Call of Duty 4 In The Works

A reliable source close to the Call of Duty development teams has revealed not only the existence of Call of Duty 4, but vital details surrounding the game as well, including the fact that it will be based on modern combat.

According to our source, Call of Duty 4 will be developed by Infinity Ward, the developer behind the first and second installments. The three-way deal established between Infinity Ward, Treyarch, and Activision states that Infinity Ward will develop all even numbered titles while Treyarch develops the odd numbered games, such as Call of Duty 3. Treyarch did develop Call of Duty 2: Big Red One as well, however.

As aforementioned, Call of Duty 4 is said to step away from the war torn locales of World War II, instead focusing on the battlefields of present day. It is unknown if it will take the same path as Electronic Arts' Battlefield franchise, placing the spotlight on the Middle East.

The source compared Call of Duty 4's technical achievements to other games saying that while most shooters have two or three critical points on the head, Call of Duty 4 has 16, saying that you can shoot the side of an opponent's helmet to make it spin on their head, or knock the helmet clean off. Supposedly you will even be able to shoot an enemy's ear off.

Although Call of Duty's single player has always been a mainstay of the franchise, the multiplayer is certainly something to write home about. Our source has said that there have been multiplayer bouts with 54 players. PC gamers will be happy to know that they will be able to join the action once again, as Infinity Ward is supposed to be bringing Call of Duty 4 to the PC as well as consoles. Call of Duty 3 is only available on consoles and eventually the PSP.

News source: IGO News

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows Media Player 11 Update for Windows XP

Next Story

Bloodmasters 1.1 important update

36 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

as much as i love the ww2 games, im getting a little tired of holding an M1 or Thompson game after game. I think they should work their way up the war timeline by going to a war later on like the korean or vietnam war.

WooHoo! Finally its coming to the PC again. Can't wait, but for now ill just have to play COD2.
......:) :nuts: :nuts: :nuts:

One additional note:

I don't care what, when or where it is.

Unfortunatley, WWII is the only war we have that was so evocative of good verse evil. It has a romantic cache to it that will never die and that is what makes part of playing it so interesting.

Who here reading this post hasn't watched Saving Private Ryan a few times and Band of Brothers a hundred times? Why? Because the story line is so compelling.

When we play COD we get a little lost in that story line and what's keeps it interesting is playing 32, or so, other people with "old fashioned" weapons that have bolt actions, weird 8 round clips that make a cool sound when ejecting, etc.

An M-16 with a red dot sight on it just isn't the same. Fallujah might be interesting, but that's too real for me right now.

But, as I posted above, lock and load me anywhere, just please don't take away my game play!

Ultimately, people, we're looking for gameplay.

Historically, this is what happened:
MOHAA comes out and blows the doors off the PC Gaming industry. Cool grafx with AMAZING GAMEPLAY. This includes Multi-Player support. Some of you will say "but there was Quake...etc". Yes, I know, but collaberative MP was re-defined by MOHAA.

The same guys that developed MOHAA leave and produce COD.

It's basically the same game, but the MP is even better. What really, really makes the MP so good? First of all, the maps are amazing. You can play the same maps in MP a million times and there is still that little sniping spot you haven't quite figured out yet.

The annoying stuff:
MOHAA Pacific Theater (or whatever it was called) was horrid. SP and MP stank. They thought "we'll make it look better" and forgot that GAMEPLAY is what matters. I couldn't even finish the SP and tried playing MP a couple times. Yuck.

COD2 is still *the* MP online game as far as I am concerned. BF? Sure, its good, but IMHO COD2 still rules the nest.

The thing is and this message is for the developers: PLEASE DON'T RUIN GAMEPLAY BY MAKING COD 4 JUST LOOK GOOD. Note: if Super Mario Brothers came out with a 100 new maps I would play every one of them. Why? Because regardless of the grafx, the GAMEPLAY is just plain great entertainment.

So, yes, the console COD 3 was funded by us poor PC schmucks who put enough money in these developers pockets to cause a realization in the console world that these games make ultra $$$.

It was also a slap in the face that we didn't get free maps with bug fixes, that PunkBuster took over a year to come out for COD2 and still doesn't work the way it should.

But here we are, annoyed as hell, but still waiting for COD 4 for PC.

Please, please, please, please, please don't ruin our gameplay like MOHAA did. Give us some higher rez grafx with 16 hit spots on the head, but don't take away our fun. It's not a console game. It's a keyboard/mouse game.

This seems good news to me, there are enough WW2 games for a live-time and a half... and of course I don't own any "nextgen" console so more good news to me

I thought the second one was only just released a couple months ago? I love it. It made me want an xbox360 (along with a couple other games)

I dont play the series but isnt the alternating of developers bad news for PC gamers? I mean we will get number 4 but whats stopiing 5 then being a console only release again?

Quote - Smigit said @ #15
I dont play the series but isnt the alternating of developers bad news for PC gamers? I mean we will get number 4 but whats stopiing 5 then being a console only release again?

nothing. its way more finatially feasble to make console only games then cross platform games. pc game sales are not nearly as good as console sales. where talking 6.6bn in 04 for console games compared to 1.1bn in pc game sales same year. if you where a video game exec and you saw those numbers, why would you even bother?

it sucks. because i dont own a console. nor do i plan to own one.

*sings* anything your console can do my pc can do better

am I the only one thinks call of duty is loosing is magic.. I played CoD 2 and I got bored after while.. I remember in CoD 1 with the all expansion pack, my fav one when threw my ass in russia with just bullets... see I like that.. what happend to the magic?

I would really hope to see Call of Duty 4 be about WW1 and WW2, probley wouldnt happen for WW1, but i really hope they dont go down the route like Electronic Arts, I think there is still plenty they can make about WW2

I hope they don't make call of duty 4 for consoles... since us call of duty fans liked it when it was out for the PC and now they kinda ****ed us off because they never released call of duty 3 for the PC.... damm morons...

They didn't release Call of Duty 3 for the PC, because A) they wanted to focus on the next-gen consoles, and B) Treyarch is making it and not Infinity Ward.

not to mention the pc games sales compared to console game sales is just silly. in 04 there was 6.6bn in console game sales, and only 1.1bn in pc game sales.

im suprised anyone makes pc game anymore.

how many damn ww# games do we need. these stupid games have been around longer then the actual wars. its time to milk off some other time in history.

Going into the modern time, doesn't necessarily mean "Battlefield 2-style". Perhaps instead of WW2, they simply move it up another real conflict, such as the Korean or Vietnam wars. Glad to hear that CoD4 will be PC-compatible :P ... I got mad when I heard that CoD 3 wasnt coming to PC.

No surprises that CoD4 is already under development. It beats Medal of Honour hands down in my opinion. Frankly though, most of its appeal is the fact that it pulls off the World Wars. I think they should pheraphs leave modern day to the many, many other companies out there doing it. Why compete with Americas Army when you already have a great WW2 game....

I guess it means more minds can come together with new ideas to make each game progressively more exciting every time.

Although, personally, I would prefer it if Treyarch carried on the series. CoD2 lacked a bit of magic for me, but CoD3 is simply stunning.

Quote - Burnz316 said @ #6
why have two different companies making this game?

Mere speculation from my part, but possibly so that as soon as one game is released and that team starts working on their next installment, there's another one already half-way through its development phase being worked on by the other team. Shortens release times, so to speak. COD2 isn't all that old, all things considered, and COD3 is out now...

OTOH, if that's really part of the reason, you'd think it would make more sense to bring both companies together, but keep working as two distinct teams...

What a mess this is, Infinity Ward wants to move Call of Duty in a non-WW2 direction (which they have the right to do), yet they will call it Call of Duty 4 while Treyarch comes out with Call of Duty 5 as WW2 again... Call of Duty 3 should have been called something Call of Duty: Something Else.

Quote - darkpuma said @ #4.1
cus its too linear, too boring, repetitive...... too repetitive...... too repetitive..... and now too repetitive!

You just described 99% of all FPS. It's not a bad series for what it's trying to do. And don't most WW2 games aim at giving you the ultimate experience in warfare? CoD3 does a pretty good job of that.