• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Call Of Duty WW2 reveal 26 april, website up [UPDATE: Leaked screenshots]

pa22word

Member
Maybe if you are a Call of Duty fan. But I would place my bets on underwhelming fast-paced World War action for casual teenagers.

tumblr_static_tumblr_static_d77adi54qhc840s4g80w0cwsk_640.gif


Yes, cod is going to be cod. Thanks for this utterly shocking, awe-inspiring tidbit of consciousness.
 
I wish someone would make a game that took a theater from a war, and randomly generated every soldier/squad/company/division etc. The only thing that would change the generation would be you. So it could spiral out, and change the war, if you were good enough. You could say, "Harry Plinkett died on the beach during D-Day. I want him to survive the war.", so you meticulously follow him through the entire war. The difficulty would be purely how much combat that squad saw. You could go from leading a foot solider, to running a Division. Have subplots and stories, as these soldiers see the horrors of war, and become experienced.

The techs there, just not the incentive.
 

pa22word

Member
There's nothing wrong with your opinion. I'm just saying why I think it's going to be predictable, safe, and boring.

No one's buying this game thinking it's going to be the next super Mario Brothers. This is like what, the 12th entry of a yearly franchise of shooters. Yes it's going to be predictable, yes it's going to be safe, yes it's going to be derivative. Everyone already knows this. Not every game has to break new ground, establish new trends, or start new discussions on what video games are and can be. Sometimes you just want a cheeseburger, and from time to time call of duty can be pretty good cheeseburger games.
 
There's nothing wrong with your opinion. I'm just saying why I think it's going to be predictable, safe, and boring.
To be fair you can't really do much to a WWII game after you've gotten Mecha hitler.
You could probably plot down the story of this game now and get close enough to the actual story as to being plagiarism.
 

MilkyJoe

Member
There's nothing wrong with your opinion. I'm just saying why I think it's going to be predictable, safe, and boring.

It's the first WW2 game in nearly a decade, it'll be breath of fresh air and hopefully a nice narrative with a little history thrown in to boot. I'm looking forward to it and I haven't said that since WaW.
 

DaciaJC

Gold Member
Agreed.

The WWII Call Of Duty games hold a special place in my gaming history - but Medal Of Honor: Allied Assault is the best of the best.

The atmosphere alone coupled with the soundtrack - that almost doubles as atmosphere itself - just sells the game. I remember seeing documentaries about how they recorded the actual WWII weapon sounds, so everything was authentic even down to the shell casing sounds.

The level choices were also sublime - it was either overcast most of the time, or raining and it just really had such an overbearing Saving Private Ryan/Band of Brothers vibe that I couldn't help but fall in love with it.

Here's hoping Sledgehammer Games can recapture at least some of that magic and atmosphere in Call of Duty: WWII.

I myself prefer Frontline, in large part because of its stellar soundtrack, but there is one part of Allied Assault that has remained with me over the years: that Sniper Town level. Its inspiration couldn't be more unmistakable.

saving-private-ryan-sniper-o.gif
 
I myself prefer Frontline, in large part because of its stellar soundtrack, but there is one part of Allied Assault that has remained with me over the years: that Sniper Town level. Its inspiration couldn't be more unmistakable.

saving-private-ryan-sniper-o.gif

That level must have been the main reason Allied Assault was a PC exclusive; countless millions of controllers would have been destroyed out of sheer rage.
 

SDCowboy

Member
I really dont think this will have any staying power. Sure it will be fun to play the levels a couple of times, but modern or future has so many more options.

Bf 4 and Rainbowsix are the best military shooters currently. Bf 1 is dying quicker than usual.
Riiight...kind of like how folks were saying Battlefield 1's WW1 setting wouldn't have staying power.
 

thetrin

Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Lame. I was hoping they'd keep getting more futuristic.
 

SDCowboy

Member
Maybe if you are a Call of Duty fan. But I would place my bets on underwhelming fast-paced World War action for casual teenagers.

This right here is one of the perks of this setting. The lack jet-pack futuristic BS will likely turn a lot of the little squeakers away.

That's a win/win, IMO.
 
Lame. I was hoping they'd keep getting more futuristic.

Futuristic has just been an excuse to add more stupid moves and perks, the only thing they could think of to freshen up the yearly release schedule. But that's just lazy and it has started to catch up with them.

What they really need to do is get back to basics. Excellent maps, engaging and well balanced gameplay loop, sensible perk system, etc. That's what made COD great in the first place and it has been lost in a mess of poor mechanics and tacked on ideas.
 

SDCowboy

Member
Lame. I was hoping they'd keep getting more futuristic.

I'm hoping they never go futuristic again. It doesn't suit COD, IMO. Ideally, the next one will be a new Modern Warfare, though. Modern give the best combo of traditional combat, but they can still do all the crazy camo and whatnot.
 
This right here is one of the perks of this setting. The lack jet-pack futuristic BS will likely turn a lot of the little squeakers away.

That's a win/win, IMO.

Not sure why that would really matter. Titanfall didn't create squeakers, and I really doubt this is slower than World at War or Modern Warfare 2. Maybe less killstreaks than the latter, but that's about it.
 

SDCowboy

Member
Not sure why that would really matter. Titanfall didn't create squeakers, and I really doubt this is slower than World at War or Modern Warfare 2. Maybe less killstreaks than the latter, but that's about it.


I do agree that the combat should be no slower than another modern COD, as WaW wasn't.
 

BigEmil

Junior Member
I'm 99% positive we're not getting a zombie mode. It would be in that promotional box if we were. Advanced Warfare didn't have one on disc either.
Hmmm... Well hope they atleast replace it with another mode like Special Ops etc and not just completely scrap a mode altogether should have zombie mode or add some other mode
 

double jump

you haven't lived until a random little kid ask you "how do you make love".
I'm kinda hype for this but I'm trying to keep my expectations in check.
If the trailer ends up being dope it'd be great if they had a beta or demo before the game ships.
 
Also they mentioned that there'll be a completely separate Co-op campaign. Glad they learned from Treyarch's mistakes of Bloops III's cam paign.

I also hope the MC talks in gameplay; the past two CoDs have gone in that direction, but I remember Scofield saying when AW was being previewed that there was 'too much of a disconnect' with having the character talk in gameplay... even though you talked in cutscenes. Hopefully that's been reconsidered.
 

Kalentan

Member
I'm hoping they never go futuristic again. It doesn't suit COD, IMO. Ideally, the next one will be a new Modern Warfare, though. Modern give the best combo of traditional combat, but they can still do all the crazy camo and whatnot.

No they need to keep futuristic still.

It needs to go like this.

Sledgehammer - Past
Treyarch - Modern
Infinity Ward - Future

This allows Activision to get rid of the oversaturation of covering a single time period. So this will keep things fresh. If everyone ends up just doing similar settings then we're back to what they've been doing for the past 3 years which is no good. This allows each Call of Duty to stand very differently from the others rather than them having huge amount of cross over. It benefits every developer since they don't need to worry about making their game similar to the others which can happen when they're all close to the same time period.

Ironically the people asking for no future anyone are advocating for that problem to happen once again. Hell they'd probably be the first ones to complain about it.
 
I myself prefer Frontline, in large part because of its stellar soundtrack, but there is one part of Allied Assault that has remained with me over the years: that Sniper Town level. Its inspiration couldn't be more unmistakable.

saving-private-ryan-sniper-o.gif

That's such a great scene :)

I remember watching this gameplay over and over again back in the day. It was so awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lyy5XRj1nEI

It's what sold me on the game!

Lame. I was hoping they'd keep getting more futuristic.

Good thing there's Star Wars Battlefront then, right?
 
When it's time for the next Treyarch game, i'd really like a site to try to get an honest sit down with them about what the fuck happened with BO3's campaign. BO and BO2 were so damn good in that area. And then comes BO3. It's a campaign so bad that it made me appreciate the campaign in Ghosts. At least it felt like a CoD campaign even though it was heavily flaws in some areas.

I don't know, I thought Black Ops 3 was fine. I think it gets too much hate around here I was expecting something completely awful from the posts here on Gaf. Yeah, the story is poorly told and the campaign is pretty long winded, but the action is still great, and it has one of the best soundtracks in a CoD game. I also appreciate the attempt at trying something a bit different instead of the same standard heavily scripted campaign.

I still find Ghosts to easily be the worst in the series.
 

Gorillaz

Member
No they need to keep futuristic still.

It needs to go like this.

Sledgehammer - Past
Treyarch - Modern
Infinity Ward - Future

This allows Activision to get rid of the oversaturation of covering a single time period. So this will keep things fresh. If everyone ends up just doing similar settings then we're back to what they've been doing for the past 3 years which is no good. This allows each Call of Duty to stand very differently from the others rather than them having huge amount of cross over. It benefits every developer since they don't need to worry about making their game similar to the others which can happen when they're all close to the same time period.

Ironically the people asking for no future anyone are advocating for that problem to happen once again. Hell they'd probably be the first ones to complain about it.

Alot of the same people probably haven't played a CoD in years too so their completely out the loop. Which is why I'm not getting my hopes up for some huge special Campaign. AW was okish but that is in comparison to what the series has been since MW2/BO1. It doesn't have any sorts of balance in story beats or flow. It's high octance as fuck with no sort of slow or chill on levels.

I think it's interesting going back to this but at the same time we been down this road before but now it's full of lootcrates. I think people should honestly temper expectations especially those who haven't touched the series in like 5 years
 
Medal of Honor: AA was great, one of the best fps games imo.

The thing that made it fun to play was one of the reasons why Goldeneye was so much fun, good gunplay.

The way enemies reacted to getting hit in different areas, it didn't take a half a mag to down someone and they didn't just fall like paper or other things like you see in even modern games.

The only recent fps game that attempted good reactions to combat was Mafia III.

d4fF4YW.gif


Enemies reacted to where you hit them and didn't always die when they were down either, it made great use of physics with animation blending as well.

Something that I would hope Call of Duty would learn from (but probably won't, probably just the same usual cod style animatoins).

I agree and hope for the same.

Honestly, I feel that this is an area where games have made no progress, or in most cases, regressed.

I can only guess that semi-realistic body/bullet impact costs too much resources, however I think it is a must for any shooter.

I want to "feel" the punch of the bullet, I want to see it. I want whomever I've shot to react in such a way that seems real.
 

Yu Furealdo

Member
This announcement made me decide to play CoD2 again. I can still see why it was so great, but man has it aged lol

The multiplayer is enjoyable for its simplicity but it's soooo slow.
 
I love WWII.

The mystery, the intrigue, the cloak-and-dagger nature of some of it and the "total good" versus "total evil" motif was an understandable reason to enter into the fray - it truly fascinates me.

Americans banded together in such a way that "camaraderie" is not even a strong enough word. The nation pulled together as a whole, with women taking care of their families on the homefront and also working in factories producing munitions. it was certainly a different era than what we are used to today.
 

nordique

Member
First CoD game I buy since the disappointment that was GHOSTS if it has a strong campaign.


This has potential....but will need to deliver on the campaign.
 

hoggert

Member
Black Ops 3 should have starred the multiplayer specialists in the campaign. They're more interesting characters than anyone in the campaign we got.
Don't even get me started lol
When a fucking wiki summary of some pyromaniac in asbestos suit has better writing then the Hollywood main campaign of bo3 lol lol lol
 
Top Bottom