Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Call of Duty 4 Announced

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the here-we-go-again dept.

Games 77

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.)"

cancel ×

77 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No More World War II (1)

AbsoluteXyro (1048620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889121)

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 (1)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889267)

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

*sigh* (1)

scuba_steve_1 (849912) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890287)

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* (1)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891251)

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.

Call of Duty 5 (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890581)

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

I see a Jack Thompson case in the making (1)

RendonWI (958388) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889305)

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 (2, Funny)

AbsoluteXyro (1048620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889355)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18895889)

It was good of the US to assist us (Australia) with our war on terror though!

Thanks George!

Re:I see a Jack Thompson case in the making (1)

WorldDominationOrBus (1050248) | more than 7 years ago | (#18898469)

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

Re:I see a Jack Thompson case in the making (1)

cttforsale (803028) | more than 7 years ago | (#18905883)

your a grate worder. Not a looser.

Re:I see a Jack Thompson case in the making (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18889663)

I wonder if the game is going to have us watch buses and shit with binoculars looking for towelheads about to blow the shit out of people?

Do we get to root through tunnels and underground storage areas for family members of the enemies?

How about oil fields? Can we bomb them?

of? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889473)

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? (1)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889559)

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? (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 7 years ago | (#18923673)

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

Re:of? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18892391)

Cod3 was alright, but I think I may just leave CoD4 alone as well, IW have a reputation of leaving nasty bugs unfixed. :(

MC vs MW? (1)

irby0 (886254) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889497)

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."

Grab yer 28.8, private! We got a carrier to board! (2, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890233)

You never want to engage in modem warfare [google.com] with NO CARRIER.

PC ports? (2, Interesting)

antdude (79039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889677)

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? (1)

Silver_Seagull (746812) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889819)

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? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889919)

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? (1)

dr_wheel (671305) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891105)

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? (1)

sjwaste (780063) | more than 7 years ago | (#18899227)

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. (2, Insightful)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889789)

Sounds boring.

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

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18889873)

Then play Counterstrike, where they call them "terrorists" like normal people.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890263)

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

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (1)

antek9 (305362) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891289)

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. (1)

Grave (8234) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891507)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18891753)

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?

No, that only justifies the presense of the foreign power. If your neighbor kept coming over to your house to beat you and your family up, would it be wrong for the police to maintain a presence between your house and his? And you can't say "we'll handle it ourselves" because your neighbor routinely drives his car across other people's homes destroying property, scaring children and killing pets.

Now replace "beat" with "kill" and "drives his car" with "launches mortars and rockets" and you have the Iraqi situation. Oh and if you fight back personally, your neighbor is going to call his friends, family, extended family, friends of family, friends of extended family, clansmen and fellow believers of his religion on you... until you do the same thing and it turns into a royal rumble.

The Pentagon on the other hand was a military target and thats why the media doesn't like to remind people that it was hit as well during 9/11. And terrorism for "political" purposes doesn't work if you're killing your neighbors and then saying that it'll stop if the foreign power leaves.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (1)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18897767)

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. (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18899235)

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

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (1)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18904537)

In theory, and only according to some people.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18900603)

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. (3, Funny)

endianx (1006895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889961)

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. (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889987)

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. (2, Interesting)

SixFactor (1052912) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890251)

WOLVERINES! [wikipedia.org]

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890343)

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. (1)

gerbalblaste (882682) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890629)

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. (1)

Emperor Zombie (1082033) | more than 7 years ago | (#18892917)

ww2 game where the germans invade england and then the united states
Actually, that game is being made: Turning Point: Fall of Liberty [1up.com]

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (1)

Jac_no_k (5957) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894793)

You're thinking of Freedom Fighter [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (1)

PresidentEnder (849024) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890555)

Freedom Fighters [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890783)

That's the one.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (1)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891589)

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

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (1)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18897719)

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

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (1)

kansas1051 (720008) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890383)

Ever play Operation Flashback [megagames.com] ? 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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18891687)

I remember when it was called Operation Flashpoint. Nice game.

Senator Reid unit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18890881)

In this version (via a cheat code) you can play the new Senator Reid unit.
He goes around stabbing the troops in the back, all the while screaming "I support the troops that lost the war!!", or alternately "Don't question my patriotism".

It is a joke people ... don' get all hot and bothered about it.

Re:Modern infantry warfare sucks. (1)

ensignyu (417022) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894977)

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

uh... (1)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889891)

...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... (1)

SixFactor (1052912) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890421)

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... (2, Interesting)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890891)

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... (1)

hidannik (1085061) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891381)

You mean Bio-Shock.

Mad scientist creates underwater city with dysfunctional mutant ecosystem.

Re:uh... (2, Interesting)

SixFactor (1052912) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891389)

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 [wikipedia.org] 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... (1)

The Benefactor (668201) | more than 7 years ago | (#18898451)

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... (1)

patternjuggler (738978) | more than 7 years ago | (#18908385)

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! (2, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890179)

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

Red Orchestra (2, Informative)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890289)

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 (1)

indy_Muad'Dib (869913) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890355)

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

Re:damn it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18891169)

I want to feel your tongue in my asshole again.

Re:damn it (1)

indy_Muad'Dib (869913) | more than 7 years ago | (#18895963)

thought it was your turn this time.

CoD4? After CoD2 Debacle, Many Will Say NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18890617)

Having dealt with the incredible disappointment that CoD2 delivered I think it's safe to say most of the people I know will not be purchasing any more steaming turds from IW.

IW will not get a single cent from anyone that I know personally.

Some qualifications: I was active as a captain in a gaming clan that held #1 ladder rankings consistantly (Call of Duty, Call of Duty: United Offensive, and finally CoD2) in multiple ladders in two respected gaming leagues for several years running. I was very involved in the CoD PC gaming community and spent countless hours of my life involved these games. I state this not as "bragging" but merely to emphasize that I know and understand the original CoD community that put Infitity Ward on the map in the first place.

No one complained (too much) about the single-player aspect of CoD2 (aside from performance issues, buggy code, etc...) even though it was obvious from the first moment that this was a console game ported to PC.

  • What rankled a lot of the "old-timers" in the community was that the PC multiplayer was slapped on as an afterthought in CoD2. The controls were so dumbed-down that experienced players could roll through maps with single-shot sniper rifles (not camping) and rack up incredible kill-counts without even trying (almost as if the hit-boxes were 10 feet wide). The "feel" of the first two games wasn't there - the joy of great weapons modeling rewarding skill and punishing incompetance wasn't there any more.
  • The "new engine" that was promised was a DX9/D3D render slapped onto the legacy QIII engine. CoD and CoD:UO server exploits affected CoD2 from Day 1 - a completely "new" engine wouldn't have a Q3Boom problem, would it?
  • The same server-crashing exploits were so well-known that fixes had been created by modders and implemented 2 years before CoD2 ever saw the light of day - and yet somehow these didn't make it into the release version? We're talking a couple of lines of code here.
  • No anti-cheat was provided until the community raised a stink (about 5 months lag time) - and when EvenBalance's PunkBuster was finally added it turned out the engine was so broken that PunkBuster was unable to work properly (not Punkbuster's fault, strictly IWs bad coding). PunkBuster would randomly re-generate new GUIDs for players every time they connected to a different server - you could ban locally, but global bans did not function. As far as I know this was never fixed.
  • After begging (and being promised) SDKs for CoD, CoD:UO, and CoD2 none were ever released. While there are those who feel it's because that would reveal the hypothetical possiblity that stolen code from MoH was in the engine, it's more likely that IW simply couldn't be bothered with an SDK for CoD2 because XBox players don't need SDKs.
  • Grant Collier told the press that the "modding community simply wasn't there" - a direct insult to the legions of modders and mappers this game spawned. You know, the same people begging for the SDK?
  • There were months upon months of question dodging, obfuscations, and outright LIES by Grant Collier, president of IW from before release until the bitter end.
  • Community outcry against the perceived lack of support from IW caused the first world-wide voluntary gaming server "strike" in December 2005 - an estimated 65% of servers either locked down or shut down for 24 hours in protest of the shoddy treatment that IW was delivering.


In essence, Infinity Ward basically pissed all over the PC community that made them and laughed all the way to the bank.

After the release of the buggy-as-hell map-pack and Patch 1.3, our clan abandoned the game and rolled those servers back to UT2K4 - a game that may be dated but still kicks ass. Many other clans either dropped out of sight, or went back to playing CoD and CoD:UO - there are still more UO servers than CoD2 servers to this day.

Well, at least 35 people in my clan aside from myself have essentially sworn to never buy an IW product again. People from many, many other clans I know have stated that they and their clans will never again buy IW products. It may not be much (probably about 40,000 in the "hardcore" CoD community and that's about $2M in sales right there) but this company spit on thier biggest fans, released a mediocre product to get a quick buck from the console crowd - and they don't deserve anyone's money.

Re:CoD4? After CoD2 Debacle, Many Will Say NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18891779)

waaah mommy

Re:CoD4? After CoD2 Debacle, Many Will Say NO! (1)

tsamptrail (934442) | more than 7 years ago | (#18898667)

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

this should be tagged "slownewsday"... (1)

3on3 (1007539) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891041)

I mean c'mon of almost the whole of the article this is about the word of in the titles of games. Of the all of slashdot slownewsday articles this is the worst of them all.

Day of Defeat's first release was 2001 (2, Informative)

Pvt_Waldo (459439) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891311)

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

MOD Parent UP! (1)

Wizworm (782799) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891353)

That Summary was a total TROLL

Re:Day of Defeat's first release was 2001 (1)

sheetsda (230887) | more than 7 years ago | (#18892135)

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.

Re:Day of Defeat's first release was 2001 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18892507)

Actually Medal of Honor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor_%28ga me%29) came out in 1999, making it the first.

Original Name? (1)

Private.Tucker (843252) | more than 7 years ago | (#18892385)

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

WW2 FPS (3, Interesting)

Shadukar (102027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18896449)

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 (1)

Duree (1001787) | more than 7 years ago | (#18900209)

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 (2, Interesting)

AaronLawrence (600990) | more than 7 years ago | (#18897433)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18898031)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18907633)

By your logic we should have a KKK game where you can burn crosses and linch black people ... i mean games are games right?

Not just Iraqis, we also do it to ourselves... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18898455)

I just watched Natural Born Killers and it's only a couple of days after the Virginia Tech massacre. It was a bit tasteless of me, in retrospect, but I don't think I was really insulting the victims.

My feeling is that if we gave every horrible thing happening in the world its proper weight we'd all go mad with grief. People are murdered, raped, starved to death or killed in terrifying and grotesque accidents in their thousands every day. The only way to cope is to trivialise things and distance yourself from them. There's no other way, even if we made the world as safe and pleasant as possible (feed all the poor, spend all our resources on medical and psychological care) then horrible things would still happen every day. We can't stop it, we have to just deal with it.

Re:Tasteless (1)

patternjuggler (738978) | more than 7 years ago | (#18908371)

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.

This has been known for a while (1)

thegamebiz (925741) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901145)

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 [gamespot.com]

Re:This has been known for a while (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18907501)

Hey they might dumb it down evern further. Alongside being shown on the hud where grenades land how about being shown when you're about to be hit - have a big red flashing screen when someone is just aiming at you, giving you time to walk (oh no, not run no) away. They should make the hit boxes bigger too, it's so tedious having to aim down the sight.

There's a modern(ish) weapons mod already out for CoD UO. That should be expanded on really
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>