Call of Duty 4 Announced

The fourth title in the extremely well received Call of Duty series has been announced. Infinity Ward is now working on Call of Duty 4: Modern Combat . The title will end the series' reliance on the theatre of World War II, and will place gamers into a current-day setting fighting terrorists in the Middle East. While the chance to get away from WWII will be appreciated by game-players, not everyone is happy about that hackneyed title. "What followed [Medal of Honor] were such games as Day of Defeat (Activision, 2003) and Men of Valor (Vivendi, 2004.) Ubisoft briefly bucked the trend, boldly replacing the near-mandatory 'of' with 'in' for its 2005 release 'Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30,' but soon fell right in line with the rest of its industry brethren with the 2006 real-time strategy game Faces of War. Ditto for THQ's 2006 RTS game Company of Heroes. Later this year, retail shelves will be graced with THQ's Frontlines: Fuel of War and Midway's Hour of Victory. (That's why for the last couple of years, we and a number of our peers have jokingly created our own World War II game titles, Mad Libs-style, like Call of Honor, Men of Duty, Company of Brothers, etc.)"

Comments

No More World War II

[AbsoluteXyro]

When I first heard they were bucking World War II with Call of Duty 4, I assumed that meant the new setting was Hoth.

Glad to see I was wrong!

Re:No More World War II

[PrescriptionWarning]

if they'd have done both Hoth and the Ewok moon planet thingy, moon of endor or something, that would have been ok though :P

I see a Jack Thompson case in the making

[RendonWI]

With all the anti-war sediment in the US right now, I wonder if good ol' Jack is going to jump on this one too. He could sue saying this game leads to the youth wanting to join up and fight the terrorists, and then they get killed. But maybe not as he has left America's army alone so far...

Re:I see a Jack Thompson case in the making

[AbsoluteXyro]

With all the anti-war sediment in the US right now...

The Bush Administration is having a hard time damming up that anti-war river, huh? :P

Re:I see a Jack Thompson case in the making

[WorldDominationOrBus]

But only after they walloped your backsides in the great US-Australian War :D

Re:I see a Jack Thompson case in the making

[cttforsale]

your a grate worder. Not a looser.

of?

[TinBromide]

Is this an article about a new game or how companies name their titles? I can't tell from the summary, but i think that the article might be about how to name a ww2 title.

Cod1 was amazing, cod2 was ok, didn't get cod3, and i'm probably going to leave cod4 on the shelves.

Re:of?

[fimbulvetr]

COD2 was great IMNSHO, COD3 was a steaming pile of shit riddled with bugs (and still is, with no support from Treyarch). I hope COD4 isn't some Battlefield clone, but we need to start moving out of WWII some time.

Re:of?

[WuphonsReach]

CoD2 was very pretty... but ultimately a steaming pile for multi-player compared to what CoD:UO was capable of. There were way too many compromises made for sake of making it work on the console which killed gameplay features that were present in previous versions.

CoD3 - not interested
Cod4 - not interested

MC vs MW?

[irby0]

Shouldn't the summary say "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" and not "Modern Combat?" Battlefield 2 is "Modern Combat" and TFA says "Modern Warfare."

PC ports?

[antdude]

Will there be a PC/Windows port for CoD4? How come CoD3 didn't have one? I loved the first two CoD games. :(

Re:PC ports?

[Silver_Seagull]

Probably because IW botched CoD2 on the PC and really ticked off a lot of the community with slow/non-existent patches and many still-broken hold-vers from CoD1/UO (I still spawn on grenades or into the line of fire of an enemy all the time, not to mention perpetual spawns in the same location, resulting in the "fish-in-a-barrel" situations)

IMO, they're took the easy way out with CoD3 and just ditched the community that expected the most from them in favor of one that historically has had less interaction with the game itself and the developers. No mods on a console title means not having to code anything for the team, not to mention no anti-cheat functionality or serious work on universal patches.

Re:PC ports?

[antdude]

That sucks. :( I haven't owned a gaming console since Atari 2600. I prefer computer games due to mod support and stuff.

Re:PC ports?

[dr_wheel]

Yea, they ticked the community off so much that CoD2 is still consistently in the Top 5 multiplayer games played online according to statistics gathered from Gamespy and Xfire. Furthermore, IW didn't even develop CoD3! It was developed by Treyarch and Pi Studios which freed IW up to work on the next major game in the series.

Now, IW did abandon their PC gaming fanbase with the outsourcing of CoD3. Here's to hoping that they can make it up to us with the upcoming title.

Re:PC ports?

[sjwaste]

Actually, what I understand is that the odd numbered titles will be console, even number will be PC. COD4 will probably be a PC release, and ported eventually to consoles if there is demand.

Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[Fallingcow]

Sounds boring.

Politics aside, it'd be one hell of a lot more fun to play as an insurgent.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[endianx]

Politics aside, it'd be one hell of a lot more fun to play as an insurgent. Really? Your mission: "Find crowded place. Push this button." Sounds riveting.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[Fallingcow]

Insurgent, not terrorist. Not necessarily the same thing, though it can be.

Like that one game where the Russians invade the US and resistance cells fight back, but with more realism. That'd be fun.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[SixFactor]

WOLVERINES!

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[elrous0]

Terrorists and insurgents are different. Someone who attacks legitimate military targets is NOT a terrorist.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[Fallingcow]

Yeah, basically that, but it was a game, set in New York.

I can't remember the title.

Anyway, underdog rebel or super-spy badass are just about the only fun roles for military-based FPS games set in modern times, IMO, at least in a single-player campaign.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[kansas1051]

Ever play Operation Flashback? Among other features, it had a campaign where you played as an insurgent against Russian occupying forces. It was a great game for its time.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[PresidentEnder]

Freedom Fighters.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[gerbalblaste]

Personally i would like to see some hypothetical scenarios in video games, maybe ww2 game where the germans invade england and then the united states. Or fight as an aussie as the japanese conquer the continent.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[Fallingcow]

That's the one.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[antek9]

Legitimate military targets? Like, in Iran? North Korea? Haven't heard that much of those 'insurgents' you're talking about there, pity them.

Sarcasm aside, I do know that there are more than enough terrorist states around the world where armed resistance against the local army is by all means ethical. There's examples in Latin and South America, throughout Africa, in South East Asia, in several former Soviet states, in the Middle East, and then there is Turkey... Spare your flames, I'm hot enough already. ;)

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[Grave]

How do you define a legitimate military target? How do you differentiate between an insurgent and a terrorist? If you attack a purely civilian target to achieve military ends (i.e. continued bombing of innocent civilians to convince a foreign power to cease the occupation of a country), does that not make the civilians a military target? Since insurgents are often used as a means of achieving a political end, does this not make anything a potentially legitimate military target? What defines an insurgency -- a group of people trained to use lethal force? someone sanctioned by a political body to use that force? al Qaeda is both of those, as is Hezbolah, yet most of the rest of the world considers them terrorist group.s

Was the attack on the Pentagon not an attack on a legitimate military target? Was it not also a terrorist attack?

If you can honestly answer these questions fully without contradicting yourself, then I shall cede that terrorists and insurgents are different.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[MBraynard]

You actually can play as an insurgent in BF2's expansion.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[Emperor Zombie]

ww2 game where the germans invade england and then the united states Actually, that game is being made: Turning Point: Fall of Liberty

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[Jac_no_k]

You're thinking of Freedom Fighter.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[ensignyu]

Insurgency Mod for HL2 is under development. Play as either the US, or insurgent forces in Iraq and Somalia.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[Das Modell]

I don't think it's doable. There are no "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan, they're terrorists.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[Das Modell]

How do you define a legitimate military target? How do you differentiate between an insurgent and a terrorist? If you attack a purely civilian target to achieve military ends (i.e. continued bombing of innocent civilians to convince a foreign power to cease the occupation of a country), does that not make the civilians a military target?

Well, I suppose you can adopt the attitude that the "insurgents" in Iraq are trying to convince the Coalition to pull out by slaughtering as many civilians as humanly possible.

What defines an insurgency -- a group of people trained to use lethal force? someone sanctioned by a political body to use that force?

In Iraq I would use the term to describe people who want to free Iraq (as a nation) by attacking Coalition forces because they consider them to be invaders and not liberators. However, I doubt there's anyone in there that fits that description. They're mostly conducting Jihad againts the Great Satan. And then there's the Sunni-Shia war and whatnot.

al Qaeda is both of those, as is Hezbolah, yet most of the rest of the world considers them terrorist groups.

That's because they are.

Was the attack on the Pentagon not an attack on a legitimate military target? Was it not also a terrorist attack?

It was Jihad, and therefore terrorism. Doesn't matter what the target was.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[otacon]

Jihad != Terrorism, it is basically a Holy war or struggle

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[elrous0]

A "legitimate military target" is a soldier, government official, or recognized military asset of an enemy. If the *primary aim* of an attack is to damage, incapacitate, or kill a legitimate military target, it is not a terrorist attack (irrespective of the number of civilians killed as collateral damage).

If you have a better definition, I'd like to hear it. Most other definitions are either too broad or too narrow. Either they include the bombings of Japan and Dresden as terrorist acts, or they exclude the World Trade Center bombings.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks.

[Das Modell]

In theory, and only according to some people.

uh...

[cosmocain]

...what a prominent and outstanding plot. middle east, terrorists, WOW...never heard THAT one before. if it has oil in it, i will surely faint in surprise!

Re:uh...

[SixFactor]

Indeed:

Desert Combat, IMO the best mod of the venerable BF1942

BF2 (dint like the chopper controls, so dint buy it)

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter

CounterStrike:Source

Would be nice to see an FPS that goes beyond the ubiquitous shoot-'em-ups of zombies, aliens, and assorted brown folk. Something underwater, maybe (that would make for interesting physics), or maybe in near-earth orbit, where one has an outside chance burning up due to an incorrect and excessive application of delta-V from their combat EVA-suit thrusters.

Re:uh...

[Fallingcow]

I've long thought that we need an FPS set entirely (or at least mostly) in some place underwater.

That level in the sea base in Deus Ex was one of the best. Isolation like that is wonderful for atmosphere and motivation--like System Shock, but under water. That level felt like part of a whole different game (in a good way, mind you) because the mood was so survival-horror. Scripted (or not?) flooding of various parts of the facility or ship would make for some awesome, tense scenes; if submarine movies have taught us anything, it's that the threat of drowning under 2,000 feet of water is great for building tension!

I know that you meant set in the water, as in swimming/diving, but it reminded me of this.

Re:uh...

[hidannik]

You mean Bio-Shock.

Mad scientist creates underwater city with dysfunctional mutant ecosystem.

Re:uh...

[SixFactor]

I think we can even conceptualize further for a multi-player mode:

Opposing underwater bases with underwater infantry and vehicles. Mission: locate and destroy the enemy bases. The "locate" part would require that the players would have to search, and take care not to lead enemy troops back to their base, or that active sonar (or other gear) would only be used in dire situations. Maybe even make the bases mobile but very slow. This would make it a bit different than the BF2142 Titan game.

The "destroy" part would involve torpedoes, man-fired projectiles (think speargun, only on auto), and for the "leet," a diving knife! :-D At the serious depths you're postulating, the issue would not just be flooding, but getting instantly crushed. So a JIM suit would be needed for the troops.

There could even be surface support ships that would need to be careful to give away their base's position, and maybe even drop ships to provide additional troops.

Yeah, I can get carried away with this...

Re:uh...

[The Benefactor]

There was a level like that in No One Lives Forever 2 if I remember rightly, you had to get through flooded parts and were against a timer too.

Re:uh...

[patternjuggler]

I really hate the underwater scenes in movies or levels in video games. Everything moves so slow, the sound is muted, and you can't see very far into the distance (which is great for crappy graphics engines).

Yay!

[Jaysyn]

Another uninspired 1st person shooter. Extra points for being a sequel.

Grab yer 28.8, private! We got a carrier to board!

[HTH NE1]

You never want to engage in modem warfare with NO CARRIER.

*sigh*

[scuba_steve_1]

I for one love COD2 (COD3 is console-only). It's a nice FPS title with simple movement controls...run, jump, lay prone, etc...and fairly simple weapon controls...aim, shoot, switch weapons, throw grenade, etc. In general, the set of key combinations that one must memorize is fairly simple.

In contrast, modern day combat titles like BF2 and BF2142 tend to have hundreds of key combinations...so you can, for example, parachute, land, pull out your knife, roll, jump into a chopper, fly the chopper, launch hellfire missiles, open your MRE, eat a cookie, cast magic missile, blah, blah, blah.

Some of us like an old school multiplayer FPS titles with simplistic controls and a world that resets every 15 to 20 minutes...rather than a BF2-like (or WoW-like) quest to amass an array of items (and/or ranks) that give you a disproportionate advantage after spending the better half of your life indoors staring at an LCD...and pounding a custom keyboard with printed overlays.

Oh well, my player's group will keep our COD2 servers running the same way that we keep our COD UO servers running...but sooner or later the guests stop coming and we have to retire the older games and move forward...as we have had to retire our Spearhead and MoH servers. *sigh*

Re:*sigh*

[Sporkinum]

I think one of the major reasons that old online games die, is that they get hacked and no one is maintaining code against the hacks. Unfortunately, that is happening right now with Battlefield 2. I would guess that fairly soon, you won't be able to connect to a server without at least half the people cheating on it.

Red Orchestra

[Nimey]

One good exception to the Foo of Bar naming rule (and a damn good game besides) is Tripwire Interactive's Red Orchestra:Ostfront 41-45.

It's a WWII FPS set on the Eastern Front, using the Unreal Engine 2.5. What makes it different is that it tries to be realistic, within reason. No crosshairs, you have to use your gunsights, and it simulates projectile physics, so no insta-hit weapons like /some/ shooters and you have to account for wind and bullet drop. It also does combined arms (infantry and armor, and soon an anti-tank gun), and VoIP chat is integrated so you can coordinate with your squad online. There's no offline campaign as such, but you can practice with bots just like in Unreal Tournament 2004. The bots are reasonably intelligent, but FFS don't let them drive your tank.

There's also a thriving mod community. Some make maps (10 community maps will be included in the next official update) and some make full mods with new weapons, maps, and sides, like Carpathian Crosses, which includes the Romanians and their equipment.

The game goes for IIRC $20 on Steam.

damn it

[indy_Muad'Dib]

i want Call of Duty: Pacific Theatre i want to fight on midway, i want to bomb hiroshima.

Re:damn it

[indy_Muad'Dib]

thought it was your turn this time.

Call of Duty 5

[metamatic]

I'm waiting for "Call of Duty 5: Republican Chickenhawk".

Day of Defeat's first release was 2001

[Pvt_Waldo]

Day of Defeat came out in 2001 as a free mod, pretty much making it the first and not a copycat.

Re:Day of Defeat's first release was 2001

[sheetsda]

And work started on it in late 99, early 2000. The whole idea behind it when it was started was pretty much that no one had done a big WW2 multiplayer FPS up to that point.

MOD Parent UP!

[Wizworm]

That Summary was a total TROLL

Original Name?

[Private.Tucker]

Isn't Battlefield 2 a :Modern Combat titled game too?

WW2 FPS

[Shadukar]

WW2 first person shooters always make me wonder about something:

The perspective on "great war" (lower case) by common people.

See, my grandparents lived in Poland during WW2 and fought as part of polish resistance. Their perspective of what happened differs vastly from anyone else i have talked to about this. Their recollections, when they were inclined to talk about their experiences were always very guarded, they rarely spoke about what their did, but the impression i always had was one of horror and dread.

Don't get me wrong, they did not sit at home waiting for it all to blow over. They fought, they were members of the resistance. They did what we today see as entertainment. My grandfather once remarked that if you wore two coats of fur you could run in front of "pepesza" (russian el-cheapo submachine gun) and you'd "probably be alright".

When they did speak about their war, they are always saddened, their eyes become downcast. I sometimes get this really strange feeling of regret or embarrassment, of revulsion at the thought that they killed nazi soldiers. It is a little hard to understand perhaps, i mean, that is what war is, nazi soldiers during the occupation of some European countries were absolute animals in so many cases, killing them, in self defense and in defense of your own country, should not create such feelings ...but it seems it does. A regret and revulsion at the acts of war. Once again, please note that this is not the same as the Vietnam war where many of the soldiers in many cases realize how manipulated they were by the usa government, how wrong that war was, how they were the brutal, unjust, invaders who committed horrible attrocities against native population that neither wanted them nor needed them. We are talking about people who fought for their country IN their country, for their lives and for the lives of their families.

Fast forward over 60 years into the future.

"We have no great war", to quote tylor durden. We play computer games where we think nothing of gunning down people in these games. We re-play the D-DAY landing in nearly every signle ww2 shooter! The operation "market garden" is probably the 2nd most popular and GLORIOUS mission in many shooters. Myself, a person from Poland, love playing the d-day maps from German side and sniping/operating artillery then towards the end of the map fighting at close range in the trenches, etc.

We see WW2 as an event to which we have to pay lip service, yes, it was bad, we say without any real understanding really how bad it was. We enjoy these games and think of them as fun adventures. We watch reports of death tolls in Durfur or Iraq or Afghanistan or many other places of conflict and furrow our brow thinking "hey, 95 thats 5 less than yesterday ... thats a big number ...i wonder whats for dinner ....mmm ham". It is just figures on the TV.

We start to take "great war" lighter and lighter. "godwin's law" is a common joke, playing as nazis in ww2 shooters is a feature that is pretty much essential from most game titles. Nazi apologizer's and holocaust deniers (seriously wtf), nazi/jew jokes aplenty, etc.

Where is this going ?

Think on this: after WW2, for many many years the sentiment among the people of the world was "never again". As time goes by, we forget the atrocities and horror of a world war. We start to see it more and more often as an adventure, a game almost. This scares me sometimes (no i am not some crusty old fart, i am only 28) because of what it implies for the future. Next time our great leader starts to beat the drums of war, instead of standing up united and saying "oh no you le didnt!" we'll have enough people claiming "wait, did he say we can win fabulous prizes?!" so that these people who are against war will be easily dismissed. Then before you know it we'll be enjoying another great war that will be over by spring ..for sure...this time.

Anyways, back my beloved "murder simulators" :)

PS, original wolf3d = best ww2 shooter ever ... pressing and holding T A B gave a funny message about another id title Commander Keen if i remember correctly.

Re:WW2 FPS

[Duree]

I can see your point and to a certain level, I agree. One thing I would say is that, for me at least, playing these games has given me a greater respect for those that actually fought in the war. The realism in some of these really brought home to me a glimmer of what it must have been like. Storming Omaha beach was brutal and I was quite aware that there was no trying again for those that actually did it. When I finally got to the beach, I had to stop playing for a while because the reality of it hit me hard. How many times did I "die" trying to get to the beach. How many people really died doing just that. It was brutal and crushing. My chest felt heavy and it was almost too much. They didn't have the option to hit pause and regroup. I guess my point is that some good can come from these games. One other thing I want to say: I have great respect for your grandparents. We kill when necessary to defend our families, our country, but we should never forget that no matter who the "enemy" is, they are people, and killing them cannot be undone. It pains me to see the numbers of Allied deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, but how often do we see the numbers of Iraqi and Afghani deaths. Why do we seem not to care about those deaths? There is something very wrong with that. A life is a life, no matter the ideology or politics, etc. I hope those that read your post take to heart and understand what a great thing it is that your grandparents really seem to cherish life, all life. They are truly an inspiration. Thank you for sharing that.

Tasteless

[AaronLawrence]

Does anyone else find it extremely tasteless that we entertain ourselves with games about war in the Middle East, at the same time as real people are actually being killed and injured in real fighting there?

If I were an Iraqi, I would probably think: what a bunch of smug, thoughtless bastards.

Re:Tasteless

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been to Iraq and it doesn't bother me. Maybe I'm different, I don't know, but it's just a game. All video games are games, just some digital images to pass the time, nothing to be upset about.

Re:Tasteless

[patternjuggler]

Does anyone else find it extremely tasteless that we entertain ourselves with games about war in the Middle East, at the same time as real people are actually being killed and injured in real fighting there?

I guess there might be. People call GTA tasteless, and there are actual murderous carjackers in real life. If some elected politician or someone else in a position where taste matters were promoting a violent video game, I might think less of that person, but I don't have the same expectations for video game developers and the average players.

If I were an Iraqi, I would probably think: what a bunch of smug, thoughtless bastards.

It probably is pretty far down on their list of things to be mad about.

Re:CoD4? After CoD2 Debacle, Many Will Say NO!

[tsamptrail]

I am with you on this one. IW will never get another penny of mine.

This has been known for a while

[thegamebiz]

A lot of this info has been known for a while, GameSpot posted in its rumor about a site that nabbed the info back in November. There's more info about it at GameSpot: http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?t opic_id=25139680&print=1