COD WW2 BETA?

And again no BETA for PC ? Damnn

Originally Posted by Nirmol

>COD: Race Wars?
You mean the new Farcry?

damn, they already took idea 8[

Originally Posted by M.Amir

Nah, I don't like it. They don't know how to keep the game's story in the present...

I'm sure you meant past?

Originally Posted by Killian

I'm sure you meant past?

No, I didn’t. I meant that they should keep the story in the present. Not that much in the past, Also not that much in the future. Today’s Special forces are way cooler than a guy with laser guns fighting in the space (That’s my personal opinion)

Originally Posted by M.Amir

Uhhh, it's World War 2, buddy. We haven't had a modern-engine WW2 game since Call of Duty: World at War. People have been itching for this for a long time. And CoD Modern Warfare has been pretty played out. There's 3 titles alone in that series, then Black Ops took us into the Cold War Era, and Dice's Battlefield: Bad Company 1 & 2, Battlefield: Hardline, Battlefield 3, and Battlefield 4 are all modern. The market is over-saturated with current day warfare titles. It's not they don't know to keep things in the present, it just doesn't sell like it used to. Why dump thousands or more into development of a game that's a rehash of titles not even 5 years old?

Originally Posted by M.Amir

They're remaking World War 2 cos they didn't like the Infinity Ward version of it

Originally Posted by Killian

You're missing out Call of Duty 1; Expansion Pack, Call of Duty 2; Call of Duty 3.

Originally Posted by PhantomSinister

You're missing out Call of Duty 1; Expansion Pack, Call of Duty 2; Call of Duty 3.

Which are more than a decade old and are nowhere close to the capabilities of a modern game engine. Did you not read my whole post? Devs are not going to dump money into rehash of current-gen titles, hence WW1 and WW2 era games are making a comeback. I don't feel I needed to mention the ancient CoD titles.

Wait a few months after release to pick it up..

Originally Posted by Killian

That is not why I'm mentioning them, just because they aren't on a current engine doesn't mean they ain't capturing the World War 2 Era that the game was about, and Call of Duty: World At War is almost a decade old game too 1 year from now, not that new, not that old, not on a current engine that the new cods are on either.

I was mentioning like I said, they are perfect when it comes to World War 2 even for an old game

Originally Posted by PhantomSinister

I never said they failed to capture the WW2 era. They were great around the time they were released. Technology has advanced, and we haven't had an up to date WW2 game on a modern engine in years. Sure WaW is 9 years old, but it's still a hell of a lot better than the original 3 titles visually, wouldn't you agree? My point is, M.Amir is disappointed there's not going to be another Modern Warfare rehash and there's solid business reasons behind it. WW1 and WW2 titles are trending right now. These shooters go in cycles. In another 5+ years the old eras will fade out and we'll have more modern/futuristic titles.

You can't expect people entering the gaming world today to go out and buy the old CoD titles. They want to see current-gen tech delivering the eras they want, and the market is full of modern and futuristic warfare titles, so if you're itching for that you've got plenty options.

Originally Posted by Killian

I do agree that word a game that is 9 years old, it captures part of World at War that wasn't in the original 3 other games, World At War was more like an expansion pack to me with the continuum of Cod 3 (since it goes to Asian countries to capture the horrors in there), and, I think that current gen people should look back and finalize about where the games got it's start and understand to why the games we have today are where they are at, without the original 3/4, we wouldn't be here today, wouldn't you agree on that aspect? If I had kids, I would literally show them the previous games even if they find 'em boring

I usually wait for the game to release 1st before I buy the game
have to make sure the game is at its full potential

so I would recommend paying extra for a beta

Originally Posted by PhantomSinister

I honestly don't believe that. If IW and Treyarch didn't make them, somebody would have. Look at the Medal of Honor games. CoD just became more popular due to better marketing.

Originally Posted by Killian

I honestly don't believe that. If IW and Treyarch didn't make them, somebody would have. Look at the Medal of Honor games. CoD just became more popular due to better marketing.

Yeah, MoH was released 4 years before that, my mistake, still though, 4th MW game would've been cool to get, since it felt like it had a cliffhanger at the end, it's just me tho, and another mistake of mine is that World at War was WW2 era (or I got this correct, I'm just being silly right now)

Originally Posted by PhantomSinister

It's not going to be like the World at War, look at the movement, it's weird, I bet none of actual soldiers walked/ran like some weirdly glitched walking/running mechanics, you can't connect 2 games from different years to one.

Call of Duty is so polished out, Activision doesn't know what the hell are they doing, no more than Dice knows, Dices game called BF1 is more successful than the previous 2 cods have been, and guess what more people still play BF1 / Battlefront than there are active servers for AW and IW, the Call of Duties we used to get are no longer there, why? Cos the cost of money grabbing Activision, they even implemented the most dumbest thing to remastered version of Cod4 that none asked for, that is kind of retarded decision they made

lmao bf1 sucks its dying out its actually boring tbh ive bought it played it for 1 week got bored of it not that fun battlefield should to stick to todays technology tbh I find it boring that they made it like world war

COD WW2 BETA?

Post a Reply

Similar Threads

Tags for this Thread