So I linked Chris to the new Call of Duty: World in Conflict trailer to see what he thought of it, with me not being a particularly avid Call of Duty fan, I was intrigued to see what someone who plays CoD a lot thinks of this new ‘direction’:

Link to video

Dan: They’re actually doing another WW2 game…

o_O

Chris: lol

watching now

well, I think that chronologically it was a good idea for infinity ward to take a step back, rather than a step forward – a lá BF2142

looks quite good though

Dan: yeah, agreed

But I think they should have done another game similar to modern combat… 

Chris: I’d say there’s only so much differentiation you could do with modern warfare but i’d be hypocritical in doing so since there’s only so much differentiation you can do with WW2, but i think that from a balance perspective and a narrative point of view devs get far more from World War 2 than they would from say the war in Iraq or some such

Dan: Well, I suppose it’s because I’m the sort of gamer that finds new or futuristic weaponry fun, I don’t like games that are necessarily based on things that have already been done.

Like, using the weaponry in CoD games bored me to tears, as in, WW2 CoD’s

The BR in Halo however, that’s a damn cool gun and I love using it

Chris: Oh i’m totally in that boat; every ww2 game ever has the same 8 or 9 goddamn weapons

Dan: Yeah exactly.

Okay, just finished watching the trailer now (can’t wait to get back to 20mb Internet!)

Doesn’t appeal to me at all if I’m honest

It’s like, to me at least, as though they are milking the CoD franchise on the back of the success of CoD 4

Chris: I think a lot of people will see it that way

Problem is World at War should’ve been released BEFORE CoD 4, it doesn’t make much sense going back in time

Dan: like in Zelda!

no wait…

Chris: yeah, your company finds the temple of time in South Africa

and goes forward in time to a desolate world where the nazis won

Dan: oh lawd!

in that case Oxford would be capital

Hell I’m game.

Chris: lol

But I can understand, or at least think of reasons why they may have considered it

Dan: I mean, I know I’m of course going to reference to Halo, and I know that it isn’t the holy grail of storytelling, but I really don’t like CoD’s narrative style, the way it tells the story, y’know?

Chris: yeah

Dan: But I suppose they are restricted by it having to be a least some what believable

Chris: indeed, if they’re not pretty much entirely historically accurate they’re fucked

Dan: Although, with this apparent mass appeal of CoD, the majority of the people that play it won’t give a fuck about that stuff anyway

Chris: well, i think Infinity Ward will make a fair bit of money from it, but it’ll be at the cost of potentially alienating a large sector of their long-term fans of the series

Dan: Yeah they’ll defo make money from it, but I can see a lot of people saying, “you know, nothing has fundamentally changed so I’ll stick with CoD 4 kthxbye”

Chris: yeah

Dan: So in summation?

Chris: “Meh, looks alright” and we’ll see in due time how other people will find it

Dan: World at War will sell a bazillion copies cause of the CoD franchise, but fundamentally won’t be much of either a revelation or evolution compared to CoD 4

Chris: that’s it, right there.

 

Agree? Disagree? Sound off in the comments!