"I can't say that there won't ever be a WWII Call of Duty game again, but ... it's gratifying that we're able to show the close for once, rather than the opening," said Heller to CVG. "The war is over and both campaigns have a very clear ending." World at War takes place in the Pacific and in Berlin.
To make his point, Heller explores some parts of World War II that Treyarch and Infinity Ward, the alternating developers of the series for publisher Activision, haven't yet used. "People definitely haven't seen the final charge of the Red Army, people haven't seen what the fighting was like in Okinawa."
"I think it's definitely important to show those stories from a polished perspective rather than show some of the mopping up elsewhere in the world," he explained.
"If we had time we might have shown the end of the war from many different countries' perspectives, and maybe that's a story still untold," Heller concluded.
OK, if they want to **** with us that much, then they need to do 2 things:
A.) Somehow link it with the Modern Campaigns through it's story.
B.) Make these cost less than 50 bucks because we want to see less WWII, even if BiA:HH was good, enough is enough, and you can't tease us with CoD4 and then just jump backwards, it fucks with our heads.
WW2 games still very much have a place if done well.
Company of Heroes as the perennial example for being released during what seemed like the peak of the anti-WW2 bandwagon and being a phenomenal game
I'm with you on that, but CoD's already jumped to modern times, if CoD4 and 5 switched places people wouldn't be so "OMG NO MORE WWII" because people don't miss what they never had. If they do WWII AGAIN it'll be a big mistake for the CoD series unless they do something we have NEVER seen before.
I don't know, sometimes you just feel like blasting Germans to hell.