If you could, would you want The Call of duty Franchise to touch.

  • 77 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Giuseppe (129 posts) -

World war 1? I say yes. I liked Modern Warfare but playing in any of the World wars were always more fun to me.

#2 Posted by Illmatic (1358 posts) -

People have always complained about space marine games but aside from Halo we have yet to really see epic Wars set in space marine universes (or maybe my mental catalog of games is flat out terrible). It'd be cool to see IW's knack for those epic moments and set pieces set in a futuristic universe. Halo had its share of some huge battle scenes but for the most part you were hoofing it on your own.

#3 Posted by PercyChuggs (1087 posts) -

No. Modern day, or even near future, are much better settings than WW1. Shoot, I would rather have a Call of Duty in Vietnam than World War 1.

#4 Posted by ieatlions (708 posts) -

vietnam would be great if they took from the vietcong perspective

#5 Posted by ZombieHunterOG (3530 posts) -

me and my friends were just talking about this the other day and they need to make Call of duty : Vietnam

#6 Posted by pause422 (6239 posts) -

I would want them to create basically what was Modern Warfare, but add even more to it, and the whole rank up system to get gear/perks, every few months add new weapons/unlocks ranks entirely.....and kill off the series annual shit.

#7 Posted by Gunner612 (4338 posts) -

I want a Civil war game. If fable can get away with their setting why can't anyone else get away with it?

#8 Posted by chronicsmoke (999 posts) -

WW1? I dont know but I would love one set in vietnam

#9 Posted by AndrewGaspar (2419 posts) -

Revolutionary War!

After every shot, you have a thirty second reload. Awesome.

#10 Posted by TomA (2531 posts) -

They should change CoD completely,instead of run,shoot,shank, it's gotten old.And the reason they don't do WW! is because one team would get mowed down by machine gun fire,while the other team has to back up 40 feet every few minutes,and then the cycle starts anew.Also,it wouldn't be very fun if your rifle kept jamming now would it.Just imagine WW2 minus the moving part,and replace every gun with a bot action rifle or an MG and add a truck with armor on it and you got your game.

#11 Posted by Fosssil (627 posts) -
AndrewGaspar said:
"Revolutionary War!

After every shot, you have a thirty second reload. Awesome."
This. OK, maybe not the second part, but I just think it would be really cool to have a Revolutionary War shooter where you are part of a small militia/non-regular squad, a la The Patriot.
#12 Posted by granderojo (1792 posts) -

Vietnam war.

The war when all great tech advances started, Napalm, M16, AK47, etc.

That game would be killer.

#13 Posted by HoldSteady828 (165 posts) -

They should make one where you can't go under the levels' geometry and shoot up at people, for starters.

#14 Posted by jakob187 (21755 posts) -

The three most common consensussususus that we will ever see is people saying Vietnam, 2142-esque, or Civil War.

Here's why two of those three don't work worth shit.

Vietnam would basically be the same thing as a WWII game like World at War in terms of weapons used and such, but there would be very dense jungles.  Anyone remember Far Cry 2?  Good.  Now, to top it off, IW usually goes for a game where they can make a pretty strong narrative that clearly defines good and bad guys.  Vietnam is not something where they can do that.

The Civil War is an internal United States war, but moreover...it would all be single-shot weaponry and cannons.  CANNONS, people.  Do you REALLY want to haul those things around with you, because it's nigh impossible.  To top that off, most of the Civil War was fought on WIDE OPEN SPACES!!!  There's not a whole lot of crazy stuff that can be done with that like most other CoD games.  The only other places are forests, and that would just get repetitive.  Nonetheless, this one really just comes down to the weaponry being very limited.  The narrative would also be unpatriotic in many ways, which seems to be a turn-off for IW.

The only plausible one would be a 2142-esque setup where they go into advanced robotics and weaponry, but no energy weapons because that shit is for pussies.  2142 did this style of gameplay very well, but I'm just not too sure how well it would work for Call of Duty.

Unfortunately, it would seem to me that WWII and modern times are just the two best settings for IW to play around in.
#15 Posted by Coltonio7 (3156 posts) -

Jakob you know I'm not going to read that.

But I think really the next step should be playing as germans/middle easterns. Something from the other side!

#16 Posted by Black_Rose (7785 posts) -

Vietnam would be cool.

#17 Edited by HitNRun (344 posts) -

It's kinGiuseppe said:

"World war 1? I say yes. I liked Modern Warfare but playing in any of the World wars were always more fun to me."
It's kind of ironic because Call of Duty was such a terrible idea to begin with. It basically came after years of people BEGGING developers to stop making all their shooters WW2 games, and then along came Activision saying "Hey, check out our new World War 2....franchise to be."

It's a testament to Infinity Ward's skill that they've managed to make fun games even with the critics biased against their source material. As for the OP, sure, I wouldn't mind a stab at WWI...or Vietnam, or anything. Keep in mind that WWI is a bit boring. A lot of the armies had weapons a lot slower than a lot of players would expect.

Although it would be pretty interesting to play in the global conflict that actually had things like cavalry charges and saber/bayonet fights alongside rifles, gas, and automatic weapons. Ooo! And balloons!
#18 Posted by Optiow (1745 posts) -
Giuseppe said:
"World war 1? I say yes. I liked Modern Warfare but playing in any of the World wars were always more fun to me."
I would like that, it would be a good change.
#19 Posted by Giuseppe (129 posts) -
HitNRun said:
"It's kinGiuseppe said:
"World war 1? I say yes. I liked Modern Warfare but playing in any of the World wars were always more fun to me."
It's kind of ironic because Call of Duty was such a terrible idea to begin with. It basically came after years of people BEGGING developers to stop making all their shooters WW2 games, and then along came Activision saying "Hey, check out our new World War 2....franchise to be."

It's a testament to Infinity Ward's skill that they've managed to make fun games even with the critics biased against their source material. As for the OP, sure, I wouldn't mind a stab at WWI...or Vietnam, or anything. Keep in mind that WWI is a bit boring. A lot of the armies had weapons a lot slower than a lot of players would expect.

Although it would be pretty interesting to play in the global conflict that actually had things like cavalry charges and saber/bayonet fights alongside rifles, gas, and automatic weapons. Ooo! And balloons!"
Well, I read up on world war 1 sometimes and one of my favorite battles was the Austira-Hungary/Italy war. And I always wanted to see someone put that into a game.
#20 Edited by Lashe (1266 posts) -

I really believe anyone that says WWI clearly cannot have a clue how the hell that war was actually fought.

Trench warfare.. honestly?

#21 Posted by Daz0608 (384 posts) -

I'd prefer them to stay on MW

#22 Posted by Red (5994 posts) -

No, although, I don't get why there aren't at least a few World War 1 and Viet Nam games.

#23 Posted by Lashe (1266 posts) -

Because WWI wouldn't make interesting gameplay, and Vietnam... Well, we all remember MOH: Pacific Assault. And those who don't are the lucky ones =P

#24 Posted by NateDogg (465 posts) -

No.

Sick of World War themed games. This is why I refuse to buy World at War.  I refuse to help a company that insists on making World War themed games.  

Modern Warfare was original and *gasp* MODERN.  That is why I will buy the next Modern Warfare game.

Now if the question was Near future themed or even distant future, I would still be down with that.  NO MORE WORLD WAR GAMES!
#25 Posted by Lozz (311 posts) -

More Modern Warfare.

#26 Posted by Lashe (1266 posts) -
NateDogg said:
"No.
Sick of World War themed games. This is why I refuse to buy World at War.  I refuse to help a company that insists on making World War themed games.  

Modern Warfare was original and *gasp* MODERN.  That is why I will buy the next Modern Warfare game.

Now if the question was Near future themed or even distant future, I would still be down with that.  NO MORE WORLD WAR GAMES!
"
While Modern, I take issue with the idea of it being original.

Ubisoft have been making the Tom Clancy Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six games for years and so the idea is far from original.

COD4's a great game though.
#27 Posted by crunchUK (5963 posts) -

No.

it's time for CALL OF DUTY: ROMAN LEGIONARY

#28 Posted by SmugDarkLoser (4619 posts) -

How about screw cod?
It's WAW was exactly like 4.  3, 2, and 1 were copies of each other, which were copies of MOH.

Just do something different infiinity ward.

#29 Posted by ArchScabby (5809 posts) -
SmugDarkLoser said:
"How about screw cod?
It's WAW was exactly like 4.  3, 2, and 1 were copies of each other, which were copies of MOH.

Just do something different infiinity ward."
One difference though, MOH has always sucked, and COD never has.
#30 Posted by Log (186 posts) -

Ive always wanted IW to do something completely off the wall and make a game where the majority of the US Military has splintered off the US itself and assassinated a lot of Heads of State. The President is being held by the military for supposed treason and war crimes, and youre being recruited by both sides. Based on the choices you make it effects the final outcome of the game. Of course everything is not what it seems and neither choice is clearly right or wrong.

The thing I like most about this idea is that you can touch on serious and important issues like what patriotism really is and the effect gun control could have on this country. Thats just what I want to see though, cuz in the real world nothing is as clear and defined as the stuff in Modern Warfare was and that bothered me.

#31 Posted by Vitefish (445 posts) -

Every war game from now on has to have the Korean War in it. Period.

#32 Posted by IncredibleBulk92 (936 posts) -

Everybody should just drop any war that occured more than 40 years ago, WW2 DONE*, WW1 SHIT, Civil War? You've got to be joking.  The only possible games right now are modern, slightly futuristic or go bat shit crazy and take it forward 200 years to where we can have a dropship landing.  I think it's still possible to have a tense, well crafted game like CoD4 is.  Just make sure that energy weapons and plasma weapons and magical shoot through walls weapons are kept the hell out.  Killzone 2 has nailed the sort of weapons and technology I'm talking about but does the future really have to take place at midnight?

* Company of Heroes is the only possible exception to this.
#33 Posted by coakroach (2492 posts) -

Call of Duty: SPAAAARTAAAAA!!!

#34 Posted by splitscreen (16 posts) -
#35 Edited by MattyFTM (14431 posts) -

I'd like to see them try WWI. I know the majority of WWI was trench warfare, which wouldn't make for a very exciting game, but there must have been a few battles that would be suitable for a game.

Moderator Online
#36 Posted by Shadow2K6 (381 posts) -
ArchScabby said:
"SmugDarkLoser said:
"How about screw cod?
It's WAW was exactly like 4.  3, 2, and 1 were copies of each other, which were copies of MOH.

Just do something different infiinity ward."
One difference though, MOH has always sucked, and COD never has."

All console CoD before 360 CoD2 have sucked. 
#37 Posted by starfox444 (81 posts) -

Call Of Duty: Heaven VS Hell
Watch as you play an Angel armed with the holy obliterator mark 3 as the corrupted angels of hell march towards the gates of heaven.
You'd have wings and fly and own. Sounds fun to me.

And btw MOH is awesome on PSP ;D

#38 Posted by Karmum (11519 posts) -

I have a feeling people would complain about it being too much similar to the World War II adaptations.

#39 Posted by Snail (8659 posts) -

NAY!

MODERN WARFARE FTW!

#40 Posted by natetodamax (19219 posts) -
Gunner said:
"I want a Civil war game. If fable can get away with their setting why can't anyone else get away with it?"
They is a Civil War game. It sucks. No more.
#41 Posted by Discorsi (1390 posts) -

I craves me some Vietnam

#42 Posted by DuhQbnSiLo (2139 posts) -

i like modern warfare i don't know about yah but old school needs to stay old school

#43 Edited by CitizenKane (10508 posts) -

Due to the state of military tactics and technology during World War I, it would be hard to create a Call of Duty game set during that time period.

#44 Posted by Captain_Fookup (1519 posts) -

More Modern Warefare. As for bad Call of Duty games look on the box and you'll see Treyarch.

#45 Edited by Lieutenant (347 posts) -

I must be the only person on the planet that's not sick of WW games. Why? Because I don't play them. The only WW games I've ever played was CoD2 (which was a rental), some Medal of Honor game, and just recently WaW (rental)

If it's somewhat different from the other CoD games, I say I'd be for it. I'm tired of waving threw endless spawn of enemies and endless thrown grenades to get to a cutscene.

#46 Posted by macker33 (55 posts) -

WW1 would be cool,,just not yet another modern shooter.

#47 Edited by BoG (5192 posts) -
Lashe said:
"I really believe anyone that says WWI clearly cannot have a clue how the hell that war was actually fought.Trench warfare.. honestly?"
My thoughts exactly. How bland would that be? 
Some have mentioned the Civil War and American Revolutionary war, but I doubt those too. It's an unfortunate fact, but in our day an age a game is only as good as it's weapon variety. This doesn't exist prior to 1900. not to mention, few would find muzzle loading entertaining. It might be interesting, but everyone would hate it.

Here's one nobody has ever toched, or even talked about: The Korean War
#48 Posted by GiantRetard (127 posts) -

civil war or the american war for independence

#49 Posted by Lunarbunny (1025 posts) -

Soviet war in Afghanistan

#50 Posted by freezerr (218 posts) -

If you could, would you want The Call of duty Franchise to touch.

  My Wii.



But seriously, it's more about the execution and less about the time period. Any time period that Infinity Ward chooses is fine by me; I'm sure they would do an excellent job with the Civil War, World War I, the Vietnam War, or anything else.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.