Next Call of Duty answered, previewed
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Jul 3rd 2006 at 10:25PM }
If the mention of World War II still compels you to go about shooting things (typically Nazis) from a first-person perspective, you'd best check out 1Up's weeklong feature that promises to detail every pixel, polygon and private that constitutes the upcoming Call of Duty 3. Taking over from Infinity Ward, developer Treyarch is keen on capitalizing on next-gen technology and the creative freedoms it provides -- with any luck, that means we'll actually be able to open doors in this one. Oh well, we suppose loads of on-screen enemies and trampled blades of grass are just as useful.The screenshots and video provided are enough to convince us of the game's technical gravitas, but we're quite interested in the Wii version and how it looks to take advantage of the unique control system. A small blurb in the first part of the preview suggests how, while at the same time suggesting that the other two versions of the game are the main focus here. "The Wii version, in development outside Treyarch, shows some potential to bring the player into the game during the Battle Actions in a way the PS3 and 360 won't be able to. Actually wrestling with a German for his gun or actually disarming that explosive are things only the Wii will let you do this gen."
Battle actions are Call of Duty's answer to Shenmue's Quick Timer Events. At certain points during the game, you're required to press certain buttons in order to escape a cinematic struggle or situation. Failure is likely to result in far more unpleasantness than getting smacked in the head by some Japanese kid's soccerball. These sound particularly intriguing if done correctly for the Wii and should make up for some of its inevitable graphical shortcomings. Even then, we have to wonder how long it'll take before we grow tired of crawling through trenches and taking out tanks. Is World War II the new Hoth?
[Thanks to everyone that sent this in!]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Johnny @ Jul 3rd 2006 10:33PM
I thought the next CoD game would finally be a modern day desert conflict.
Damn.
makeseven @ Jul 3rd 2006 10:47PM
looks really cool, and the wrestling fight looked pretty sweet.
but did anybody else notice lack of splashing visuals and audio when he walked in the water?
im hoping thats just becaue the game is still being worked on and not released yet, especially seeing the original xbox had splash effects in some games.
makeseven @ Jul 3rd 2006 10:47PM
i mean, its not that big of a deal really, and im sure it will be a great game regaurdless...but little things like that drive me crazy!!
Paul @ Jul 3rd 2006 10:48PM
Alright the wii is an innovation or what?
Nicholas @ Jul 3rd 2006 11:01PM
Yeah this game will be great, but really Call of Duty needs to move away from World War 2.
FrenchPoodle @ Jul 3rd 2006 11:05PM
yea makeseven, I noticed that too the water did look GOURGOUS though. I think that might be near the bottom of their list of things to do. Like in the "polishing" stage or w/e when they add all the neat effects
this looks a lot like BIA in my opinion its hard sometimes to tell which is which. But the game looks good, maybe we'll get some sweet info or something at the end of this. I'm really looking forward to this game for me 360! But is tehr gunna be a PC version too? didn't look like it but Idk
saidnamyzO @ Jul 3rd 2006 11:10PM
did anyone else notice this:
"Events like these are part of why creative director Rich Farrelly is so positive about the Blu-ray format -- "More room equals more stuff. It's a simple equation. Any time we're given less limitations, we're going to exploit that to its fullest.""
and yet the ending scene of the video clearly shows a battle action with instructions to "press LT and RT alternately" and then "press "y" to finish" breifly flashes, indicating that its running on 360 hardware.
And yes I know this is flame bate.
LongshotX @ Jul 3rd 2006 11:27PM
They should do the War on Terrorism!!! And have the rich tyrannical Republicans at the front lines!
Zacky V @ Jul 3rd 2006 11:37PM
Call of Duty needs to become a great Vietnam/Korean War game then go on to modern stuff
heavyness @ Jul 3rd 2006 11:40PM
my big thing is to enable multi player online on one console. i was mad when i bought COD2 for the 360 and my wife and i couldn't play online at the same time. i understand if we can't play on ranked matches, but let us play online together if we both have live accounts.
the antique @ Jul 3rd 2006 11:48PM
shooting nazis in real life is so much more worth my time.
Sub @ Jul 3rd 2006 11:49PM
This may be a stupid question, but CoD 3 is coming to the PC, right? I did a search for Call of Duty on gamespot.com and no PC version was listed there
http://www.gamespot.com/search.html?type=11&stype=all&qs=call+of+duty&x=0&y=0
RazorElite @ Jul 3rd 2006 11:51PM
@heavyness Yeah. CoD REALLY needed to allow guests. Don't know how they couldn't, being that its been done on Xbox 1. But CoD2 had so many limitations its unforunate. But thankfully CoD3 is planning to change all of that.
LongshotX @ Jul 4th 2006 12:12AM
War on Terrorism Please!
LongshotX @ Jul 4th 2006 12:13AM
They should do the War on Terrorism!!! And have the rich tyrannical Republicans at the front lines!
MR T @ Jul 4th 2006 12:14AM
If we'd only be so lucky to enjoy the fruits of next gen power with fully functional doors. . .shoot for the moon kids, shoot for the moon. . .
Brian @ Jul 4th 2006 12:40AM
No, COD doesn't need a modern combat game.
They should go where no FPS has ever gone before, World War I.
Basheron @ Jul 4th 2006 12:40AM
LongshotX, you got it the wrong way around. The hippies are the ones wanting to run away with their tales between their leggs =)
Personally I'm getting sick of WW2 games, but, this might be worthy of a rental. I like how grass and other foilage gets crampled. I saw foilage getting mowed down in the Crysis demo, and I loved it!
Johnny @ Jul 4th 2006 1:14AM
why stop there?
the Civil War is wide open
T-Bag @ Jul 4th 2006 1:31AM
That game is really reinforcing the Xbox 1.5 theory. Here, look at this new in game Brothers In Arms video that's running on the 360 hardware and then compare it to that crappy looking COD.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xS8rp8YDQEs&%20earch=xbox%20360
Even in the bad quality that the video is in it still rapes COD for visuals and game play.
Ian @ Jul 4th 2006 1:57AM
Considering this isn't being developed by Infinity Ward, I doubt I'll get it. I remember when I got UO (United Offensive expansion pack for CoD1 for the PC) and the addition of vehicles completly unbalanced the online gameplay and the new weapons were okay. Most of the elements just didn't feel right with CoD. The sprint, vehicles, certain weapons, etc. Plus the console CoDs sucked except CoD2 which was developed by Infinity Ward! I'll look forward to the next Infinity Ward game, weather its CoD or not.
Dux @ Jul 4th 2006 2:07AM
@Brian
Hmm I dont know IF World War 1 would be any fun though, the gameplay would be too lineier(Literily!), with Trench War Fare and all, you would just be waiting for your enemy to come to you, or you would have to charge your enemy. Like that would be fun at first, but would quickly get old. Wether you hate Nazis or you despise them(All Nazis go to HELLL!)Blitzcreig tactics really shaped how we fight today in wars, thats why the French got overran lol, couse they were still using that Trench warFare tactics mindset to defend against the Nazi Blitzcreig, and we Americans had to come bail them out for the 2ND TIME.
But anyways about the game, they should make one in Vietnam. Ive never seen a good NAM shooter really.
peace.
theiloth @ Jul 4th 2006 5:00AM
The Allies might still have won without an American presance. They would certainly have lost without a Russian presance.
And it could easily be argued that one of the contributing factors to the war was the lack of America in the League of Nations. Without America in the LON, any trade restrictions the League placed on a country (say Italy during the Abyssinian crisis) were useless. The LON was seen as a weak institution in the 30's, so Britain and France were the major players in Europe. They followed a policy of appeasement to Hitler and the rest is history.
Sorry about that (recently had my History exam) but i can't stand all these Americans who seem to think they were there fighting during WW2. Any country that was right next to Germany would have been quickly beaten due to Blitzkrieg. Surrendering was the only option for France, if they didn't the Germans would have just set fire to crops and destroy more villages as they did when they were retreating in WW1.
suedehead @ Jul 4th 2006 8:54AM
Nice one theiloth.
It rattles me when someone from the colonies says they won the war for us. Too much Hollywood.
Perhaps if they had joined in when we first asked in 1939 (we had been warning them of the Nazi threat for a while by then) rather than just sending a couple of old boats over for scrap steel, then maybe the British Expeditionary Force wouldn't have had to withdraw from France in 1940.
With a bit of assistance at the start of the war, we could have stayed in continental Europe and ended the war a lot sooner. Maybe even prevented the worst atrocities of the Final Solution and saved millions of Jewish lives, never mind allied servicemen's lives.
Don't get me wrong, US involvement was welcomed and necessary. I accept that without reservation. But act a bit quicker next time, lads.
Sam @ Jul 4th 2006 9:15AM
I'm still looking for Lan-Di even if no one else is.
Rhork. @ Jul 4th 2006 10:11AM
Just when you think the WWII FPS has been worked to a pulp... Five more are introduced.
Sub @ Jul 4th 2006 11:29AM
About the Allies not needing the Americans in WW2 comments: Yes, Dux's comments were absurd, but both of you act like WW2 was Americas fault and that we should have done something sooner.
Do you know whose idea the League of Nations was? It was American President Woodrow Wilson. Do you know why we didn't join what we created? Because of the terms that the Europeans set at the end of WW1, the terms that led to WW2. You know, that whole treaty of Versailles. We didn't join WW2 at first because we viewed it as Europe’s war, it was largely their own fault. If the leaders of Britain and France listened to Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points, there may have never been a ww2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_versailles
That and you also have to take into consideration the people's support for such a war. We probably needed an event like Pearl Harbor to rally the people and get them in favor of joining the war.
GhostDoggy @ Jul 4th 2006 12:18PM
When will a CoD version for 360 come out that features cooperative Live play? I keep heared the only MP version for Live play is team-based. BTW, I have never played any of the CoD games.
senor quail @ Jul 4th 2006 3:07PM
imo, they should have just scrapped CoD 2 and came out with this earlier. also, no way we do ww I. Like Dux said, it would be way to linear.
Brian @ Jul 4th 2006 3:57PM
I know a world war I game would duck, I was just being sarcastic. I'm just tired of world war 2 games and I doubt a good vietnam game could ever be made.
Brian @ Jul 4th 2006 3:58PM
That's "suck"
Nintendo's King @ Jul 4th 2006 7:48PM
LongshotX no War on Terrorism no. So do everyone a favor, shut up.
What an IDIOT!
"But we're quite interested in the Wii version
and how it looks to take advantage of the unique control system. A
small blurb in the first part of the preview suggests how, while at
the same time suggesting that the other two versions of the game are
the main focus here. "The Wii version, in development outside
Treyarch, shows some potential to bring the player into the game
during the Battle Actions in a way the PS3 and 360 won't be able to.
Actually wrestling with a German for his gun or actually disarming
that explosive are things only the Wii will let you do this
gen."
This might say that the Wii version will be better than
the PS3 & Xbox360 versions YES!!!!!
To LongshotX Wii launch
date Nov. 6 says SI for Kids
HA HA What an IDIOT LongshotX!
You must be one of the people that is going to get and like PS3 or
got an Xbox360. Well let me tell you something nintendo R.U.L.E. the
World and with the Wii nintendo will KILL OFF THE PS3 and Xbox360.
Now LongshotX Nintendo was LAUNCH 1'ST in the USA in what State On
10/18/1985 with the NES? Well you don't know !!!What an IDIOT!!! in
NEW YORK CITY IDIOT. For Nintendo Wii release date in the USA need to
be 9/11/06. This is why nintendo should put in 2 Wiimote and 2 Nunchuk
for the USA hardcore gamers with the Wii because of the The Twin
Towers to pay a TRIBUTE to NEW YORK CITY.
I'M FROM NEW
YORK CITY WHY WILL I WANT THAT
and this is for you all the people
that do not like NEW YORK and NINTENDO
I got a hundred
guns, a hundred clips, N**** I'm from New York (New York)
I got a
semi-automatic that spits next time if you talk (you talk)
I got a
hundred guns, a hundred clips, N**** I'm from New York (New York)
I
got a semi-automatic that spits next time if you talk (you
talk)
(And I know IâM NINTENDO'S KING)
Nintendo 2006-
?
Mike @ Jul 4th 2006 8:19PM
Sir, you have killed the english language.
senor quail @ Jul 4th 2006 9:01PM
man, calm down nintendo's king, it was just a joke that he made. you need to chill
LaughingTarget @ Jul 4th 2006 11:16PM
While, yes, Germany would have defenitely lost without an American presence, the outcome would have not been too rosy. The Western front required a significant level of American resources to fight. Britain was unable to produce its own weaponry and food due to the German air raids and relied heavily on US manufacturing and agriculture to survive.
Furthermore, without the significant number of US troops in Europe, Britain would never have been able to break into the mainland to take back France, allowing the Soviet Union to push all the way to the Atlantic. As we know, ever inch of soil the Soviets touched, they kept under their control. The whole of mainland Europe would have been a Soviet bloc, making a bigger mess of world affairs than they were when the Soviets stopped halfway through Germany.
Winnable? Yes. America would have even outright crushed Japan in the Pacific with the massive increase in manpower and equipment available to fight it as well as have not built such a large defecit to cover two wars.
In essence, America did win the war. Without the US involvement, the Soviets would have held a much firmer ground having to face only Great Britain down in Europe, probably having taken them over in a decade or so after the end of WW2. The remainder of the years up until today would be a major power struggle between USA, the only remaining threat, and the Soviets.
Of course, this is assuming the Germans didn't develop the atom bomb. The primary reason the Nazis did not get their hands on this weapon was because of incessant allied bombings of their heavy water reactors. The planes that made up these bombings were almost entirely US built B-29's since Britain's production facilities were in shambles and the Soviets didn't have an airforce. The Luftwaffe fell to American built planes. Without American involvement, the Germans would have had uncontested air superiority, possibly even stopping the Soviet advance, forcing a stalemate, assuming the Nazi's didn't simply nuke Moscow and take over Russia. As is evident of the most recent domination of Iraq's regular militaries in two wars, air power is the key to winning a fight.
On a one-dimensional, traditional sense, yes, America didn't win the war all by itself. But, without the overwhelmingly vast resources, manufacturing base, and manpower, the battle would have drug on for much longer, the face of the world would have changed, and the Germans had a strong chance at winning and coming out with the world's most devestating weapon in their power-hungry hands.
America didn't win the war all by itself, but the Allied powers would have undoubtedly lost without the support of the USA.
CB4D @ Jul 5th 2006 3:51PM
LOL. I'm still looking for Lan-Di too.