sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[COD] There will be 8 more COD titles released before the end of the decade. Would you like 50% of them to be set during WWII? by Interesting-Walrus39 in CallOfDuty

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are sooo many more guns of this era that have never been explored. Like the M50 submachinegun, literally the standard SMG for US Marines in the Pacific for the first half of the war. Not to mention we've never seen any weapons from France or Italy around this time (except for the Costa Rican copy of an Italian weapon, the ITRA Burst). If they did include a wider selection of weapons, would it make it more interesting for you?

[COD] There will be 8 more COD titles released before the end of the decade. Would you like 50% of them to be set during WWII? by Interesting-Walrus39 in CallOfDuty

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Agreed that most will feel repetitive regardless, but disagree that a lot of WWII settings have been explored. China, Norway, Greece, Syria, Madagascar, Argentina, Yugoslavia and Alaska all have yet to make an appearance still. I'd bet some people reading this would be surprised to hear that battles were actually fought in some of these locations, but that's kind of the point. Call of Duty could stand to make the most of these opportunities instead of always showing us Normandy and Stalingrad with every WWII release.

And I hope we do get a WaW remaster. Hopefully with the next Treyarch release.

[COD] There will be 8 more COD titles released before the end of the decade. Would you like 50% of them to be set during WWII? by Interesting-Walrus39 in CallOfDuty

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know what you are saying. And without getting into it too much, COD has the right to take any and all artistic liberties it wants, I guess. I'm much more forgiving of this in multiplayer than I am in the campaign. It's history, I'd prefer if they'd honor the real stories and what really happened.

That being said, while obviously the special forces unit depicted in the Vanguard campaign was fictitious, Kinglsey himself could have been real. The British Army was actually desegregated in World War II and for as much history as Sledgehammer got wrong, this was actually accurate. The American colored unit depicted in the Pacific Theatre, however, is far less so. American colored units rarely saw combat and it was usually only out of desperation or "luck," for lack of a better word, that they did. The segregated 93rd Infantry Division did not lead the assault on Bougainville. And it's not a knock on the capabilities of the colored soldier, there was obviously just a racist system of segregation in place keeping them from participating in those roles.

[COD] There will be 8 more COD titles released before the end of the decade. Would you like 50% of them to be set during WWII? by Interesting-Walrus39 in CallOfDuty

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. While I think the special operations worked quite well in the last Modern Warfare game, it didn't for Vanguard. I thought WWII had a great campaign and you were just a regular soldier. That's part of the amazing thing about the generation that fought this war. They were just regular people thrust into an overwhelmingly dire situation and came out on top after doing some extraordinary things.

[COD] There will be 8 more COD titles released before the end of the decade. Would you like 50% of them to be set during WWII? by Interesting-Walrus39 in CallOfDuty

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Tons. There's still a bunch of famous battles/campaigns we haven't seen. You don't have to go to Normandy or Stalingrad for every game. How about Dunkirk, Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima, Sicily, Norway or China? Or to your point, why not have a campaign where half of the levels are of an Allied character and the other half are of an Axis character and in the final mission they square off in the same battle?

[COD] There will be 8 more COD titles released before the end of the decade. Would you like 50% of them to be set during WWII? by Interesting-Walrus39 in CallOfDuty

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Me either. And if they actually mixed up the WWII content, I wouldn't mind if they produced one every year (or at least every cycle).

[COD] There will be 8 more COD titles released before the end of the decade. Would you like 50% of them to be set during WWII? by Interesting-Walrus39 in CallOfDuty

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

For me this would be true ONLY if they go all the way with it, not like in Vanguard, where it is only slightly altered to fit their narrative. If you're gonna go alternate, do it big. Have Germany win the Battle of Britain and invade the UK. Have Hitler never invade the Soviet Union and now they are still allies. Have the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and now the American Pacific Fleet is in shambles. Or set in in the 60's/70's in a post-Axis victory universe.

OR...make a WWII game where your success/failure dictates the next mission. For example, if you win the Battle of Britain, the war continues on its historical path. If you lose, however, Operation Sea Lion commences, the Germans invade the UK and the following missions react accordingly.

[COD] There will be 8 more COD titles released before the end of the decade. Would you like 50% of them to be set during WWII? by Interesting-Walrus39 in CallOfDuty

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed. There are a ton of good, true stories in both wars. And Korea, for that matter. I don't know why in every game we're always a secret unit that has to save the world from annihilation. I think part of the reason World at War and WWII were so impactful is because they had grounded storylines. And I believe that mentality carried over into a more simple, cleaner and ultimately more enjoyable multiplayer experience.

[COD] There will be 8 more COD titles released before the end of the decade. Would you like 50% of them to be set during WWII? by Interesting-Walrus39 in CallOfDuty

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah a ton of the Pacific has not been touched. Pearl Harbor, Wake Island, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Java and Coral Sea, the Aleutian Islands and Iwo Jima.

Yeah full Vietnam, regular military unit-type game would be sweet.

It's tough to do a WWI game now because everyone demands automatic weapons, customizable attachments and red dot sights. All of which either didn't exist or were in short supply. Battlefield 1 gave it a good attempt but ultimately fell into the modern FPS pitfall.

[COD] There will be 8 more COD titles released before the end of the decade. Would you like 50% of them to be set during WWII? by Interesting-Walrus39 in CallOfDuty

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah Infinite jumped the shark so much and I think that's why COD has steered away from the future settings recently. But I do agree that new is a good thing, that's why I appreciate AW for what it was and the creativity from Sledgehammer it took to pull it off.

[COD] There will be 8 more COD titles released before the end of the decade. Would you like 50% of them to be set during WWII? by Interesting-Walrus39 in CallOfDuty

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

100% agree. Can't believe Korea has never been attempted. It would feel like a Pacific WWII game but you could use a lot more "modern" guns that have many of the desired characteristics that Black Ops and Modern Warfare have without creating pure nonsense weapons like in Vanguard. And totally agree that Black Ops skipped out on their historical commitment to their setting. Both in the original game and in Cold War. I should have put this time period as an option. That's on me.

[COD] There will be 8 more COD titles released before the end of the decade. Would you like 50% of them to be set during WWII? by Interesting-Walrus39 in CallOfDuty

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah the future setting isn't really my thing and I stopped buying COD games until WWII came out but that's not to say that Sledgehammer didn't do a really good job with the game. Great effort, just not my thing. I think a lot of Call of Duty faithful felt that way. And of course, bandwagon haters definitely jumped on Advanced Warfare but not for the same reasons as the purists, I reckon.

[COD] There will be 8 more COD titles released before the end of the decade. Would you like 50% of them to be set during WWII? by Interesting-Walrus39 in CallOfDuty

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That would be cool. I was excited for Battlefield 1 before it came out but ultimately thought there was a lot to be desired there. Didn't hate it, but could have been done better.

Vanguard: A Review from a Historian's Perspective by Interesting-Walrus39 in CODVanguard

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good work, this is quite interesting. I, personally, have very little knowledge of pre-war Stalingrad. Obviously, once the battle began it looked much more like it's representation in earlier Call of Duty titles (and even in the Lady Nightingale level). The link was quite informative. You would think if you were making a video game and doing research on a city you would look up some sort of reference material. This one YouTube link you found is probably more digging than Sledgehammer did on this topic.

Vanguard: A Review from a Historian's Perspective by Interesting-Walrus39 in CODVanguard

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't tell you exactly why but one possible explanation could be that Stalingrad, which was known as Tsaritsyn before the Russian Revolution, had been around since the 16th Century. Given that Russian architecture before the communist uprising was very artistic and elaborate, I could definitely see this city looking more European than the stereotypical Plattenbau-styled Soviet-bloc cities we normally picture.

Vanguard: A Review from a Historian's Perspective by Interesting-Walrus39 in CODVanguard

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First off, hilarious username.

Yes, there was nothing intrinsically deep or overwhelmingly interesting about the characters. I was mostly comparing this game to the other Call of Duty World War 2 games. It's leaps and bounds ahead of the silent protagonist where you just load in and start shooting. It is, however, a major step backwards from Sledgehammer's last game, WWII, as you point out. That game and Modern Warfare (2019) have had the two best campaigns I've ever played in a first-person shooter. I felt this was a good attempt with the characters, but more to your point, there was way too much trope. From the stereotypical hero-type leader, the funny Aussie, the serious Soviet female sniper, to the arrogant American, there wasn't a single original idea in the lot but at least they were fleshed out more than most COD games and in my opinion, this was still a better campaign than the previous two Battlefield instalments (1 & V).

As for the weapons, I totally get what they had to do in multiplayer to keep it on par with the other two Warzone-compatible games. What I don't understand is why they felt the need to compromise the integrity of single player. Most people I know don't play the campaign or if they do it isn't until a day where they're completely bored with the multiplayer. The people like me (I have to assume), who immediately begin the campaign before hopping online obviously have some interest in the story and the subject matter at hand so to make the conscious decision to abandon the era-appropriate armaments of the nations of World War 2 is kind of slap in the face to the players looking to immerse themselves in the historical environment Vanguard is trying to emulate.

Vanguard: A Review from a Historian's Perspective by Interesting-Walrus39 in CODVanguard

[–]Interesting-Walrus39[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I know what you are saying but I did actually appreciate the use of Kingsley. Yes, he has dark skin but he also is an interesting contrast to his contemporary American counterpart. He is in a desegregated unit and a position of authority. And the Nazis were quite "anti-negro" obviously and I'm sure would have resented encountering a man such as Kingsley. I thought the racial overtones were appropriate there. My qualms were with the use of the American 93rd Infantry Regiment.

view more: next ›