Discussion in 'Games' started by TheMailMan78, Sep 25, 2008.
He's a nutter
If they stick with other release dates end of Oct begin of Nov.Cod4 came out Oct 25 or something.
I updated the first post to include the estimated release date and a ton of screenshots. Keep checking back to see if it or anything else changes. ALSO BETA!!! Check out the first post!
when i look at this picture It makes me think it came from Medal Of Honor: Pacific Assualt.
hopefully CoD5 will be a lot better then that game.
is there a demo on cod5?
Not yet. As soon as there is Ill post the news here.
Check out the first post. I got some BIG updates!
I'l have me some of that
i cant wait its gonna be sweet
finally we get bayonets but im telling you NO LEE ENFIELD IS CRAP
i refuse to buy such a game without an lee enfield rifle or a bren machine gun
stens are good for covert silent shit
carbine is way better than any other US rifles if can reload during clip has loads of ammo ect
they might be unlockable weapons just like COD4 was....
Buddy relax. This game doesn't involve any of the UK. This is why there is no Lee or Bren guns in this one. As for the Sten its only included because ALL allies used it during the war. Everybody and there mama made a version of that gun. It was cheap and easy to mass produce and VERY effective for what it was designed for.
However it was only to fill the void when the UK couldn't buy enough Thompson subs from the U.S. We couldn't build those things fast enough for you guys! As for the Bren well as a gun it was a brilliant piece of equipment! However the magazine placement had MUCH to be desired. The U.S. had the B.A.R. which had a much lower firing rate but had two major advantages over the Bren. 1. Field of view 2. Ammo type. The 7.62x63mm (30-06) which was widely more available at the time and cheaper to produce than the British .303. The Bren gained support in the 1950's for the 7.62x63mm but the war was already over and the United States was moving on to a new Lt. Machine gun the M60. Still the Brens field of view has always sucked due to the magazine placement. I love a Bren gun (shot them many times) but your screwed if you have a target banking in from the right.
The Lee is a classic but my personal preference is the M1 Grand from that time period. It gave the U.S. a huge advantage in fireing rate compared to the Lee which at the time had a "dated" bolt action. Plus the British REFUSED to adopt the .30-06 which is by all means a superior cartridge.
I agree with you missing these guns is kinda sad but there is no place for them in this game. I dont think this CoD has anything to do with the UK. I wish it did however. I would love to play the Spitsbergen Operation or the Battle of Gazala which would be a cool change.
Anyway if you ever wanna talk guns let me know and BUY THE DAMN GAME! Maybe we can co-op!
One of the best things about the Lee Enfield - Reliability. they jammed a lot lot less then the M1.
also they were a lot more 'versatile' in the field due to their how their made - A Lee Enfield could also function as a sniper rifle with a scope - the M1 Grand never had that sorta feature thus forcing the americans to waste funds making 2 types of gun - A M1 & a Sniper Rifle.
of course in the game 'jamming' doesnt occur so what i said means fuck all anyway LOL
Well you really have to work at jamming a bolt action. Its damn near impossible unless the spring is busted. As for the M1 was very simplistic design so it didnt jam near as much as people think. Its biggest problem was in the heat of combat you might catch your thumb reloading it. Lord knows Iv almost done it.
As for the U.S. wasting money on two different rifles to be more "'versatile" you couldn't be more wrong. The Springfield weapons were left over from WW1 and the M1s were its replacement. They didn't make any new Springfield rifles for WW2. After WW1 the U.S. realized the need for an improved fire rate over bolt action and the M1 was born. Also note the M1 is VERY accurate for what it was designed for. I can hit yankee plates all day at 700yrds with open sights. Thats WAY farther than most combat takes place.
personally - I prefer sniper rifles. rapid fire of an auto is cool but taking people out at long long distances is just bonafide pwnage
thanks for replying i really liked the british weapons better just about everybody seems to do the americans and russians
cod was different it has the best british character Cpt Price
the lee enfield may not be as advanced but it was powerful and accurate the M1 required a few rounds and if you fired a few you where left with a few rounds in it and cant reload it
the best weapons are the british then the americans for the pistols i have to admit tho the MP40 was a superior sub machine gun to the sten and thompson i mean the thompson was just a gun for the police then it got adapted with the stick cartridge of ammo and made lighter still very heavy tho
the germans made the first ever assult rifle didnt they
all im saying guys is that some of the german weapons were better the semi and full auto weapons i mean germany was tech mad when it came to war they pumped all the economy into the war with vehicles and weapons
i like the look of the graphics but gayarch is known for making flash games with no substance
the bloody bayonet tho about damn time ive only ever seen it in soldier of fortune 2 on the AK
whats that german paratrooper semi auto gun that has a sniper scope?
whats the whole point in the flame throwers? they used em but not a lot
Well I can debate you on the British having the best weapons but it would just end up being a patriotic ramble between us. However Ill leave you with this......
FYI thats not a Bren hes holding
Anyway don't worry about Treyarch. They make great games. CoD3 sucked because they hand NO time to develop it. Did you like Call of Duty: United Offensive? Because they made that too but everyone seems to have forgotten about it. It was hands down the best in the CoD multiplayer up until CoD4 and it wasn't even made by IW. Now everyone seems to be on this "we must hate Treyarch because everyone else does" bend. Give them a chance to redeem themselves. I think everyone thats doubting them will be surprised.
New Screens In The First Post!
Seeing all these pics are making me very excited about the game.
but i still cant shrug off the fact that part of it looks very 'Medal Of Honor: Pacific Assualt'ish'
I wonder what the spec of the machine they got the screenies from.
I think with this new game i better grab myself a cheap Nvidia 8400gs to run PhysX - its only gonna cost me $53.20
Naa your card it great. But your in the same boat as me with a 939. You need to upgrade that CPU bad! If you can run CoD4 you should be just fine here but that CPU is gonna kill ya if not. As for the game reminding you of Medal Of Honor: Pacific Assualt it should. Its the same theater of war.
Well i get between 60-90fps+ running 1280x1024res 2/4x AA with max settings
& if CoD5 system requirements are as you/they stated then running it will be a peice of piss.
otherwise my cpu aint no run of the mill X2 3800 - Im sure i could probably hit 2.7Ghz & more on it but that would be really pushing it
How many times have i seen a game which required a Intel P4 3Ghz (or better) but was able to run the game smooth as a babys arse.
if anything i'l probably just grab another 8800GTS if my system is struggling that badly
I'm preorder this game just like i did cod4 .I have all of them and liked every one of them.But unitedoffencive was nice with the Vehicles in MP.
Well man I run CoD4 at 1400rez with everything maxed out at 2xAA and hit 60fps easy. If your CPU is overclocked like you say then you shouldn't have any issue doing the same. Honestly you should be able to run CoD5 pretty much maxed out. Have you seen the videos yet in the frist post?
Separate names with a comma.