Because Facism is evil.
And Socialism, in its purest form, is about equality.
Socialism is nazism's siamese brother. Both responsible for millions of deaths.
Because Facism is evil.
And Socialism, in its purest form, is about equality.
Socialism is nazism's siamese brother. Both responsible for millions of deaths.
The original COD had faction specific weapons. Of course there were plenty of modded servers where you would basically get the Overkill perk and get to choose one from each side instead, mostly because the weapons were pretty unbalanced.You could always spawn in with the opposing factions weapons. CoD has always been "accurate" like that.
Can I ask what you're even arguing in favor for or against? You've brought up historical accuracy, you've mentioned developers over selling aspects of their game, you've made attempts to talk about censorship. You just seemed really pissed that Swastika's aren't in MP and are lashing out in a way possible to try and better make your case despite people poking holes through most of those "points" like they were Swiss cheese.
So basically nothing what we've seen from CODWW2? Or do you think their 3 lane maps are based on actual battlefields? Or that their dialogue is even remotely accurate?
You're really going through alot of nonsense to justify your need for swastikas
As someone who has seen combat in afghanistan it's astonishing to see people think war is even remotely like a COD game.You're the one who's claiming to have learned real world battle field lessons from Call of Duty of all things.
Your argument is nonsense. If you want a realistic WW2 experience don't look for it in COD or video games at all.In the world of entertainment, things like Saving Private Ryan is the pinnacle of realism for World War II themed entertainment. I'm at least hoping for the same level of seriousness and historical accuracy from the campaign. The censorship for the multiplayer component shouldn't be happening - censoring history is just wrong. There should be no argument to that, that's my point.
So why do you think the setting exists at all? You know some dev spend a ton of time modeling those soldiers uniforms accurately, but apparently the next Battlefield could just use green blobs instead of soldiers and no one would be allowed to complain.
That same stupid gif keeps getting posted in here as an argument for pro-censorship and non-historical accuracy. Maybe I'm unique in this, but when I play a World War II game especially in multiplayer, I try and do it realistically; like taking cover behind walls and embankments, diving into trenches - using realistic tactics as you said. I don't just run around aimlessly shooting, but maybe that's just me.
NOPE. The Clean Wehrmacht Myth is straight up propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Wehrmacht
And people continue to wonder why these things need to be approached the way they are.
Historical accuracy in regards to WWII? I haven't been avoiding your question, I didn't see it asked. Isn't it obvious that historical accuracy in World War II should mean that it reflects actual history or at least has the feeling and atmosphere of it? Actual weapon models, actual clothing modelling, historically accurate dialogue, battlefield layouts and conflicts?
What do you mean?
All battles involve the same basic tactics: run, stop, take cover, shoot, deploy, flank etc.
Censoring history is just wrong.
Most of my points are infallible, it's just amateurs and ignorant people taking shots at them and throwing their own political agendas into their comments. At no point was a Swiss cheese annihilation of any opinion or point I've made achieved.
My main point is that if they're going to have them in single player, they should also be in multiplayer. Both game modes are on the same disk; it just seems strange to me that the content is in one mode, but not the other. That and all the hyperbole spewn by the developers is why I'm so pro-uncensorship for this game and for no other reason.
As someone who has seen combat in afghanistan it's astonishing to see people think war is even remotely like a COD game.
I don't really watch Disney movies.I bet you get real pissed off at Disney movies not having any blood.
Yeah, I was honestly thinking about Wildlands (coop), DayZ, Arma3 when I wrote that. BTW, CoD does have a "hardcore" mode.I'm pretty sure the tactics you use would still get you killed really fast in actual, real world battle.
CoD isn't a battlefield simulator. I hope you're not believing that you're actually learning modern battle tactics from playing it.
Don't kid yourself, CoD multiplayer is the definition of a mindless game for kids.
I don't really watch Disney movies.
Honestly man you just need to stop, your flip flopping and blindness in this thread is crazy. You hang onto this historical accuracy phrase but don't respond to the tons of stuff that aren't historically accurate in COD mp for awhile now. There are going to be goofy colored gear, funky weapon skins, killstreaks, perks, spawn flipping, tea bagging, dances and emotes in post game, red dot sights, people running beside you quickscoping and somehow the only thing that breaks your immersion is the lack of swastikas? Come on man.Most of my points are infallible, it's just amateurs and ignorant people taking shots at them and throwing their own political agendas into their comments. At no point was a Swiss cheese annihilation of any opinion or point I've made achieved.
My main point is that if they're going to have them in single player, they should also be in multiplayer. Both game modes are on the same disk; it just seems strange to me that the content is in one mode, but not the other. That and all the hyperbole spewn by the developers is why I'm so pro-uncensorship for this game and for no other reason.
In the world of entertainment, things like Saving Private Ryan is the pinnacle of realism for World War II themed entertainment. I'm at least hoping for the same level of seriousness and historical accuracy from the campaign. The censorship for the multiplayer component shouldn't be happening - censoring history is just wrong. There should be no argument to that, that's my point.
Educate yourself
Giving me a list of commited war crimes still doesn't make every individual of any army whatsoever a good or bad person.
Thanks for the suggestion. I promise you I'll watch it at some point. You put it in my radar.Watch Zootopia. It's fucking amazeballs.
Educate yourself
Giving me a list of commited war crimes still doesn't make every individual of any army whatsoever a good or bad person.
The cosmetic thing is another issue entirely. There are two camps on that as well, I for one am in the camp that thinks that none of that goofy Neon, weed or whatever cosmetic skins should be featured in the multiplayer because of the setting. People do like to show off their customizations, but that just completely breaks the immersion of the conflict that you are in the middle of. No one in WWII ever dressed like this:
Lol
Explaining the decision, Condrey said Call of Duty: WW2's campaign is about telling an authentic World War 2 story, whereas multiplayer is about putting the player's avatar, whatever it may be, inside a World War 2-themed shooter.
"The campaign in this game is about finding that line of quality entertainment with respect for the world's greatest conflict and the people who sacrificed and died," Condrey said. "We tell that narrative in a way we think honours the cause.
"Multiplayer is about bringing a community together that enjoys playing Call of Duty. It's faster. There's a brutality to WW2 multiplayer that is different than the last few games we made, but we were able to take some creative liberties to make that an experience multiplayer fans really love.
Socialism is nazism's siamese brother. Both responsible for millions of deaths.
Respawning, getting points, bullets emitting from the top of your head, 360 no-scopes. Yeah, checks out.So using cover to move around the battlefield, using team tactics to flank an opponent, strategically lobbing grenades to assist your next move and shooting tactically in general aren't what occurs in actual, real world battle?
As someone who has seen combat in afghanistan it's astonishing to see people think war is even remotely like a COD game.
I mean the hypocrisy present in most "historical accuracy" arguments wherein people only focus on superficial elements of past events that are more blatant and easy to argue (the presence of a swastika) while ignoring or not being aware of the true historical nature of the event in question (clothing, weaponry, vehicles, demographics of involved peoples, battles, actual tactics, language and accents, civilian involvement, etc.).
You've been doing absolutely nothing in this topic worth note except for patting the back of people who are putting in a modicum of effort in trying to argue why the swastika is important enough to put in multiplayer while displaying no understanding on your own of what WWII was actually like or even how proper armies work. This is why people are saying you are disingenuously couching yourself in the tired veil of censorship and- at the end of the day- are only interested in nothing but the chance to see Nazi imagery proper regardless of whether or not the rest of the game is actually historically accurate. Because you haven't proven otherwise.
If it bothers you to potentially be equated with the so-called alt-right in this manner, then actually make a credible argument that shows you have a historically accurate knowledge of WWII outside of the basic facts disseminated by pop culture. Say something of note. Anything.
This doesn't mean games that include these things presence and their mechanical implementation are perfectly reflective of what goes on in real life, and thus this doesn't mean every single game is a WWII simulator.
At this rate I can call Burnout an accurate simulation of street racing. It has cars with steering, acceleration, and braking and you drive on the streets. It is exactly like driving in real life.
If I wanted to make a game where Hitler is a seaslug, you couldn't stop me.
Educate yourself
Giving me a list of commited war crimes still doesn't make every individual of any army whatsoever a good or bad person.
The original COD had faction specific weapons. Of course there were plenty of modded servers where you would basically get the Overkill perk and get to choose one from each side instead, mostly because the weapons were pretty unbalanced.
This game has the perfect opportunity with its asymmetrical War mode to do faction specific weapons but nope.
Honestly man you just need to stop, your flip flopping and blindness in this thread is crazy. You hang onto this historical accuracy phrase but don't respond to the tons of stuff that aren't historically accurate in COD mp for awhile now. There are going to be goofy colored gear, funky weapon skins, killstreaks, perks, spawn flipping, tea bagging, dances and emotes in post game, red dot sights, people running beside you quickscoping and somehow the only thing that breaks your immersion is the lack of swastikas? Come on man.
All you're doing in this thread is creating a commotion for no reason and attacking anybody that is saying that historical accuracy means non-censorship.
And you keep asking me to throw out what, random WWII facts to prove I am knowledgeable about the conflict? Is that what you want me to do, throw out random WWII facts relating to this game?
Is that what you're asking, because I really don't know what you want from me because you keep rambling incoherently.
Thats not good enough theres no reason to remove that from the MP, which is where a majority of the cod audience spends their time and plays. Show all parts of the war in all parts of the game, especially given its a M rated game on top of that.
The only times I've noticed you or any pattern of your postings is in these specific threads about this specific game.I haven't flip flopped once.
I'm aware that the multiplayer component is not 100% historically accurate as far as teabagging and customization, etc. I'm only referring to the fact that they don't censor Nazi iconography in single player, but they do in multiplayer and it's all on the same disk.
That's been my contention since it was merely speculated that the game was being censored.
FFS, this is a WWII game - we're not supposed to "look up to" our Axis avatar (swastikas or not.)Condrey said:... if you want to be any one of the multinational cast of characters to represent who you are, to look up to and respect as your avatar, we want to give you that opportunity.
It frankly feels like it's whitewashing the Nazi's crimes and philosophies.
No, I'm attacking disingenuous censorship arguments because I've seen that shit before and I know what the dog whistles mean. Again, y'all aren't fooling anyone.
WTF are you rambling about here?? Dog whistles - what sick thing are you ignorantly attempting to imply?
Yes. Make an argument that shows you actually care about historical accuracy as a principle and not just when it personally suits you and your need to see swastikas. Surely even the single player mode isn't pitch-perfect accurate to what was going on in WWII, and certainly these imperfections should annoy you just as much as the lack of swastikas in the multiplayer mode. Maybe you could explain what some of those things are. Educate me. Prove to me that this isn't about the swastikas and your own offence to the thought of "censorship," but is instead truly about a moral appeal to historical accuracy in regards to WWII.
Imo, when you take anything way, people will want it back. No matter what it is. This is what it's all about.
MP is censored to protect esports
It's not the gameplay we are talking about, but the setting. If the setting is really toned down, then what is the point of even having a ww2 shooter... even online.I'm cool with it. You don't need Nazi symbols in the multiplayer part.
You are not allowed to complain about "realism" in a game that features zombies, regenerating health, 360 no-scops, etc...
It's really just not that important.
WTF are you rambling about here?? Dog whistles - what sick thing are you ignorantly attempting to imply?
Okay.
If you can read this forum, thank a teacher. If you can read it in your country's respective language and have the freedom to post here, thank a World War II veteran.
WWII had a clear goal in mind for the people that fought in it. It was true good, versus true evil - we were fighting for the very right to have freedom and to stop a tyrannical mad man hell-bent on destroying the world and bending it to his sick machinations. If the Nazis had won the war, things would be completely different as far as where and how we live today. The men that crossed the English Channel on the Higgins boats were facing an uneasy uncertainty that hopefully none of us will ever have to bear. They landed on the beaches that were supposedly thinned-out of a majority of the enemy troops due to the aerial bombardments; but as we all know, the bombardments landed a little too far from the actual encampments and bunkers, so those brave men walked into a complete onslaught.
The bravery displayed by the men in the Higgins boats that day is unparalleled in the theater of war. I can only speculate as to the fear and honor they felt simultaneously. I've nothing but the utmost respect for them and what they achieved to give us the lives we lead today. And that is why censoring anything to do with World War II pisses me off. Yes I'm glad the single player is uncensored and I'll hopefully enjoy it from a historical perspective and yes, I know the multiplayer will be a clusterfuck of craziness, teabagging, supply drops and the like - but for me personally, trying to play it as a simulation and yes, I know it's Call Of Duty, but my realistic playstyle would benefit from having historically accurate environments complete with the appropriate iconography.
I hope that answers your question.
World War II commonly saw engagements at 100m-300m ranges. I'm pretty sure that that kind of range is restricted to sniper rifles in CoD. It doesn't even try to reflect history because doing so would totally screw up its game design space.The fact is, CoD is not and never has been an accurate war and battle simulator. The fact that you, for some reason, try to play it like this instead of just sticking to Operation Flashpoint and calling it a day does not mean anything to the intent of the game's mechanics and experience. CoD is a blockbuster franchise that prioritizes adrenaline-pumping Rambo-esque interactive entertainment over actually trying to put the player in an accurate headspace of what it was like to be a soldier on the fronts and battles of WWII, and subsequently it prioritizes that over necessarily being respectful to WWII vets beyond putting them in the role of the heroes.
This really doesn't answer my question but I do appreciate an actual attempt to engage with the subject matter at hand.
My question is ultimately: What other historically inaccurate things are in the game that you've seen, and if there are any, why don't they bother you as much.
The fact is, CoD is not and never has been an accurate war and battle simulator. The fact that you, for some reason, try to play it like this instead of just sticking to Operation Flashpoint and calling it a day does not mean anything to the intent of the game's mechanics and experience. CoD is a blockbuster franchise that prioritizes adrenaline-pumping Rambo-esque interactive entertainment over actually trying to put the player in an accurate headspace of what it was like to be a soldier on the fronts and battles of WWII, and subsequently it prioritizes that over necessarily being respectful to WWII vets beyond putting them in the role of the heroes.
You are literally never going to get what you want out of the franchise even if they did put swastikas in multiplayer, thus it's all the more confusing to me that you're trying to argue that this is significantly important.
If the reason is because of advertising bs then it's funny seeing how many corporate boot lickers are in here endorsing revisionism and censorship for the sake of marketing over what's actually correct/logical.
Youre joking aren't ya?Okay.
If you can read this forum, thank a teacher. If you can read it in your country's respective language and have the freedom to post here, thank a World War II veteran.
WWII had a clear goal in mind for the people that fought in it. It was true good, versus true evil - we were fighting for the very right to have freedom and to stop a tyrannical mad man hell-bent on destroying the world and bending it to his sick machinations. If the Nazis had won the war, things would be completely different as far as where and how we live today. The men that crossed the English Channel on the Higgins boats were facing an uneasy uncertainty that hopefully none of us will ever have to bear. They landed on the beaches that were supposedly thinned-out of a majority of the enemy troops due to the aerial bombardments; but as we all know, the bombardments landed a little too far from the actual encampments and bunkers, so those brave men walked into a complete onslaught.
The bravery displayed by the men in the Higgins boats that day is unparalleled in the theater of war. I can only speculate as to the fear and honor they felt simultaneously. I've nothing but the utmost respect for them and what they achieved to give us the lives we lead today. And that is why censoring anything to do with World War II pisses me off. Yes I'm glad the single player is uncensored and I'll hopefully enjoy it from a historical perspective and yes, I know the multiplayer will be a clusterfuck of craziness, teabagging, supply drops and the like - but for me personally, trying to play it as a simulation and yes, I know it's Call Of Duty, but my realistic playstyle would benefit from having historically accurate environments complete with the appropriate iconography.
I hope that answers your question.
Socialism is nazism's siamese brother. Both responsible for millions of deaths.
As far as a video game depiction of World War II, I've always enjoyed the original Call of Duty's and Medal of Honor games because they are a lot fun and I love the subject matter so much. Having things as historically accurate as possible makes WWII games more enjoyable for me and I feel like I'm playing through events and in places that I've learned about over the years. If I pass by an insignia that's not historically accurate, it stands out to me - that's the only reason why this is so important to me. It'd be like the next WWII Call of Duty being billed as completely historically accurate - and then setting the Battle of the Bulge in Hawaii lol
Nazi iconography should be everywhere in WW2 content, with the Soviet Union subsequently burning it all to the ground. That's reality, that's morally good, and feels good. Liberals who want revisionist history in order not to offend people are severely misguided and have no concept of the meaning/worth of struggle.
Youre joking aren't ya?
you have flip flopped. You demand your phrase 'historical accuracy' and at the same time say you're ok with the inaccuracies I listed and ok with things like women on the front lines. Either you want 'historical accuracy' with all of it or you don't, can't have it both ways. Unless your only goal here is to see swastikas and not just actual 'historical accuracy' like you've been shouting.I haven't flip flopped once.
I'm aware that the multiplayer component is not 100% historically accurate as far as teabagging and customization, etc. I'm only referring to the fact that they don't censor Nazi iconography in single player, but they do in multiplayer and it's all on the same disk.
That's been my contention since it was merely speculated that the game was being censored.
You think of it through purely as a US point of view thats the problemHow would that be a joke, do you think that we're not afforded the freedoms we have today significantly because of the men that fought and died for it in World War II?
So basically nearly anything mechanically is on the table even if it's not accurate to proper WWII wartime technique and strategy, but if an insignia or location is wrong, that's when the game steps over the line?
How would that be a joke, do you think that we're not afforded the freedoms we have today significantly because of the men that fought and died for it in World War II?