For those interested in Cod engines: http://c0de517e.blogspot.fi/2016/08/a-retrospective-on-call-of-duty.html
-
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: WWII (PC/PS4/XB1, Nov 3) Info: Campaign, Zombies, MP, Trailer, More
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
That was a cool post, thanks for linking!
Where are you getting this idea from?
In multiplayer you're going to see women, regardless (and even then, it's faction-related IIRC), in campaign they'll have set levels and combat arenas based on different events. You'll play as a French Resistance fighter duking it out in their areas of operations in real life (or approximately). Just as you'll play as the Big Red One in their appropriate arenas.
These guys haven't said anything about putting women on the frontlines of D-Day if that's what you're so scared of.
I think he had a kneejerk reaction since typically the engine of CoD games is used as an insult which frankly is dishonest to all of the changes they put into it year after year.
BriareosGAF
Member
Yes, we spend a lot of time on all of this! Angelo didn't comment on IW7 in his blog post, but Michal Drobot, the lead render engineer at IW, will be presenting at SIGGRAPH this year, I believe.
Deckard Chapel
Banned
Kurt Angle
Member
Oh right, you helped people in the Infinite Warfare PC thread, right? You work for IW?
They do, last I heard.
BriareosGAF
Member
Like Angelo I work in a central technology group within ATVI, so I've done systems and rendering on the last six or so Call of Duty games. Although this year my involvement is a little more touch and go, working on other things for a change.
SolidSnakex
Member
I don't really get this. There are stories of French female resistance fighters that were engaged in combat situations. Like Madeleine Riffaud and Simone Segouin. So, unless you just believe that all the stories about those women and others are just completely fabricated, then I don't see the issue. Female fighters were often given assassination or sabotage missions, so that could be an angle they give to Rousseau that could mix of the gamemplay.
UziTheBeast
Banned
Might have been answered in this thread already but does anyone know when the Beta is htting? August I assume?
I would assume it's going to be either late August or October, because Activision have to workaround COD World Champs that will going to happen at early August, so they can't release it earlier because they want the attention to be on the event. It's also the best bet for a multiplayer reveal + beta date announcement to hype that event even more.
Also you have Destiny 2 release on September 8th. There is no way they are going to launch the beta for COD WWII less than 2 weeks before that or 2/3 weeks after that. Activision doesn't want to add any distractions to get people hooked on Destiny 2. So if I had to bet, the private beta for WWII will be on 1st weekend of October for PS4 and 2nd weekend for all platforms at the earliest.
-hadouken
Member
You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I welcome missions like this. Battlefield 1 campaign featured a female Bedouin fighter - I had a mouse mat printed up because I'm a fan.
I'm not however keen to boot up a COD WWII Normandy beach MP map that features female Waffen SS troopers taking on G.I. ladies. If this was Wolfenstein I'd be all for it - but it's not that game.
Where the hell are people getting this idea?
Incendiary fake news propagating without fact checking across a mostly male dominated audience that enjoys and thrives on outrage.
Deckard Chapel
Banned
Agreed.
Actually, it's from here:
I mean literally all that tweet is saying is yes there will be playable female characters in multiplayer. Anyone reflexively whinging about factions possibly not being historical accurate in the MP of a Call Of Duty game is being weird.
Cool.Actually, it's from here:
So you don't know the difference between campaign and multiplayer.
Man I'd hate for you to jump into Nazi Zombies and return the game later thinking it was the campaign.
Deckard Chapel
Banned
So then neither of you clearly read bourgeois original post, which I quoted for reference in my previous post. He's referring to multiplayer, not single player/campaign.
And I agree with him. Maybe some people wouldn't mind having women running up and down Omaha Beach in multiplayer, but for those of us that are adhering to Sledgehammer Games "strict historical accuracy" paradigm - it's not for us.
It's still a dumb thing to get worked up over. Think about what you're asking
Historical authenticity in a Call of Duty multiplayer mode. I've asked this before, but where were you guys during World At War?
Deckard Chapel
Banned
I was at home, drinking a vodka tonic and rubbing the muscular thigh of the most beautiful woman in the world.
Honestly.
Anything else would be TMI
But that's not what's in question here - what's in question here, is that the developers making this game are saying that they are adhering to strict historical accuracy for COD:WWII and as such, those of us that love the history of World War II, are a little bit concerned as to how they're going to liberate the policy of inclusion into either single player or multiplayer.
I was at home, drinking a vodka tonic and rubbing the muscular thigh of the most beautiful woman in the world.
Honestly.
Anything else would be TMI
But that's not what's in question here - what's in question here, is that the developers making this game are saying that they are adhering to strict historical accuracy for COD:WWII and as such, those of us that love the history of World War II,.are a little bit concerned as to how they're going to liberate the policy of inclusion into either single player or multiplayer.
That policy is only going into the campaign. They wouldn't be able to utilize that in the multiplayer without fundamentally changing up the COD multiplayer formula, assuming that it won't be changed much by the time the multiplayer reveal shows up. To assume you're getting the real thing in a Call of Duty game of all things is baffling and setting up expectations that won't be met.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
Lets have a killstreak thats a rainbow dragon that breaths {insert random thing].
Deckard Chapel
Banned
I haven't really thought about it until the mention of the Omaha Beach map in multiplayer and how that would play out with females on either side.
For some, that might be exhilarating - but for "historical accuracy", it would be silly. I don't know what else to say in that regard and I don't know what Sledgehammer Games thinks in that regard either.
Inclusion is a very touchy subject nowadays and on the subject of historical accuracy regarding World War II, it's something that should be tread extremely lightly if you're spouting "historical accuracy" at every media opportunity.
manfestival
Member
Still waiting for my jetpacks in this game. hope they make it in multiplayer
Would be funny if they had a solitary jetpack game mode, the same way Infinite Warfare has a solitary boots on the ground "tactical" mode.
Deckard Chapel
Banned
Fandango831
Neo Member
Reading your posts are hilarious. Historical accuracy is merely an ad piece and rarely ever defines a game in its entirety especially AAA titles that are catering to a global audience not just an armchair historian who wants every game to be a copy and paste experience of WW2 in Color from the military channel. Michael Condrey has been very clear that 'strict historical accuracy" pertains to the narrative of the campaign in trying to tell an authentic soldiers story in the eyes of Pvt. Daniels.
Aside from that the rest of the game only needs to be at the least visually authentic without sacrificing an enjoyable play experience for anyone wanting to play the game. I challenge you to find me a modern AAA title that roots itself solely in 100% historical realism that has been successful from a publishers perspective. You won't. Especially in the PvP component of the game. From the inclusion of experimental weaponry, inaccurate uniforms, inaccurate play areas, and of course player diversity you won't find any title that is absolutely pure in its presentation because it's bad for business to cater to such a tiny group of individuals.
As a consumer if you don't like that development model then you shouldn't purchase the game, and find a title that best suits your needs. I sympathize with your desire to have a historically accurate campaign that tells a truthful and heartfelt story about World War Two and those that fought in it, but your whining that the PvP component of the game won't be that way is absurd. That would be like asking DICE/EA to essentially take Verdun and Rise of Flight and make that BF1s multiplayer. 100% accurate but also 100% restrictive in terms of content and player base. EA isn't concerned with having a MP for history buffs of the Great War. They just want as many players globally enjoying a unique "WW1" play experience that allows for players to have fun with a variety of things while maintaining some level of authenticity.
The same applies here with Activision and Sledgehammer Games for COD WW2. Sure it'll be an authentic MP to whatever degree they see will market best but beyond that it'll be a fun play experience that will definitely break from historical tie downs to give players the most the game has to offer from customization options that will include gender, kill streaks or some other player reward system, and probably weapons that weren't all that common during the war that will probably be usable by every "faction' included in the game.
So please stow your complaints when you already know that today's gaming market will never cater to them for very specific reasons, and maybe you should instead go and endorse indie games like Post Scriptum and the like who are actually aiming for a "historically accurate" multiplayer play experience because they are marketing to individuals like yourself as a history buff and not a mass play audience.
Yu Furealdo
Member
That could actually be pretty fun.
-hadouken
Member
Where was I? Well I was displeased with the non-faction specific weapons, dog streaks and the ability to run around with a Browning HMG. But, the game (and MP) still had just enough of a historical vibe to cop WWII feels (still preferred the maligned COD3 at the time tho).
For the record, I welcomed the inclusion of female characters in Ghosts (last COD I spent significant time with) but yeah, someone who doesn't want female Nazi troopers in their MP is clearly just a misogynist, right?
Deckard Chapel
Banned
By your logic, that's like saying that I watch "Saving Private Ryan" for its multiplayer.
It comes off that you're trying really, really hard to find excuses for them to not be in the game, when really, compared to what's come before, it's already expected since its inclusion years ago and that plenty of women play COD as well.
And yeah, it does come off particularly misogynistic after awhile, whether or not that's your intent.
-hadouken
Member
I know, my S/O is one of them. But how is that an argument? Could someone make the case that if women didn't play COD that they ought to be excluded from the game?
This is not Blops 4, Ghosts 2 - it's the first historical game in nearly a decade. If you want to paint the desire for a modicum of authenticity (in such a game ) to be nothing more than misogyny, then I guess I'm out. But, know that you're crapping on a person who wants Elizabeth on the cover, plays as Elena in the PVP and keeps a statue of Kat-B320 on the shelf.
SpartanForce
Member
Toa TAK good lord you are very annoying. I thought it was only on the other thread with me, but it seems it is with everyone.
Can anyone tell me a bit about the beta? Release date for it? Also waffen-ss will be playable in multiplayer? Love they camo. Maybe a "supersoldaten" for sniper like something Company of Heroes 2 (sturmgewehr 44, tho) did.
Can anyone tell me a bit about the beta? Release date for it? Also waffen-ss will be playable in multiplayer? Love they camo. Maybe a "supersoldaten" for sniper like something Company of Heroes 2 (sturmgewehr 44, tho) did.
Fandango831
Neo Member
By your logic, that's like saying that I watch "Saving Private Ryan" for its multiplayer.
Well being that one medium is a movie and the other is a game no. Movies are a singular experience meant to connect you as an audience member to whatever said movie aims to portray. By my logic you can't seem to separate the consumer experience of gaming which is an experience that is not just experienced multiple times over but also grows on the player who has agency in this varying experience versus experiencing a movie or film which takes you by the hand and merely asks you to come along on a journey. Historical Accuracy is grand for telling a story as you so pointed out with "Saving Private Ryan", and as everyone is very much aware of the campaign of COD WW2. However for the multiplayer experience of any title it is not about telling a story. It's about allowing for a consumer to take agency of their avatar in-game and play with other people around the world in an experience that either breaks away from reality or uses elements to mimic aspects of reality the player would never experience in real life ala having a combat experienced based in WW2. You sir however can't seem to separate the two experiences from one another and feel that A and B are the same hence A and B both need to be 100% historically accurate. I love playing Verdun and RoF however I'm also an avid BF1 player. All are set in WW1 but while two of the three aim for pure realism and historical accuracy the other instead lets me a player just have fun in a manner that is not reflective of the historical base but still uses the setting of WW1 to create a unique play experience. If the fact that Sledgehammer Games is already developing a historically accurate Campaign for its general audience to experience an authentic WW2 narrative is not enough for you then frankly this game will fundamentally not be for you. In the end the general audience experience will always trump the need to be historically accurate in a game especially for the PvP experience which will always aim to be as inclusive as possible.
Deckard Chapel
Banned
Well being that one medium is a movie and the other is a game no. Movies are a singular experience meant to connect you as an audience member to whatever said movie aims to portray. By my logic you can't seem to separate the consumer experience of gaming which is an experience that is not just experienced multiple times over but also grows on the player who has agency in this varying experience versus experiencing a movie or film which takes you by the hand and merely asks you to come along on a journey. Historical Accuracy is grand for telling a story as you so pointed out with "Saving Private Ryan", and as everyone is very much aware of the campaign of COD WW2. However for the multiplayer experience of any title it is not about telling a story. It's about allowing for a consumer to take agency of their avatar in-game and play with other people around the world in an experience that either breaks away from reality or uses elements to mimic aspects of reality the player would never experience in real life ala having a combat experienced based in WW2. You sir however can't seem to separate the two experiences from one another and feel that A and B are the same hence A and B both need to be 100% historically accurate. I love playing Verdun and RoF however I'm also an avid BF1 player. All are set in WW1 but while two of the three aim for pure realism and historical accuracy the other instead lets me a player just have fun in a manner that is not reflective of the historical base but still uses the setting of WW1 to create a unique play experience. If the fact that Sledgehammer Games is already developing a historically accurate Campaign for its general audience to experience an authentic WW2 narrative is not enough for you then frankly this game will fundamentally not be for you. In the end the general audience experience will always trump the need to be historically accurate in a game especially for the PvP experience which will always aim to be as inclusive as possible.
Lol!
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
Imo there are a bunch of various levels/degrees/etc of historically accuracy which varies fro people to people. It's whatever in the game. Frankly doesn't bother me playing as a female, as long as they are with historical accurate such as females being in the French fraction or Russian army, in mp but what does bother me is the silly neon green weed gun skins and etc.
Lol!
Weak comeback, dude.
Hey guys, what's going on in...
I was at home, drinking a vodka tonic and rubbing the muscular thigh of the most beautiful woman in the world.
Honestly.
Anything else would be TMI
Deckard Chapel
Banned
Not so.
My post he responded to made his response the weak one. All he did was ramble on with one run-on sentence after the next and then placed another mic-drop gif in an attempt to counter my own.
I was merely being amicable with my repose.
Always-honest
Banned
I thought i might catch some news. Instead i witnessed two people ending their own posts with mics being dropped....
Daffy Duck
Member
There's only one way to settle this.
A live streamed 1v1 no scope lobby on CoD WWII when it's out.
A live streamed 1v1 no scope lobby on CoD WWII when it's out.
SolidSnakex
Member
But I don't get why you draw the line at women. Multiplayer modes always take a lot of creative freedom. For example, you brought up BF1, which is a game that many people have noted takes a lot of creative freedom when it comes to weaponry. The number of automatic weapons that you see in the multiplayer mode is simply unlike anything that was going on during that period. That was a war primarily fought with single shot weapons.
That's what's ridiculous about the whole issue. DICE didn't want to have women in multiplayer because it wasn't historically accurate, but they had no problem with maps primarily being fought with automatic weapons, as if that's even remotely historically accurate. They decided that it was okay because it made the game more enjoyable than running around with bolt action rifles. Sledgehammer has decided that for some they'll find their multiplayer more enjoyable if they can play as a female character. And unlike with BF1, that won't actually change how the game plays.
UziTheBeast
Banned
Hmm I almost forgot abput Destiny 2. That game will probably have a beta as well.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
Like I mention above there is a certain amount of historical accurately for everyone. Personally I like DICE's historical accurately and they wanted each classes to be distinctive noticeable. DICE should have made a variety of player models for each classes.
regardless I would still find it strange to have female soliders in bf1. I am more alright with females soldiers in ww2 depending on the fraction. And completely okay with female soldiers in modern era. Strange I know..
There is a beta. You can get access by preordering
and canceling
MilkyJoe
Member
You probably missed the Original games then.
Similar threads
- Poll