Call of Duty: WWII

&

This is exactly what pisses me off so goddamn much about the current trajectory of Call of Duty. It holds a position unlike any single other franchise in the current landscape of the gaming industry. Activision could choose to do something truly special with all the resources and brand recognition that comes with Co D, but they don't. Every single game in the Co D franchise is more or less a stand-alone popcorn movie type experience, with plenty of action but zero substance, and more than anything that makes me sad. Call of Duty doesn't have themes, moral complexities, any likeable or relatable characters, any sort of overarching myth arc or interesting or worthwhile worldbuilding. It's completely transparent that everything about it is tailored with the specific intention of being the shallow shootfest that Activision has deemed it needs to be, and nothing more. They're too scared to mess with their formula for fear of breaking their golden goose, seemingly unaware that it's presently dying a slow death by consumption unless they do something about it.

I can't see them returning to WW 2 as innovation, honestly. That genre is completely played out. There's nothing you can show me in a WW 2 shooter that is new or interesting in terms of story, let alone mechanics-wise. Having the more recent Co D games being set in the future at least gave allowance for gameplay-justifying technological contrivances like Exo-Rigs and futuretech. How are they going to manage something similar for a game set in 1943?

edited 30th Apr '17 4:25:57 PM by Gault

It's probably a bigger statement about the fanbase rather than Activision that the trailer for COD WWII hasn't received such a negative response, and that many COD fans actually like the return to the setting. Heck, I'm not even sure what to make of that approval at this point: are they saying they want the next COD to become slower and more tactical, something which I know the tourney-level players are gonna hate since they enjoy the frenetic speed and tiny TTK the typical COD firefight has? Is it a matter of setting, that they just hate Sci-fi and like their WWII and modern era shooters? Or is it something else entirely?

This is admittedly anecdotal evidence but I've heard people pining for a return to WW 2 for a while, future warfare just got tiring for some people apparently.

^ That, and there's a dearth of quality future settings. Especially since the majority of future settings that are not Halo were Michaey Baygasms of cliche setpieces and explosions. Worse, the bar on quality for Call of Duty standards is so low you go over it while prone. Put the two together, low definition of quality and no real standout stories and it got real old real fast.

Coupled with the annualized release schedule and you have a textbook case of Fan/Franchise/Genre Burnout.

Somebody on Sledgehammer's art design team for the Zombies mode seems to be a big fan of Yoji Shinkawa's work from the MGS series. Seriously, one of those guys look exactly like Sokolov from Snake Eater!

Huh... he does. Honestly while more zombies is interesting I would prefer that they cut out the middle man and just release a standalone Call of Duty Zombies game.

I miss Spec Ops. I'd have more of that than Zombies any day to be honest. And I say that as someone who absolutely adores IW's zombies.

I recall Activision floating the idea of the Zombies mode being released as a standalone game, but I guess they felt it wouldn't perform as well alone versus being packaged with a campaign and standard multiplayer.

Plus, I'd see this as the customer actually winning out. BLOPS 3 gave us THREE separate multiplayer games plus the campaign, and each mode was well-polished and fun to play. It's hard to fault that much content for $60 bucks.

Call of Duty: WWII has been on development for at least 2.5 years (not long after Advanced Warfare shipped). The Call of Duty developers operate on 3-year development cycles. After AW, Sledgehammer games correctly predicted that in 2017 there would be a renewed interest in World War 2 entertainment (and perhaps they wanted to do something differente from Advanced Warfare too). We had movies like Allied, Hacksaw Ridge and soon Dunkirk will be on the movie theaters.

The allegation that Activision ordered a WW 2 game after seeing Battlefield 1 is not true. This game has been in development since long before Battlefield 1 was even announced.

Personally, I love Science Fiction shooters, and I found Infinite Warfare's campaign to be among the best in the franchise. I loved the Retribution. I loved the setting. I loved the player companions (Salter is the most badass character in the entire franchise). Much better than Black Ops 3 campaign, in my opinion.

I don't mind WW 2 shooters. I like them too. However, Omaha has been done too many times in both games and movies. Co D doing it will be the same thing as the others but with prettier graphics. It might be even fun, but won't be innovative, and Call of Duty needs innovation now more than ever.

I miss Spec Ops too. I can't stand this zombie co-op mode. I find it rather dull. Spec Ops had much more variety in terms of gameplay and challenge.

edited 11th May '17 7:41:49 PM by carnivorousmeerkat

Anyone else think a COD entry on the Switch/3DS would be a great idea? Shooters on the go.

COD had versions released for the original DS too, but I don't think it was very succesful. Also, the Switch can't display the same level of graphical fidelity a PS 4 or an Xbox One can. Then PC comes, and beats the rest (at least when it comes to graphics).

edited 11th May '17 7:45:11 PM by carnivorousmeerkat

Given that they actually tried with the regular DS, I'm surprised they didn't give the New 3DS a try. With the Switch's rise, they'd be missing an opportunity to cash in on it. Hell, they tried with the Vita (poorly, but it existed), so it's definitely possible.

edited 11th May '17 8:19:13 PM by RainingMetal

I won't be surprised if we se a Call of Duty for the Switch in the future, but it's not Activision's focus right now. However, for the type of shooter that Call of Duty represents, graphical fidelity matters, and the Switch can't compete on that with other platforms. I remember that the Wii version of Modern Warfare was criticized for its lackluster graphics compared to the Xbox 360 and PS 3 versions.

Also, the Nintendo Switch has a very small player base at the moment (it's selling better than the Wii U, but its nowhere near the Wii in terms of sales). I guess Activision is playing the "wait and see" approach towards it.

A Call of Duty for the Switch would only work if it is specifically tailored for it.

edited 12th May '17 4:18:47 AM by carnivorousmeerkat

There's a lot of rumors going on about the WWII setting. Some of them from people privy to certain goings on at Activision.

Everything is pointing to it being a real sudden setting change as a result of IW's bad sales and nobody is pleased with it, least of all Sledgehammer who is supposedly very unhappy.

Settings are easier to change than you might think. It's just model skins for the most part. Mechanics, gunplay, map design, all of those things can actually be unchanged.

The seemingly short campaign and roughness of the reveal trailer also might be the product of being a rush job.

edited 12th May '17 4:50:10 AM by LeGarcon

Yes, there must be people at Activision who are pretty upset with IW's sales. I believe that too.

However, a game with the size and scope of Call of Duty can't be made in the span of a few months (or even in a single year), even with a large team. My theory is that the business people at Activision knew that Infinite Warfare wouldn't be a record-breaking seller, but they just didn't expect the bad-rep it would get.

3D artwork is not something easy to change. There's modelling, rigging and animations to do. If they decided to change the setting late in the development, most of of those would have to be redone from scratch, and it would be a huge undertaking. I'm also acquainted with artists who have made assets for AAA games in the past, and they would agree with me on this. Changing the art can also have an effect on how the player perceives the gunplay too, which in turn would affect the game design part.

Infinite Warfare was released in November 2016. Assuming that they decided to change the setting in early December 2016, up to the reveal trailer, we have around 4 and a half months. It's just too little time for such a huge change, at least when it comes to a game like Call of Duty.

I do agree, however, that the reveal trailer seemed to be rushed.

Infinite Warfare definitely Needs More Love. I hope it gets a sequel someday.

Almost all the animations and rigging can be unchanged. In fact a lot of it has been since Call of Duty 4. A setting is just a skin, it can be changed in the timeframe.

It's difficult but it can be done. Which is probably why Sledgehammer is so pissed.

It's possible the shift in direction may have happened around the same time Infinite Warfare's first trailer was revealed and garnered such an overwhelmingly negative response. That was in May 2016.

Still though, I believe that it's more likely the WWII setting was set in stone more than a year ago. While the CE Os in charge of Activision are somewhat infamous for being short-sighted and risk-adverse, to change course entirely after Infinite Warfare's lack of sales would be suicide and guaranteed to ruin the product's quality in so many ways.

edited 12th May '17 7:09:42 AM by SgtRicko

You'll Be Fighting From Five Sides In Call Of Duty: WW2

Not much actual news beyond what the link itself says - you'll be switching from potentially five different units on the Western European front throughout the campaign, each bringing a different style of gameplay. However, they'll most likely be all American, and we definitely won't be seeing any viewpoints from the Germans or Russians.

Oh yeah, the five units they mentioned:

• Airborne - Will focus mostly on stealth missions.
• Mountaineers - Snipers, also focused on stealth.
• Infantry - Footsoldiers who attack with force and numbers.
• Expeditionary - The guns-blazing approach.
• Armored - I'm guessing these guys are gonna be the typical vehicle sections... probably with Shermans.

Where the article is vague though is whether that will also be reflected in the multiplayer via a form of classes/roles, or if this is strictly just a campaign thing.

edited 9th Jun '17 7:42:50 AM by SgtRicko

Surprised nobody posted the E3 video yet. Probably because they haven't announced anything significant.

However... notice how despite the trailer being titled "Multiplayer Reveal Trailer", some of the shots seem to properly belong in a campaign? Does that mean we'll be seeing more scripted scenario maps, or that's the result of the possibly increased player count?

edited 13th Jun '17 5:21:28 AM by SgtRicko

Three Big Changes Coming To Call Of Duty Multiplayer

These sound interesting, especially the whole, "multiplayer with an actual story" portion. I guess that explains why the multiplayer trailer looked like a campaign trailer.

edited 15th Jun '17 12:11:28 PM by rmctagg09

I feel without some significant upgrades in other aspects of the gameplay (for example, eliminating Hitscan), it's too little too late.

There's no point in adding non-hitscan bullets. The distances are too small to notice any realistic effect, even on the largest sniper-friendly maps.

EDIT: Crap, sorry. Editied to fix my grammatic mistake.

edited 15th Jun '17 7:52:10 PM by SgtRicko

Non-hitscan, you mean. I think they'd call that projectiles.

That's another part that would need upgrading. Stop emphasizing claustrophobically small map sizes. Real war, especially World War Two never happens at always football field sizes or less. Sometimes, you do genuinely get long range battle. And it's not like the Call of Duty developers over the years are incapable making the draw distance go for far distances or building long range encounters. They're just lazy and incompetently sticking to things that have earned them scorn for doing them again and again. Such as making uberly small and close range fights for everything.

If they are serious about re-vamping the Call of Duty franchise, the obsession with uber-small arena style maps needs the boot.

edited 15th Jun '17 8:07:53 PM by MajorTom