Call of Duty 5 sees World at War

  • By Emma Boyes, Tor Thorsen, GameSpot UK
  • Posted Jun 9, 2008 9:30 am PT

UK's Official Xbox Magazine reveals Treyarch-developed Call of Duty: World at War will visit the Pacific Theater of WWII with four-player player co-op and vehicular multiplayer.

It's had its Finest Hour, there's been a Big Red One, and most recently, the series has waged Modern Warfare. Now, the latest Call of Duty game will see the World at War, reports the UK's Xbox 360: The Official Xbox Magazine.

Confirming rumors, the game formerly known as Call of Duty 5 will indeed return to World War II, setting of all pre-Call of Duty 4 games. Developed by Treyarch--not series creator Infinity Ward--the game will portray US Marines fighting the Imperial Japanese in the Pacific. There will also be a "major chapter" in the game focusing on the invasion of Germany by the Soviet Union's Red Army.

Treyarch president Mark Lamir told the magazine, "The direction for the team was to make the best game they could, and as they were doing this they created a grittiness that quite frankly made some people very uncomfortable...This is a scarier Call of Duty than we've ever seen."

When asked about the decision to include graphic violence in the game, creative lead Rich Farrelly said, "It's not just gore and violence for its own sake, but reflects what veterans have told us and the actual history."

One of the levels described in the magazine--called "Maken Raid"--features the torture of an Allied prisoner of war, who then has his throat slit by katana. The brutal scene is watched by the player's character, who is rescued by US Marines much like the real-life Raid at Cabanatuan in 1945.

Based on the Call of Duty 4 engine, Call of Duty: World at War will include more destructible environments than prior games in the series. It will also allow players to swim underwater, as well as use Japanese machine guns and flamethrowers with "propagating fire" burning jungle scenery--and enemies--in realistic fashion.

As for multiplayer, the 360 version will sport a four-player co-op mode which can be played with four consoles over Xbox Live, or two consoles each using split-screen. The co-op campaign will be very similar to the single-player campaign, with gamers constantly accumulating points which can be used to unlock perks. Its multiplayer mode will feature vehicles and squad-based elements.

As revealed by Activision last month, Call of Duty: World at War is in development for the PC, 360, PlayStation 3, Nintendo DS, Nintendo Wii, and PlayStation 2. The game will ship during Activision's current fiscal year, with almost all prior Call of Duty games being released in the holiday quarter. Treyarch is also currently developing the new James Bond game, Quantum of Solace, using the Call of Duty 4 engine.

802 Comments

  • River_Horse

    Posted Feb 27, 2009 4:02 am PT

    its not COD5

  • optiow

    Posted Nov 22, 2008 8:44 pm PT

    It should be diffrent. Being in the pacific and all.

  • gms61

    Posted Sep 7, 2008 1:43 pm PT

    what caught my eye is it said it will have vehicles! yay and its for pc!and alot of other systems

  • ryu14790

    Posted Aug 9, 2008 6:37 am PT

    I'm really looking forward to this game, especially that it's heading off to the Pacific Theater now! I've waited for this moment for a long while. This, along with Fallout 3 and Crysis, will be the reason I'll be getting a part time job to save up cash for a new computer.

    Oh, but to those who think that Call of Duty 5 will suck, just because it's back to World War II, please CAN IT. I, along with many other people, aren't interested in hearing you rant on that Call of Duty 5 will "suc" because it's set back in World War II. Will the setting of the game totally change how good it is? No! That is a narrow minded and stupid assumption!

    The guys who create these games don't work on them with the intention to make it worse than the last, so I can't get the reason why people will believe that the game will flop, all because it's set in WWII.

    So if you don't think it's a good game, fine. Just don't go, "DUD DiS wll be lik a bad gam cuz its in WWII!!!1!!". Just say something like, "I don't like Call of Duty going back into World War II." and we'll understand that.

    Yeah, long comment. But back to the point;

    Call of Duty 5=awesome.

  • Mr_Manikin52

    Posted Jul 20, 2008 4:11 pm PT

    I'm sure they'll get Iwo Jima down perfectly!

  • keko_villarreal

    Posted Jul 11, 2008 9:30 pm PT

    Yeah man, but every time cod gets better everytime, now u would be able to use flamethrowers and katanas, explode stuff and burn the threes and stuff like that, i hope there would be perks and stuff like the cod4 online, search and d, team detch headquarters
    hardcore, steady aim deep impact, that was a really cool idea from Infinity Ward. Want it or Not, COD rocks! and u will buy it! bet it.

  • sk8trux

    Posted Jul 8, 2008 7:17 pm PT

    in my opinion, they took one step forward and then two steps back. after the succes of CoD 4 why would you got back to WW2 but ill give it a try considering some of the new things they are doing with the game. ( also i hope the james bond game is good because since goldeneye on the N64, bond games have only been decent.)

  • Djmaster214

    Posted Jul 7, 2008 2:26 pm PT

    hell i still play call of duty 2, but yeah ill give this one a go. I dont see why people are complaining its not like youll never be able to play cod4 again, justdont buy 5

  • shaun_mcwayne

    Posted Jul 7, 2008 12:04 am PT

    i dont think this one will be better than cod 4 as its not infinity ward making it. i think its gonna let alot of people down.

  • GearsCOD

    Posted Jun 27, 2008 7:22 pm PT

    i'm so excited. i will definately buy it as soon as it hits stores. flamethrowers and vehicles. and now it looks like from the trailer anyways that it's more detailed and you can climb trees? Besides destructable enviroments will be cool with this. The Call Of Duty line has always been a great one.

  • Jack1717

    Posted Jun 26, 2008 12:13 pm PT

    Oh My God, that looks like the coolest game, it looks a billion times cooler then Crysis!!!

  • andyamurray

    Posted Jun 25, 2008 10:21 pm PT

    It Sounds Sick to me ive been waiting for a good game set in the pacific and not in Europe like ever other game(that not thats a bad thing)its just good to have something new im definately excited about this

  • ctburesch

    Posted Jun 25, 2008 8:25 pm PT

    This will be a fun game.. I will definately buy. Everyone needs to stop whining

  • Kriz48

    Posted Jun 25, 2008 3:43 pm PT

    It's gonna be exciting to see want they are making, when they have made Call of duty 1,2,3 and 4. And now they gonna have flamethrowers and Vehicles i Multiplayer. I hope this coming out soon! I can't wait!!

  • superdillson

    Posted Jun 24, 2008 7:45 pm PT

    ok how about take everything thats gonna be added to this game but make it future play. i thot we were supposed to be going forward not back to WWII. have ur flame throwers and tanks, destructable environments and the like. but make it like 200 years from now.

  • chrismaster36

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 10:47 am PT

    I hope Iwo Jima is in this.

  • K-Grogg

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 8:44 am PT

    I think it should be given a chance, it sounds like a less-milked part of WWII, and it sounds like its going to have a lot of cool gameplay mechanics. I'm getting it!

  • spKeeper20

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 6:32 am PT

    this is definitley a bad move. over the years i think just about every major point in WWII has been done in one game or another. maybe not well but done. i have a feeling its gonna get boring playing missions people feel they have "done" already. pretty sure im gonna skip this one.

  • dartheggs973

    Posted Jun 22, 2008 11:28 am PT

    I am actually really happy because that last game that had this setting was Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, and we all know that was not a great game. Call of Duty has been a consistent series, and this will be a good game, I really cant wait...

  • RLJSlick

    Posted Jun 22, 2008 7:03 am PT

    Bah back to WWII, that sucks, they can count me out!

  • demosnipe1589

    Posted Jun 21, 2008 11:29 pm PT

    WWII is already done with, not getting old but done. i hope the sales on this game are Zero. Modern age is much more intriguing and exciting. WE KNOW HOW WWII ENDS, the weapons suck and the story is dry, i Love COD4 and all of its predecessors but now the COD franchise has taken the worst turn possible. Before COD4 was announced i swore that i would never buy another WWII FPS, and a lot of other people have done the same. So until this franchise gets back to present day, maby even futuristic, I am gonna have to pass on these regurgitated crap stories. ..l.. you COD!

  • ahmedbilal1993

    Posted Jun 21, 2008 11:07 pm PT

    In my opinion, this game would be good but not as good as modern warfare. Havent u read, it is also being released on PS2!!!!

  • H17OK1

    Posted Jun 21, 2008 5:10 pm PT

    stop saying that they dont know about the sucess that was the COD4, they know u.u

    maybe they are going back because the engine used to do COD4 would make the previous game much more hardcore and cool... Activision will go back with the modern warfare, that is sure. stop complaining and see what this game will be.

  • hardcorps1110

    Posted Jun 21, 2008 4:14 pm PT

    I understand CoD 3 wasn't the best it could be at all but it was their first go at it. I'm sure Teyarch knows they have something to live up to after Modern Warfare. Personally I'm excited to see it go back to WWII because they haven't released a CoD playing the Marine Corps fighting the Japanese. Those were some of the most epic battles of the war. The destructability of levels and use of vehicles is a big factor for everyone lately it seems and they've added it which will be great for online. They made a point to tell everyone that this was going to be a darker and graphic game which shows they've put thought into it. The Japanese had a style of warfare that was like night to day compared to Europe.

    The only thing I'm worried about is customizing weapons. In WWII you basically got your issue that was it, as opposed to the tweaking Marines and soldiers can do today. It just seems a little less authentic but I'm open to see what they do.

    There are a million and one WWII shooters out there, but I'd say it's about time for an outstanding one. Those screens look great. Maybe Infinity Ward can continue the modern series while Treyarch covers previous wars. We could get the best of both worlds. Here is the trailer that was on xbox live this morning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_Ip_SaJqpg

  • Treblaine

    Posted Jun 21, 2008 6:29 am PT

    When COD4 came out everyone was so unsure about Modern Warfare as the baddies (arabs/russians) wouldn't be as good as the Nazis, well Imperial Japan was practically medieval in its brutality. Well I think it will take some convincing but the Pacific Theater is COMPLETELY different from Europe/North Africa with the majority of fighting in jungle and natural environments. Auto shotguns and Flamethrowers were popular and unlikely to be used in modern warfare and the Johnson rifle could be reloaded like a shotgun, so no more worries about the block clip in the Garand. Also the M2 carbine was used more in the Pacific with fully automatic fire from a 30 round mag it was no puny weapon and an early night vision scope was also available for it. One thing that might be fun would be using the .55 Boys anti tank rifle (similar to .50BMG rifle) on dozens of attacking Japanese mini-tanks.

  • MiAFiNs39

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 10:39 pm PT

    wow seriously... were goin back to WW2? Why? Id love to know why were goin back to WW2? Modern warefare kicked so much ass and did incredible .. why would they go back. no one wants anymore WW2 games

  • Darkpyrodelta

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 8:51 pm PT

    Treyarch is a terrible studio, Big Red One was terrible, Call of Duty 3 sucked, and all the other CoD games made by them were garbage. Infinti Ward should have continued the Modern Warfare story line and Treyarch should just give up and stop wasting are time with sh*ty games

  • _RA0_

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 6:44 pm PT

    Finally we're in pacific, I am so sick of at Normandy or anywhere on the European soil.

  • GenaWhiteBoi92

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 5:39 pm PT

    I think this ia great idea. A new theatre of war: In the pacific. I only know ONE other game that is set in the pacific and that is Medal of Honour PAcific assault. It was an ok, but now i have something to actually look forward to. Call of Duty hasn't let anyone down before (except maybe Finest Hour) and we shouldn't doubt them now. They have made great games before and i think they can do it again. No one said we'd be fighting germans -__- learn to read you illiterate bags of crap. Or you're justplain stupid if you think there were Germans in the Pacific theatre. lol I think it's something to look forward to. A new kind of enemy in the jungle. Call of Duty is a great game, and I don't think it's about to give up that title. 'Nuff said~

  • johnmharris01

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 3:18 pm PT

    That sucks, we don't want any more WWII games. We want more modern war games. I agree with everyone else ( NO MORE WWII GAMES) You would think after you had record sales in this last one. Thanks !

  • ArtofRuinous

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 2:04 pm PT

    This infuriates me that they can't realize that Modern Day War did better than any of the stupid WW2 games before it. Consumers are sick of WW2 games and the ignorance of game studios who don't listen to the consumer. 90% of COD4 fans will agree with me. I'm sick of the **** Germans and getting a history lesson when gamers want to feel like they are in modern day action. This better fail in all markets.

  • premolight

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 11:31 am PT

    and dj devastation did you even read read the article its in the pacific not normandy berlin and market garden so stop your complaining cuz it is going to be a new game no matter what ignorant you says about it

  • premolight

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 11:27 am PT

    i dont know why everybody is complaining that this game is going to suck personally i think it sounds awesome and should be a good game as well as anaccurate depiction of war during that time.

  • micky_disco

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 8:50 am PT

    All I'm going to say about this is that they did not have .50 caliber sniper rifles or AC130's during World War 2.

  • DJ_DEVASTATION

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 8:00 am PT

    Some people really just don't learn! Treyarch deserves what's coming for them!
    I mean, they got themselves a bloody petition online set up against CoD5 being made by them! But why are they still continuing despite thousands of fans saying what they are saying? They think they'll seriously be able to top CoD4 and IW? I lost count of how many times I've invaded Normandy, Berlin, did Market garden and god knows what else. Is there any way for this game NOT to be set in WW2? And while we're at it, not to be made by Treyarch?

  • commandok

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 6:19 am PT

    You know what someone should start world war 3 so we can have a new world war game

  • commandok

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 6:13 am PT

    OMFG You guys are gay seriously WW2 is good i hated it for awhile after watching a few movies and crap... i got back into so go get a life WW2 ruled... but not the real life one...

  • GunSKillz

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 2:10 am PT

    I wish they would have kept the "modern" setting, no future crap with lasers and no old crap with stupid single shot guns just the modern setting. One of the reasons i bought COD4 w/o reading reviews was b/c of the setting, im tired of ww2 it was fun the 1st couple games but tbh we all know how it ends, we do have history class in school after all ;o

    the moder setting set us up for a new fictional storyline, better new real weps, new settigns to fight it out in not the phillipines or easter europe that all ww2 games are set in.

    After the last lvl in COD4 thet plane lvl i was rly crossing my fingers that they would keep on with that modern story line

    I think for this one i will rent before i buy >-

  • wilso326

    Posted Jun 20, 2008 12:16 am PT

    Why WW2? Everyone is SICK and TIRED of all these WW2 games. Same guns, same setting, same enemies, same vehicles... and there's really no point in having a story, since we all know how it's going to end, right? Honestly, the only thing that made Call of Duty 1 - 3 different from Medal of Honor, Brothers in Arms and every other WW2 game was the large scale battles. I'm bored of killing high voiced screaming Nazis, or kamikaze japanese soldiers using the same weapons over and over and over again. It feels exactly the same every time, and I was really glad COD4 changed to a modern setting.

    Modern warfare is a lot more intense, and there are is a lot more variety in the weapons and vehicles and factions involved, since the war is fictional. There are also a lot of fun and action packed scenarios, such as playing as an SAS operative and taking over a tanker in a huge storm, or taking over a tv station with helicopters and explosions everywhere... Isn't that way more fun than mowing down nazis or "japs" in linear trenches, battle worn european cities, deserts and beaches which we've all played hundreds of times?

  • abeard424

    Posted Jun 19, 2008 11:19 pm PT

    I'm against Nazis, but a game from the german side could be fun

  • MrGoldenBullet

    Posted Jun 19, 2008 6:13 pm PT

    ok 1 im dissapointed 2 i really wished that it was going to stay in modern times maby even go real and do iraq war. however there are stuff i thought were going to be gay (Like resistance fall of man(the reason was because i thought ww2 tech vs aliens is lame)) then turned out to be very kick-ass so i hope that all modes have online multiplayer im syched about co-op (because sometimes when i was stuck in a situation where there were germans all around me and i only had 3 teammates i died a couple times and got angry) i just hope they dont screw this up like cod 3. come on treyarch u can do it!!!! Just dont suck this time this is ur last cod game!!!!!!

  • RatchetRulz

    Posted Jun 19, 2008 5:04 pm PT

    aw man they going back to wwII thats dumb, i wanted it to be another modern game or even Call of Duty 5: Future Warfare p.s. i know there is or was a bunch of future warfare games, but i mean one thats good. not future like halo, but think more like 2100 or something when things really get heated up... not 2552 (halo) or 2142 (battlefield) i mean a good game. and no im not saying halo was a bad game.

  • H17OK1

    Posted Jun 19, 2008 5:03 pm PT

    first, futuristic war is a dumb idea that we hope they dont do it, because Call of Duty is a respectfull fps game u.u
    laser guns and freeze weapon is so lame... PS: halo sux...

    stop doing protest and all, u didnt even see the game yet... for what we know, will be more hardcore... if we can blow everything, what will metter what year the game is?

    for me, i will wait even thinking that WW2 idea sux, cause can be a really great game... after all, WW2 or not, it is Call of Duty...

  • Masta-G-Spot

    Posted Jun 19, 2008 3:59 pm PT

    tired of wwII
    lets move on to somthing else

  • DJ-Jehervis

    Posted Jun 19, 2008 9:04 am PT

    man i wasnt looking forward to another WW2, untill i heard the way they were making this, i reckon this could actually beat COD4 since it sounds basically real life war, and not some rambo crap. im looking forward to buying this, treyarch or not sounds awsome

  • LegendaryGamer0

    Posted Jun 19, 2008 4:51 am PT

    I think we are going to buy it no matter what war it's based on...if it's based on one at all...I just hope that in the near future that we will see 10 player online Co-op play...or maybe a "Create A War" feature...you know,make your own level...something to prevent people from moving on to other FPS games...

  • Yhua

    Posted Jun 18, 2008 10:01 pm PT

    i wish they would just start over and start a time line of the world and the wars it had not just MODERN or WW2 maybe WW1 or French revolution
    Civil war anything with guns

  • SkeletalKnight

    Posted Jun 18, 2008 6:22 pm PT

    I don't mind WWII, especially with COD4 engine and perks and such.... but WHY are they letting Treyarch handle this? Treyarch bombed on COD3 and almost made me walk away from the series- I was worried Treyarch was the new head of the COD franchise. Thankfully COD4 was handled by IW, I really wish they were doing this one as well. I'm afraid the quality of this game might be as low as COD3 was. This will likely be a rental first, to protect my money for other purchases. Here's hoping Treyarch proves me wrong!

  • Edot0

    Posted Jun 18, 2008 3:32 pm PT

    back to WW2 huh? this game is a fail.

  • Xx-explicit-xX

    Posted Jun 18, 2008 9:59 am PT

    Seems like a dumb move to go back to Treyarch, look how COD4 sold compared to other Treyarch deigned games. They should stick to infinity ward as they know how to make a game. I guarantee it will not sell better then COD4, Treyarch are rubbish and can’t design a game that comes close to COD4. Even still, if Treyarch looked and saw that Modern Warfare is what people want why not make a modern warfare game, seems Treyarch lack common sense. Join The Protest against treyarch
    http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?Kevin813&1

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!

Related Game

Call of Duty: World at War Boxshot
Call of Duty: World at War

Game Stats

  • Rank:
    1,748 of 59,064
    (down by 202)
    DS Rank:
    125 of 2,738
    Highest Rank:
    4 in 2008
    Tracking:
    199 Track It»
    Wishlists:
    100 Wish It»
  • Users Now Playing:
    63
  • Top 5 User Tags:
    1. call of duty
    2. fps
    3. world at war
    4. activision
    5. call of duty 5
  • Teen Rating Description

    Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language. Learn more

Full Game Details »Close
Also on

Related Games

Site Blogs