Call of Duty: WWII
26 Apr - 23:35
Somebody picked up last year the kickstarter of Battalion 1944 and smelled money: cinematic trailer
No more jumping and flying around in jetpacks like the last dozen cods. Back to the roots but also back to the roots of the game in gameplay?
Release date 03 November 2017
The indie space has capitalised on the mainstream shift away from competitive World War II shooters. Games like Battalion 1944 and Days of War had successful Kickstarter campaigns to help with development. The creators of hardcore shooter Insurgency also recently released Day of Infamy, which is enjoying a ‘Very Positive’ rating on Steam. As far as Activision should be concerned, the interest in competitive Call of Duty( of old)-like first-person shooters set in World War II is free market research.
On top of this, Call of Duty’s biggest competitor, the Battlefield franchise, recently ditched the contemporary setting of its five most recent entries to have a punt at a World War I-era setting. In terms of critical reception, sales, and fan feedback, Battlefield 1 was a resounding success.
Another reason Activision may want to get a World War II shooter out the door is so that it beats EA to the punch. There’s no guarantee that the next Battlefield game will be set in World War II whenever it lands, but given that it’s been eight years since Battlefield 1943, which was, in many respects, a Frostbite-engine reskinning of Battlefield 1942 (released in 2002), it stands to reason that DICE will run with the goodwill of Battlefield 1’s release and take the franchise back to where it started in World War II.
The great thing is that a World War II Call of Duty game doesn’t have to be a reskin of the earlier games in the series, much like Modern Warfare Remastered was. Thanks to hardware advancements since 2008, when World at War was released, a World War II-set Call of Duty game has the opportunity to not only look great, but be more expansive in terms of its campaign scope and all-important multiplayer mechanics.
The original was a landmark game in so many ways.
Thanks to the real-world warfare innovations that came about during World War II (including the birth of the assault rifle), there’s a wealth of experimental military hardware that hasn’t been properly tapped in games. This includes around-the-corner assault rifles; explosive-packed rats and dogs, plus remote-controlled mini-tanks (for Score Streak lovers); as well as bioweapons and even death rays, to name a few.
It’s also a chance to bang another nail into the coffin of Medal of Honor. Much like Respawn Entertainment is comprised of ex-Infinity Ward devs, the entirety of Infinity Ward was originally comprised of devs who’d worked on Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. Call of Duty became a better version of Medal of Honor, but because CoD was born after MoH, some of the bigger moments from cinematic depictions of World War II had already been used in the older World War II shooter.
While the original Call of Duty looked to Hollywood World War II B-movies like Enemy at the Gates, Medal of Honor had already consulted with powerhouse director Steven Spielberg and lifted classic scenes from his iconic World War II movie Saving Private Ryan and series Band of Brothers. Given that those Medal of Honor games were made around the early 21st century, Sledgehammer Games would be free to revisit without it feeling like they’re ripping off a recently released competing title.
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was impactful at the time, but revisiting scenes like this in 2017 could be truly harrowing.
There are also plenty of aspects of World War II that haven’t been depicted in games, outside of the Hollywood mainstays. More importantly, though, it’s an excuse to return to the squad roots of Call of Duty and move away from the Halo-like power fantasy of one super soldier versus a seemingly never-ending wave of mindless goons.
27 Apr - 11:30
This could well be the first CoD I will play in a looooong time. I like the "boots on the ground" feel it's almost definitely going to have.
However for me no matter how good the game play is, it's all about what they do on PC. For example, is this game going to have a Anti-Cheat system, and a decent one? What about refresh rates in game? Are they going to be locked to 60fps, or are they going to cater for the PC market and allow refresh rates that match your monitor?
I bought CoD4 Remastered. Played a few rounds and quickly returned it. No anti cheat on PC was a huge issue. And the problems with the refresh rate was a joke.
I'd like to see multi player footage as well as the answers to those sorts of questions.
Imsurgency is also getting a graphical update this year, so another one to keep an eye out for.
27 Apr - 11:54
hi Drunk, good comments. When I heard they would release COD4 remastered then I almost spent 70 EUR to have this game. Then I looked it up on metacritic.org and the pc comments were devestating. A fast port of console, terrible frame drops, no dedicated servers and so on...
I have Insurgency and the new version look graphically very good. But the gameplay is pure hardcore style. No crosshair, map, nothing. I played COD4 HC and it's no fun compared to SC. HC community thinks they play the real deal, the difficult gamemode but it's not. It's easier. HC becomes a camping game where one bullet in the leg can kill you. So everyone played with no recoil guns as there was no difference. SC is where the skill of aiming shines. You needed the AK47 for the bullet impact and control the recoil. Keep focus on moving targets, aim for the head or he will kill you faster. That's why competition like ESL is never on HC.
Back on topic: Everything we know so far
Bomb squad defuser
292 posts27 Apr - 12:20
They don't do pc-first games that often anymore as it's lower profit. They're just asking 60€+ for the console game because the retards will pay it anyway. Us, PC gamers get to buy the game for around half the price, resulting in lower profit for the developers resulting in badly ported games over the years. COD has been a console game since 4 and been porting them since then.
27 Apr - 13:51
I like Insurgency as it's quite a tactical shooter. Different pace.
I also grew to LOVE HC in BF4. BF1 it sucks, but in BF4 I thought it was great.
SC is fine, but for me HC requires alot more team work. I see your point Brussie about HC and the high fire or highly accurate weapons being over used, but my preferred game mode in BF4 was Domination and my "go to" weapon? The PKP!! (over 25,000 kills with the PKP) Not exactly high rate of fire or anything like that, and I hardly ever ran into someone else using it. But you were rewarded for aiming for the head.
Also in SC, what the hell is the point of trying to play all tactical, getting a good flank on, and then some idiot who's just spamming the spot button manages to put a bright red triangle over your head.
Communication in HC is also much more important. You don't have a silly map in the corner of your screen showing you exactly where the last person was who fired, or that poor soul who'd worked his nuts off to get around you, is suddenly a shinning dot on your radar cause he's been "spotted".
Teamwork was also much better in my opinion. For example, jump in a tank in BF in SC and don't worry about your class. Take some damage, just back out and your tank will magically heal itself. But in HC, classes and squads really mattered.
Anyway, just my opinion. HC v SC will be a debate that is never answered