it! This was in the long long ago, before demos on XBL, so it's not like I could play it before I bought it. So, I didn't buy it because I liked CoD3, I bought it because I liked CoD2.

3inst3in

@mornelithe: I have the PC version of CoD4 and it's freaking awesome. Think CoD2 with modern weapons and intense multiplayer. Actually, it's a lot better than CoD2.

I think you're not treating yourself fairly by missing out on CoD4. Plus, you get the maps console gamers had to pay $10 for free.

HenryHSH

I liked CoD3. And I like CoD2 and 4

But CoD1 will always be the best IMO.

Doshi

They shot themselves in the foot over the CoD franchise IMO.

CoD 1 - Game of the Year
CoD: UO - Made a GOTY even better
CoD 2 - The beginnings of another GOTY
CoD2:UO - ???? What, what happened to all the PC dev support? Oh yeah, it went into a piece of trype called CoD3 (Console exclusive).
CoD4 - Couldn't tell you, never buying another CoD game again.

What they did to the PC fanbase that MADE this franchise at the end of CoD2, is a disgrace to the gaming community. No punkbuster, no dev tools, not a damn thing until a few folks from FPSAdmin, and another fellow that I can't recall organized a worldwide shutdown of the CoD1/2 servers for a 24 our period (CoD Community Call to Action). They were successful in closing down 75% of the worlds servers. And only then, did they come out with punkbuster and dev tools.

Utter disgrace, make whatever new games you want IW, Activision, or Treyarch. You lost my money at CoD2.

Morne

mornelithe

@karasu is my homeboy: You make it sound like they can't just come up with a different excuse. I'm not saying they'll need to, but excuses are something which are never in short supply. Good excuses, on the other hand...

@garytek: That just makes them work thrice as hard to make a game they think people will buy. Quality is one way to do it; creating 2-million polygon models and rendering engines capable of creating 30,000 shades of brown is another. Guess which is easier!

Anyway, I don't know whose brilliant idea it was to put an 8 month dev cycle on a CoD game in the first place, but a decent cycle could at least give them a chance. After going back to WW2 though, they sure have started off on the wrong foot though. CoD was one of the few WW2 games good enough that I could overlook that it was a WW2 game. I was happy for it come CoD4 though, yet Treyarch seems to think there's still something in WW2 worth doing.

Tiber

What I am annoyed about is how they add in vehicles. WHY?! I understand this isn't infinity ward but atleast try and keep the same style of game.

Hobb3z

I bet Mister QTE shows up again, and lots of Scripted Events that look impressive even if they aren't. Like the flamethrower guy catching on fire or the guy who's dying while on fire. I'm expecting Scripted events and its gunna be horrible.

And bad games can sell while good ones languish. Just look at CoD3 vs. Psychonauts.

Salen

As others have said, no matter how much polish you put on a sub-par game, it will still end up being mediocre. You can polish a turd as much as you'd like, but it will still be a turd.

SpitfireM1

Treyarch's games have a tendency to look nice and have good presentation values....but nothing else. The gameplay in their titles always leaves a lot to be desired. I'll be skipping CoD5.

Zanch

@ EloquentZen - Thanks for understanding dude, and I hear your stance on that and it does make sense. You're right, part of my disinterest with CoD4 is it's Modern setting...however, that alone would not have made me not buy it, I've no problem with a Modern or Futuristic setting, I just despise games companies who think they can pull this kind of crap and get away with it. Everyone else went nuts over CoD4, but I'm standing firm on this one. I've got MGS4 for my Modern fix. I'm not missing out entirely on the Modern Warfare setting. But, I will not contribute money to a company that could just as easily abandon it's user base for yet another medium in the future.

Morne

mornelithe

The film industry deals with this all the time (i.e. Fox's handling of X3: The Last Stand.

As the industry here becomes more increasingly corporate and publisher driven I'll expect to see more things rushed unfortunately. At least it'll spur indie developers or smaller studios to make things like the indie film circuit.

TC

Wait, they made a game in 8 months? That's pretty amazing considering the vast majority of titles are on a 2 year or more cycle. Thanks for giving me some hope, Treyarch.

Siegeman

I'll admit multiplayer wise CoD3 was actually pretty good. It was fun, and toying around with the different classes was interesting. I actually hope that treyarch have made this one good.

okrangerbob

First off, it's not COD5, it's COD: World at War, there is no 5 in the name, making it a spin off with the like's of Finest Hour and Roads to Victory.

And i don't know why people are hating on 3, it was a solid game, plus they gave us the chance to play as the Canadian's and the Polish for once, breaking the USSR-UK-USA Motif.

By what i have heard, it sound's pretty damn good......
-Flamethrowers!!!!!!!!!
-2 player Off/4 Player Online Co-Op
-Vehicles in Multiplayer
And MORE!!!!!!!!!!

NX01

I can definitely understand the business implications of a tight schedule, but now they have twice as much time they had with CoD3 and are presumably working off of the CoD4 engine; let's see what they can do.

ChiChi_BBQ

BAAAWWWWW

It sounds like they're just making up excuses to show why their games suck in comparison to Infinity Ward's.

>Call of Duty 3 is a very good game. It sold very well so a lot of people must have liked it

Is this why Circuit City was giving it away for FREE with purchase of COD4?

Altima NEO

@karasu is my homeboy: Dang man, you must have a lot of stress in your life. Noah is 100% right on the issue. Bottomline: Consumers know JACK about development. Just because you've been to a couple focus tests and you saw a dev kit, doesn't make you an expert. I'm looking forward to Call of Duty World at War. And honestly, I think you are too, just too scared to retract your hate comments because you will look like an ass.

Shabat0ge

What I don't understand is why everyone seems to think CoD 2 was so incredibly awesome. The original CoD was light years better than 2 in almost every way, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. It was completely consolized when it came to gameplay, and the campaign was boring and repetitive. Admittedly, CoD 4 is an excellent game, but CoD 2 is no where near as good as 4 or the original.

PiotrSkut

funny actually, i thought COD3 was good online...except two things,the Gewehr 43 for the Germans(while they still had the Gerand M1 for the Americans)was missing,which meant that the weapons were a bit unbalanced..which also meant you had a lot of people choosing the American side if possible

and also Poisson map,while it could of been a decent map,it just became a spawn killing map because one team spawns in aplace where its hard to get out of...still dont know why that map is pretty much the only map i can find playing when i go online

oh,and one more thing wrong...only American and German teams.....other countries were there you know!!

all of the above is regards to online only

other than that,i thought they did a pretty great job

oh,there was also some problems getting into ranked matches as well

i am still very much looking forward to this game

but that trailer we saw the other day,didnt look like the cod4 game engine to me

metallicorphan

Your an idiot if you already say you dislike this game and wont buy it because its set in WW2. GAMEPLAY MATTERS, NOT THE DAMN SETTTING OF GAME! You people need to jump of the damn bandwagon and make a judgement with hands on time! It has potential.

Xcite79

@Witzbold: Yeah, I did.

That was my point exactly. CoD 3 was also made by Tryarch (however you spell it), and it had vehicles also, yet, no Cod game made by infinity ward has vehicles.

WHY DOES TRYARCH FEEL THE NEED TO ADD VEHICLES!?

Hobb3z

Also guys you need to remember that Cod 3 was made in EIGHT MONTHS. That's two months more than most Atari 2600 games had for development time and even then that was an impossible deadline. thats why ET sucked so much.

CCCombobreaker

@karasu is my homeboy:

The definition really doesn't matter. It's how people perceive the word, its how people feel about the word and everything they associate with it.

CCCombobreaker

I feel sorry for the guys working on COD5. No matter what they do, no matter how awesome or epic they make the game, it'll never EVER surpass (in overall view) COD4 in critic reviews or player acceptance.

goldwings

"It sold very well so a lot of people must have liked it..."
Oh how I love the logic here. One fatal flaw, they were piggybacking on the success of CoD2 still, I'll admit.. I bought the game because I liked CoD2 so much, I got this game and it didn't feel right and *I did not like it*, it still sits unn finished on my rack of games, and I have no intention of picking it back up.

"What these games have in common is enough time to polish and iterate on it" ... and better developers.

I'm willing to give CoD5 a shot after all of this however, but its only getting a gamefly. If I rent it and it just blows me away, I'll buy it. But this time they say they had a full 2 years to make the game, if it lives up to past standards they can not expect another purchase from me at least.

Khabi

@Altima NEO: No they were giving you the backstory for COD4.

<<

>>

<<

JustJake

AKA Treyarch fucked up on COD3 so don't automaticaly shit on them about COD5.

COD3 wasn't that bad. It was just not as good as COD2 was. Treyarch is capable of making a good game it is just that most people don't even want to give them a chance after IW made COD 4.

I for one am going to rent this game because I am interested and also am a cheap bastard.

JustJake

@Pete193: haha, you're hilarious. I already posted earlier stating that consumers don't know jack about development. Point proven in your post. It's your opinion on the matter, as is mine, in which you have noclue what you're talking about. Keep playing WOW in your moms basement cuz frankly your negative energy is not needed.

Shabat0ge

Such passion on this thread! I am going to rent ALL the COD games and play for a month solid with man diapers and IVs.

My final detailed report will be unintelligible due to being turned into a virtual Col. Kurtz. But it was all because of YOU dear Kotaku posters that drove me there!

rudolphdude

Why in the hell do you guys keep calling it CoD5? There is no 5 in the title. You gonna start calling Civilization Revoluition as Civilization V as well?

When the real CoD5 game is announced you'll just confuse people.

NoBullet

oops tl;dr that some other ppl already posted wut i said. my bad

maraxusofk

"it sold very well so a lot of people must have liked it."

i think this statement is blatantly false. people probably bought cod3 because it came after cod2, which was actually good. pretty sure the sales of cod3 were more of a testament to how good cod2 was than the actual merits of cod3. they would not have sold nearly as much if it wasnt called cod3.

maraxusofk

@Hobb3z: Two words: Activision wants

Sainted

@mornelithe:

> CoD: UO - Made a GOTY even better

The team at Treyarch making the COD games is much the same one (former Grey Matter) that made United Offensive, FYI.

Zann

@Coldgunner: "One of my favourite games ever, X-Wing Alliance, was made in just 9 months. I don't think having loads of time helps as much as they say."

You're writing about a game that was made almost a decade ago. Noah Heller is certainly right on one thing, apparently there are people that cannot comprehend the amount of time and resource needed to make a game these days. *shakes head in disbelief*

Replica23

@Pete193: Petey, you are the simpleton the developer was referring to when he said that players couldn't understand the development process. You say that it wasn't a case of a lack of time, that it was a lack of imagination and Treyarch doing it "by the numbers". Did it ever occur to you that the reason they were forced to do that is because they didn't have the time to do otherwise? If you only have 9 months to work on something, you HAVE to play it safe! Get a clue!

HenryJonesJr

Actually, I think Treyarch has a point. Just look at what happened to the Need for Speed and Tony Hawk games because of their strict one year cycles.

shak_0

@HenryJonesJr:

and you are the sort of moron that will be fooled with statements like:

"COD3 sold very well so a lot of people must have liked it"

if treyarch didn't feel that there was enough time for them to give gamers value for their money, they shouldn't have ripped gamers off by rushing it.

and they shouldn't defend their fleecing of customers by saying "haha! you still bought it, suckers, so it must be good enough"

and i still think they are a paint-by-the-numbers unimaginative piece of shit outfit that makes subpar games. you can disagree if you want.

in this age there are so many great games, like COD4 and GTAIV, no need to waste time and money on crappy games. devs like treyarch need to go out of business.

Pete193

So0o... we fix call of duty by proving that you can take a WWII franchise and make it work great in a modern setting (not that I disliked the previous CoDs, but it gets old). And, now after the modern setting sells amazingly and is a great game, you step backward and go to WWII again, this better be good, cuz I wanted a near-future setting with things that you could see happening in 20 years, but are futuristic today, like more futury than a HUD, but less futury than a jetpack.

mferrari

@NoBullet: Because we refuse to believe in the Resident Evil & Grand Theft Auto practice of numbering? I say CoD5 just because its simpler than saying Call of Duty: World at War(craft). This is also the same reason I refuse to call CliffyB by anything other than CliffyB.

Salen

Dammit! I want a Nazi campaign! That would be some cool story. I know, weird, but ... cool.

The Magnificen7

@Pete193:

What's that..your fingers hurt....Oh, well, now your back's gonna hurt, 'cause you just pulled landscaping duty. Anybody else's fingers hurt?... I didn't think so.

seriously though, all i heard from you so far petey, is "wah...wah...and some more wah". wahhhmbulance. don't like a game, then don't buy it. straight up

Shabat0ge