Support NeoGAF

[Ragnar Blackmane]

I read somewhere (possibly GAF?) that over the course of the generations that there has actually been more modern FPS games launched than there ever was WW games on the last generation, so I don't get it either.

It's not only about the number of games, but also stuff like the setting too.
Let's face it, 80% (if not more) of all WWII first and third person shooters seem to focus exclusively on the 1944-1945 Western front, with Americans being the only playable characters/faction. With the same, limited selection of weapons every time. I stormed the beaches of Omaha Beach about five or six times in various games and that gets old rather fast. While you could argue that modern, military FPS recycle the same settings alot, there is still much more variety than just Normandy/France/Ardennes and the weapon variety is massively increased. You also get to fight more enemies than just evil, random Nazi #5346, even if they are mostly different flavors of Russians, Chinese or Middle Eastern terrorists.

I'd rather go back to Red Orchestra 2 and play as the Japanese or Germans vs Soviets or wait for the Wolfenstein TNO sequel than playing an extremely US centric WWII game again that ignores 90% of the conflict for "how MURRICA won the war". Even after all those years I'm still burnt out from that as much as I am from modern military shooters. A Korean War (did we ever even have a AA or AAA shooter set in that conflict?) or Vietnam game would have been far preferable and Battlefield 1 at least tried a basically completely new setting.

 

[renzolama]

It's a setting... not a quantifiable quality

I don't really know what your statement means. Exactly what is a quantifiable quality then? Everyone is welcome to their opinions about what kind of games they like obviously, but I'm fairly certain that reception/sales for a WW2 military shooter in 2017 will be even worse than it was for Infinite Warfare last year. The reason Infinite Warfare didn't do well was because the mulitplayer was lazy and uninspired, not because the future/space setting was bad. Going back to WW2 seems like essentially giving up on innovation from where I'm standing. It will please (at least temporarily) the nostalgia "wasn't it great when we were teenagers and COD was fun" crowd, who also happen to be the most vocal complainers about the last few years of Advanced/Blops/Infinite releases.

 

[MeisterLeder]

I don't really know what your statement means. Exactly what is a quantifiable quality then? Everyone is welcome to their opinions about what kind of games they like obviously, but I'm fairly certain that reception/sales for a WW2 military shooter in 2017 will be even worse than it was for Infinite Warfare last year. The reason Infinite Warfare didn't do well was because the mulitplayer was lazy and uninspired, not because the future/space setting was bad. Going back to WW2 seems like essentially giving up on innovation from where I'm standing.

Uhm the Setting wasnt well received either... it wasnt just the gameplay

 

[MMarston]

Meh. How many times we gonna replay WWII. Not interested.

I dunno if it's occurred to people, but 2008 is already a long ass time ago.

 

[renzolama]

Uhm the Setting wasnt well received either... it wasnt just the gameplay

Okay, well consider me refuted then

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Present day is what people want most but I'll definitely take WW2 over the dumb future stuff.

This.
I'm shocked we still haven't had a new MW game

 

[crashnburn]

I'm all for a change in setting, but gonna be hard backslide on multiplayer complexity. They've added in wall runs, jump jets, drones, robots, and shit. Is the mass market gonna be okay with plain old guns and grenades without movement gimmicks? Then again, after how disappointing Infinite Warfare MP was, maybe people will need the palate cleanse.

As for me, looks like Titanfall for another year for FPS MP fix...

 

[Keasar]

I'm cool with this.

Sledgehammer made the only good and memorable SP campaign in CoD history since MW1 so I am looking forward to what they do with this.

 

[Kibbles]

Should have destructible terrain like BF 🤤

 

[AmyS]

Fantastic. Will be the first CoD I buy in a very long time.

 

[TheWorthyEdge]

Hoped for Vietnam war, but it is still awesome. I'm in.

Same...

Idk WW2 just doesn't excite me anymore game wise.

 

[SapphiCine]

Good god. That title. Someone must have suggested it as a lark and they went with it.

 

[Into the Light]

I personally will be back then. I have been off the COD train since MW3.


I tried Ghosts, it was the worst COD I have ever played.
The rest were just so far removed from what COD was, I left. BO3 was one of the larger disappointments of the last decade for me.

I want less perks that all cancel each other out, and streaks that actually mean something.

 

[sleepnaught]

Meh. How many times we gonna replay WWII. Not interested.

I mean, we can more easily say this about modern/futuristic shooters than WW2 games. We havent had a decent ww2 shooter in years.

 

[Matticers]

Thank god. Give me that boots on the ground goodness. I don't get why people are complaining about too many WWII shooters anyway. We had Battlefield that recently touched on the past but that was WWI. This isn't like the mid 2000s or whatever it was when we'd constantly see WW era games.

And please don't disrespect the WWII era by putting in ridiculous taunts/dances/camos. I'm sure they will but that will be stupid. They only way they can avoid that being ridiculous is if they say all of the MP takes place in some simulator or something. Even then it would still be jarring to see.

 

[wrongway]

I'm totally on board with this.

Unless it lacks proper servers and is infected with F2P/P2W fuckery, in which case I am totally not on board with this.

 

[Abinash117]

It's not only about the number of games, but also stuff like the setting too.
Let's face it, 80% (if not more) of all WWII first and third person shooters seem to focus exclusively on the 1944-1945 Western front, with Americans being the only playable characters/faction. With the same, limited selection of weapons every time. I stormed the beaches of Omaha Beach about five or six times in various games and that gets old rather fast. While you could argue that modern, military FPS recycle the same settings alot, there is still much more variety than just Normandy/France/Ardennes and the weapon variety is massively increased. You also get to fight more enemies than just evil, random Nazi #5346, even if they are mostly different flavors of Russians, Chinese or Middle Eastern terrorists.

I'd rather go back to Red Orchestra 2 and play as the Japanese or Germans vs Soviets or wait for the Wolfenstein TNO sequel than playing an extremely US centric WWII game again that ignores 90% of the conflict for "how MURRICA won the war". Even after all those years I'm still burnt out from that as much as I am from modern military shooters. A Korean War (did we ever even have a AA or AAA shooter set in that conflict?) or Vietnam game would have been far preferable and Battlefield 1 at least tried a basically completely new setting.

Not necessarily exclusively American. Usually it is the Western Europe perspective as well like Britain, but that is usually it.

 

[IceBringer]

Hell yes. No more shitty jet packs and laser guns

 

[OriginofHysteria]

I really want to see Bastogne again. We haven't seen that since what...MoH AA: Spearhead?

 

[TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared]

I'm looking to the inevitable explanation for the name (if Call of duty WW2 is what they go for) in an interview when someone asks an Activision person that question.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

I hope they make a sequel and call it COD: WWII-2

 

[SpiceMelange]

I hope they make a sequel and call it COD: WWII-2

I think you missed the point that WWII is for World at War 2 too. The sequel would be World at War 3 then.

 

[Neptonic]

Oh no how am I going to play a terrible Titanfall knockoff this year /s

Very excited about this. Love shooting Nazis.

 

[Sangetsu-II]

I am so in








The fuck? Why? Isnt this what everyone wanted.

I know right I havent had a good WW2 game since World at War

That fuck is wrong with people, I skipped 5 CoD because of this!

 

[sasliquid]

What would you call it?

Call of Duty: Nazis Unzombified

 

[Wedzi]

Any rumors of a possible remastered game to go along side like last year? New WWII CoD with a Remastered MW2 in the vain of CoD 4 Remastered would be the best of both worlds.

 

[Rizific]

am i the only one that doesnt give a shit about setting and only cares that it turns out to be a good game?

 

[RedAssedApe]

guess no treyarch world at war ii ? names sound too similar

 

[hydruxo]

Watch them find some way to put jetpacks in this shit too

I'm actually interested now that it's going back to WW2. Good ol boots on the ground.

 

[Proelite]

Please stay away from Normandy. Rather see Africa front instead.

 

[DR2K]

Well thankfully they have every single game before modern warfare to base it on

 

[GinoFelino]

Day one for this. Just leave the bullshit randomised guns out of multiplayer please

 

[Wedzi]

Please stay away from Normandy. Rather see Africa front instead.

I'm hoping it's similar two Cod 2. Multiple protagonists, multiple theaters of war. Bring back the death quotes while you're at it.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

I think you missed the point that WWII is for World at War 2 too. The sequel would be World at War 3 then.

That wouldn't make sense because it would be abbreviated WWIII.

 

[Danthrax]

Infinite Warfare's campaign was awesome, so whenever they want to make a sequel to that, sign me up.

WWII, though ... meh.

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

It's not only about the number of games, but also stuff like the setting too.
Let's face it, 80% (if not more) of all WWII first and third person shooters seem to focus exclusively on the 1944-1945 Western front, with Americans being the only playable characters/faction. With the same, limited selection of weapons every time. I stormed the beaches of Omaha Beach about five or six times in various games and that gets old rather fast. While you could argue that modern, military FPS recycle the same settings alot, there is still much more variety than just Normandy/France/Ardennes and the weapon variety is massively increased. You also get to fight more enemies than just evil, random Nazi #5346, even if they are mostly different flavors of Russians, Chinese or Middle Eastern terrorists.

I'd rather go back to Red Orchestra 2 and play as the Japanese or Germans vs Soviets or wait for the Wolfenstein TNO sequel than playing an extremely US centric WWII game again that ignores 90% of the conflict for "how MURRICA won the war". Even after all those years I'm still burnt out from that as much as I am from modern military shooters. A Korean War (did we ever even have a AA or AAA shooter set in that conflict?) or Vietnam game would have been far preferable and Battlefield 1 at least tried a basically completely new setting.

Agreed. I was disappointed in bf1 for lacking. Dlc without featuring the African front or pacific front in WW1.

 

[CaptainSmirnov]

Modern got boring. Bring on WWII again

Also liked IW's campaign wouldn't mind a sequel to that

 

[Will0827]

It would be cool if they could do something that isnt tied to a particular time be it past or future and be some crazy time travel multi dimensional kind of thing. Imagine a samurai wall running with a jet pack like device and thunder spears. Or a viking with some bubble laser shield and launchable blades. Then aliens with some super weird sci fi gun, the images i have in my head look cool so there's that. But to go on topic will be cool to see what they do, BF1 was and still is fun so lets see how this turns out.

 

[liquidfox00]

I'm a little bit interested in going back to basics with a new COD as I had zero interest in Infinite Warfare but I'm kinda of bummed out that Sledge Hammer isn't getting a chance to create a follow up to Advanced Warfare. It was easily my favourite COD in the last four years or so and I thought they built something special.

Looking forward to seeing which direction they take the combat. Are we getting WaW style gameplay or a more "realistic" approach like Battlefield?

 

[ViciousDS]

have we even had a good world war 2 shooter with an updated engine for modern day?

Can't wait to see how fucking amazing the next CoD is going to look. I also have faith that the singleplayer will be dope since advanced warfare had a solid campaign with spacey. It's only the way it ended that was kind of lame.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

have we even had a good world war 2 shooter with an updated engine for modern day?

Can't wait to see how fucking amazing the next CoD is going to look. I also have faith that the singleplayer will be dope since advanced warfare had a solid campaign with spacey. It's only the way it ended that was kind of lame.

No, last AAA World War II shooter ass Battlefield 1943 in 2009. We've had games like the Sniper Elite series and Rising Storm, but they aren't AAA or mainstream.

 

[ViciousDS]

No, last AAA World War II shooter ass Battlefield 1943 in 2009. We've had games like the Sniper Elite series and Rising Storm, but they aren't AAA or mainstream.

and 1943 was an arcade/budget title wasn't it? It was only like $20 with 3 maps or so......afair

 

[PowerThroughLov]

I might actually buy a new Call Of Duty game then!

Nothing beats multiplayer with WW2 weapons.

 

[Mass Effect]

When people said "roots" they didn't mean WWII.

Yes, that's where the actual series started, so that's the literal roots, but, everyone knows the roots that people want are in Modern Warfare.

Yeah... roots from the fourth game in the series. What?

I read somewhere (possibly GAF?) that over the course of the generations that there has actually been more modern FPS games launched than there ever was WW games on the last generation, so I don't get it either.

Yep, plus like I said, we haven't gotten a big WWII shooter in years.

I dunno if it's occurred to people, but 2008 is already a long ass time ago.

Exactly. Plus there's always both Infinite Warfare and Modern Warfare R if you don't want to play this year's CoD. And then there's next year's too.

Missing a year of CoD won't kill you if you don't care for WWII.

 

[Deepwater]

as long as it has zombies and survival, I'm in. That's the only reason I play CoD

 

[TimeEffect]

"Roots" implied WWII to me.

but what good is it if its just a reskinning?

COD is associated with short attention span gameplay, 3 lane maps, jumping around everywhere, it feels more and more like an arena shooter. there are insane numbers of guns and variants, made worse by the RNG system, and then there are perks that always manage to never feel quite balanced.

Modes like S&D have sucked for a long time, and map design has completely become stale and frantic. All of that needs to change significantly for it to feel better to me.

Maps can't be 3 lane designs. You cant be able to spawn so close to the action or right behind enemies. Spawns cant constantly flip around because map size/speed is so fast.

Black Ops 1, COD4, and WaW had good pacing wherein you couldn't sprint everywhere or wall jump around, so having that style back is important.

but maps too need to be like those games and less like Bo3's awful 3 lane maps. Then there's the weapons, which are now all infected with RNG based mechanics. IW introduced even crazier perks that seemed to continuously push the "quantity over quality" mantra.

WWII requires a huge stepping back and refining of the gameplay. I dont know what they are going to do with guns, gun perks, map design, speed, etc. but all of that needs to "go back to its roots" too

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Yeah... roots from the fourth game in the series. What?



Yep, plus like I said, we haven't gotten a big WWII shooter in years.



Exactly. Plus there's always both Infinite Warfare and Modern Warfare R if you don't want to play this year's CoD. And then there's next year's too.

Missing a year of CoD won't kill you if you don't care for WWII.

There is also an entire generation of gamers that never played a WWII FPS.

 

[User123456]

Considering CoD2 and World at War are the best games in the franchise by far, I wholeheartedly welcome this change.

Man, I'm SO in.

 

[SpiceMelange]

That wouldn't make sense because it would be abbreviated WWIII.

They would call it World at War 3 and drop the double entendre....

 

[AdanVC]

Awesome news. First time I'm interested in a CoD game in a decade!