Honestly I think they should've kept the swastikas and not had African American soldiers on the Axis? It's totally fine that they didn't and went this direction, I just feel like maybe they shouldn't for game purposes. Seems like they're worrying about the consumer more than the game itself.
10 years ago: We won't have swastikas in the MP as no-one will want to play as Nazis
Now: We won't have swastikas in the MP as too many people will want to play as Nazis
But yeah, joking aside. Forcing people to play as Nazis with associated iconography would be pretty poor taste. It's right they whitewash it a bit for MP.
The amount of people upset at this is mindboggling, but I shouldn't be surprised I guess?
EDIT:
No one is going to learn anything from the multiplayer part of an FPS like COD or Battlefield, which is often symmetrical anyway. They're using it in singleplayer and they're going to be able to show how awful the Nazis were there.
Nothing about Call of Duty is lauded for authenticity. Open up the options and let people be free to make their own choices.
I'll be the fake spokesperson for Sledgehammer, and tell you why they don't do that;
1) the amount of players who would actually use it would probably be minuscule.
2) Since the game includes cosmetics that (I assume) are tied in some way to microtransactions, I as a consumer would feel a whole lot less enticed to spend money if I knew people might not see my cool shit. That's the whole point of cosmetic items, you want to show them off.
Pre-modern warfare 2, the campaigns were fairly authentic(ish). Full of a ton of set pieces, yes, but the games do their homework in terms of historical context and background.
That said, they're keeping that for the single player so the multiplayer can be whatever they wanted to be. I'm OK with that
With alt right and all of that I think that playing as a Nazi is even worse today than it was like 10 years ago. Multiplayer is supposed to be mindless fun and having you as a Nazi shooting down black people in the allied side isn't pleasant or fun.
I always go to Call of Duty multiplayer for realism and history accuracy fix.
I think you might want to re-read your history books comrade. Tens of millions died at the hands of Socialism. Unless that just wasnt pure enough.
To the OP I am surprised they are not putting the swastikas in MP. Seems pointless to me. You can slaughter Nazi like dogs in SP but heaven forbid we role play a minute as one in MP. This is like when people were getting up in arms as playing as middle east insurgents shooting at Americans.... its a game people.
The only reason I would accept is the esports angle as its true advertisers wouldnt want to sponsor it and Activision owns both cod and MLG which is their debut competitive FPS. If that's the case come out and say it and i also agree with adding a tiggle to it then.
More at the link. Personally I'm not a fan of getting rid of the swastika in MP, but for some reason the hammer and sickel is allowed
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
I wouldn't read American history books since they downplay all kinds of murder carried out by the US and Europe and vastly exaggerate anything in socialist countries.
So you wouldn't accept it on grounds of taste and decency, but you would accept it on commercial grounds? Sounds like your priorities are out of whack!
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
I keep hearing people say that, regarding "taste" and Nazi iconography. Nazi iconography and World War II itself actually happened - censoring it in multiplayer [a global conflict] is kind of ironic, since World War II itself was a global conflict.
Why should Nazi iconography have to be censored, when it actually happened historically?
Multiplayer is so far away from what happened historically that removing swastikas is the least non-historical thing about it.
So you wouldn't accept it on grounds of taste and decency, but you would accept it on commercial grounds? Sounds like your priorities are out of whack!
The issue is that the maps we're playing on in Call of Duty: WWII multiplayer are historical WWII battlegrounds, like the Ardennes Forest and Pointe Du Hoc.
Point being when you want to refer to historical accuracy in gaming, do you usually go to CoD? I certainly don't. That being the case, I think the franchise should just lean into it and throw all options into multiplayer. Hell, they should let you play as aliens and werewolves for all the importance accuracy has in that context.
I think this is a poor design decision. If you don't want to see swastikas, why are you playing a WW2 game?
I'm not sure why people act like it's so insane to have some expectation for staying close to the setting. What's the whole point of the scenario then?I always go to Call of Duty multiplayer for realism and history accuracy fix.
For a big massive game series like Call of Duty, I don't understand why they can't just add a realism toggle to the multiplayer. Like if you have it off, you see the character everyone chooses (including black female nazis), you see the crazy skins on the guns and uniforms, you don't see swastikas. If you turn it on, you only see a german male as a nazi, all the guns and uniforms look realistic, swastikas where appropriate. All of these visual changes would only be client-side, so only the player would see these changes. Sure it would cost more for the developers to make multiple assets, but for a huge series like COD that makes a buttload of money it shouldn't be a big deal. It would appeal to everyone at the same time with little controversy from either side.
No, you make a fair point. I think there's some campaign stuff to stir the interest level and read about history there, but multiplayer is certainly not anything I give a shit about terms of accuracy. It's not a franchise I would use to point out any kind of reality though.
Kind of reminds me how assassins creed is probably a series or you could get a ton of historical information because it's incredibly detailed and extensive, but in general I would imagine most people don't even pay attention to it. I'm usually interested in the time and subjects that the games touch on, and even I ignore it most of the time.
I'm not sure why people act like it's so insane to have some expectation for staying close to the setting. What's the whole point of the scenario then?
People simply have different criteria and expectations, no need to pretend that realism or accuracy doesnt matter in any capacity at all.
Personally I don't care that they'll do this with the MP, but I can understand why others do
What self respecting black man would fight for the Axis willingly?
I mean it's fine to have, but it just feels weird.
Because nothing about call of duty multiplayer is even REMOTELY historic....I keep hearing people say that, regarding "taste" and Nazi iconography. Nazi iconography and World War II itself actually happened - censoring it in multiplayer [a global conflict] is kind of ironic, since World War II itself was a global conflict.
Why should Nazi iconography have to be censored, when it actually happened historically?
This, for all of the shit that comprises CoD multiplayer, the lack of swastikas is somehow the place where people draw the line on historical accuracy. What? One of the killstreaks, is literally magically disabling all enemy killstreaks:Multiplayer is already extremely unrealistic, and has been so for many years now in every FPS.
The fact that the lack of swastikas is what makes some people suddenly cry "unrealistic" is hilariously suspicious.
^Flak Guns — Destroy all enemy Scorestreaks and block enemies from using new ones.
What? Thats half assed. If youre going to make a WWII game especially years after the last one in the series use the full iconography in all parts of the game. No ifs and or buts, if prior titles in the series were unrelenting theres absolutely no reason we should censor certain parts of the game especially the one that is played by the most players. Show the atrocities of the Nazis and every damn perversion that came with it, including hiw they bastardized the swastikas and made it a symbol for their hatred.
Wolfenstein is comedic take on the results of the war and they are holding absolutely nothing back in the iconography part.
I think the Nazi-sympathising section of the gaming audience is probably in their minds as well. Anything that takes their Nazi fantasies away is a good thing.
It has not been unrealistic when it comes to imagery. The soldiers look like the soldiers who fought back then etc. Some people simply care more anout one than the other.Multiplayer is already extremely unrealistic, and has been so for many years now in every FPS.
The fact that the lack of swastikas is what makes some people suddenly cry "unrealistic" is hilariously suspicious.
I think the Nazi-sympathising section of the gaming audience is probably in their minds as well.
Consider what society has become intolerant of and also why.You have to understand that since WAW came out society has gotten a lot more intolerant in the name of tolerance. Rofl
It has not been unrealistic when it comes to imagery. The soldiers look like the soldiers who fought back then etc. Some people simply care more anout one than the other.
Lol.It has not been unrealistic when it comes to imagery. The soldiers look like the soldiers who fought back then etc. Some people simply care more anout one than the other.