• Call of Duty: WWII multiplayer doesn't have swastikas, and this is why
    27 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcgamer.com/call-of-duty-wwii-multiplayer-doesnt-have-swastikas-and-this-is-why[/url]
So basically SP is meant to be historical but MP isn't.
I mean actually reasonable tbh if they did this to SP I'd call it bullshit but this is different. MP is practically LARP compared to a linear game
Black SS soldiers is indeed not the most realistic thing to witness :v: But it makes sense to just turn it as fiction, perhaps a good background to later introduce jetpacks and other secret WW2 weapons
I never questioned any of the choices they made for multiplayer in regards to realism or authenticity. It's CoD, it's not meant to be authentic in the first place, especially in the multiplayer. Crying about the lack of Swastikas, women, or black Nazis in the [B]multiplayer[/B] of a series that was never authentic nor tried to be is just dumb.
How is it dumb when 5 previous CoD games' MP had swastikas and no black/women nazis ?
- nvm -
[QUOTE=Xieneus;52378431]Times have changed a bit since then, this is a good move that should keep everybody happy.[/QUOTE] Remember when the US Army was Desegregated and allowed women in frontline combat roles in WWII? Me neither. Could have had a segregated unit for a couple of the maps, have stuff in the info about them, and on loading screens about the racism of the period, and generally use the medium and setting to teach people about our past - the good and bad. instead they went the stupidest route possible.
It is Multi-Player I don't think it really matters.
"We won't show any swastikas in respect to the victims of nazism" "We won't show any nazis in respect to the victims of nazis" "We won't make a WWII game in respect to the victims of WWII" "We won't make a war game in respect to the victims of war" etc. It's fucking dumb. The least you can do to honor these victims is not alter the context in which they died, changing the way history is perceived in the eyes of your audience.
Honestly i wondered if this also affected the single player. If they also kept bringing up "we should respect the fallen soldiers" then why the fuck would you even attempt to make a 'authentic' WW2 game.
[QUOTE=Hauptmann;52378421]How is it dumb when 5 previous CoD games' MP had swastikas and no black/women nazis ?[/QUOTE] Remember when ONE guy made a video complaining about the abstract texture of a picture frame, that to his eyes, looked like it said ALLAH, and so they updated the game to remove the entire map, retextured it, and re-released the map in another update after that? CoD has been in snowflake territory for a while
[QUOTE=lonefirewarrior;52378412]I never questioned any of the choices they made for multiplayer in regards to realism or authenticity. It's CoD, it's not meant to be authentic in the first place, especially in the multiplayer. Crying about the lack of Swastikas, women, or black Nazis in the [B]multiplayer[/B] of a series that was never authentic nor tried to be is just dumb.[/QUOTE] The games multiplayer [I]has[/I] always been authentic from what i've seen. Authenticity is to do with representing aspects of the setting as a whole in a way that matches what it's supposed to be (albeit there's the obvious abstraction of it due to gameplay itself); the locations, weapons, equipment, vehicles, characters, logos, sounds and overall feel of it is a video game representation of the real-life equivalent that is pretty accurate - they are all things that fit the setting it's supposed to be based on the proper thing. Basically authenticity would be "Does the game portray a setting that accurately represents WW2 at this level of abstraction ( so nothing to do with the gameplay itself, just what it shows)?". Realism would relate to weapon damage, handling etc, but the games aren't trying to be realistic so those things not being perfect is fine. When it comes to something like dual-wielding, that's for gameplay purposes so that's not much of an issue. There certainly isn't anything as unauthentic as this that i can think of in the CoD games i've played. What are you claiming wasn't authentic about World at War's multiplayer, for example?
huh. That's p acceptable to me. And maybe my memory is failing me, but I dont think past CoD's had swastikas. Didn't they just use the iron cross symbol so that it was allowed in Germany?
Whatever activision, you do you.
[QUOTE=abananapeel;52378650]huh. That's p acceptable to me. And maybe my memory is failing me, but I dont think past CoD's had swastikas. Didn't they just use the iron cross symbol so that it was allowed in Germany?[/QUOTE] World at War had swastikas.
[QUOTE=nightlord;52378647]The games multiplayer [I]has[/I] always been authentic. If you think it isn't then you don't know what authenticity means when it comes to games. It's to do with representing aspects of the setting as a whole in a way that matches what it's supposed to be (albeit there's the obvious abstraction of it due to gameplay itself); the locations, weapons, equipment, vehicles, characters, logos, sounds and overall feel of it is a video game representation of the real-life equivalent that is pretty accurate - they are all things that fit the setting modeled based on the proper thing. Realism would relate to weapon damage, handling etc, but the games aren't trying to be realistic so those things not being perfect are fine. When it comes to something like dual-wielding, that's for gameplay purposes so that's not much of an issue. There certainly isn't anything as unauthentic as this that i can think of in the CoD games i've played. What are you claiming wasn't authentic about World at War's multiplayer, for example?[/QUOTE] It's a series known for regenerating health, quick-scoping, Russian soldiers running around with silenced Thompsons while Japanese soldiers run around hip firing MG42s while jumping off of buildings and zombies. Authenticity and realism go hand in hand.
[t]https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19274886_1920955804812913_6216256537790601151_n.jpg?oh=4e6c18db17f94c2a7bde0cb10c4212a7&oe=59CFB5C8[/t] like seriously, lmao [editline]19th June 2017[/editline] The difference between this and Battlefield 1 tbh is that with BF1 their choices at least reflect some actual historical thing - from the Indian Army to the Women's Battalions of Death (which saw fairly limited action, but again at least it's being based on stuff that actually happened.
[QUOTE=bdd458;52378681][t]https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19274886_1920955804812913_6216256537790601151_n.jpg?oh=4e6c18db17f94c2a7bde0cb10c4212a7&oe=59CFB5C8[/t] like seriously, lmao [editline]19th June 2017[/editline] The difference between this and Battlefield 1 tbh is that with BF1 their choices at least reflect some actual historical thing - from the Indian Army to the Women's Battalions of Death (which saw fairly limited action, but again at least it's being based on stuff that actually happened.[/QUOTE] This game is using the same player determined character customization that Sledgehammer put into Advanced Warfare, based off what the guy says in the article. The classes don't have preset appearances.
Basically they're buckling under the weight of modern standards of being offended and don't want to offend the easily offended, because it's apparently relevant to these people because they said it is. Like I'm getting bored of this trend of developers just fucking around with stuff because they don't want to offend someone, like who gives a flying fuck, it's a game you silly cunts.
[QUOTE=GHOST!!!!;52378996]Basically they're buckling under the weight of modern standards of being offended and don't want to offend the easily offended, because it's apparently relevant to these people because they said it is. Like I'm getting bored of this trend of developers just fucking around with stuff because they don't want to offend someone, like who gives a flying fuck, it's a game you silly cunts.[/QUOTE] This. Like I'm as tired as anyone of SJW's and PC culture and whatever, but I stay off twitter and tumblr so I never really deal with that shit, why huge corporations such as Blizzard/Activision tries to appeal to them by doing things in video games that they'll never even play is beyond me but it's really silly. In the end I don't really care, I don't think this is a big deal, it's just weird as fuck.
I can't think of any particular reason to do this. - It's not a gameplay reason, it's just an aesthetic change. - It's not a player reason, they're still playing as nazis, swastikas or not. - It's not a political reason, since if they had left the swastikas alone, no one would have cared, as with other games set in the era- including recent ones and including half of this one. - It's not a statement because they didn't release a clear reason for it. "There's a lot of emotions attached to that symbol" is what they said. You can replace 'symbol' with any noun in the dictionary, i.e. party, era, war, nation, person, etc. It's a vacuous insight. In fact, this is so trivial and arbitrary that I suspect they did it just to generate buzz about the game. I can't think of any other reason to bother with doing it. Its the most irrelevant thing they could do while still conceivably generating a controversy that would get people talking about the game for a few days. Wouldn't put it past Activision for a second.
[QUOTE=lonefirewarrior;52378412]I never questioned any of the choices they made for multiplayer in regards to realism or authenticity. It's CoD, it's not meant to be authentic in the first place, especially in the multiplayer. Crying about the lack of Swastikas, women, or black Nazis in the [B]multiplayer[/B] of a series that was never authentic nor tried to be is just dumb.[/QUOTE] I don't think you've played much pre-MW2 CoD.
This is like this year's Microsoft E3 press conference; they censored when Terry Crews said "fuck", but it was no problem showing orc's head being decapitated and a zombie ripping a guy in two with his guts falling all over the camera. In a game about killing random people online, a bunch of flags is suddenly an issue.
[QUOTE=cire992;52379223]I can't think of any particular reason to do this. - It's not a gameplay reason, it's just an aesthetic change. - It's not a player reason, they're still playing as nazis, swastikas or not. - It's not a political reason, since if they had left the swastikas alone, no one would have cared, as with other games set in the era- including recent ones and including half of this one. - It's not a statement because they didn't release a clear reason for it. "There's a lot of emotions attached to that symbol" is what they said. You can replace 'symbol' with any noun in the dictionary, i.e. party, era, war, nation, person, etc. It's a vacuous insight. In fact, this is so trivial and arbitrary that I suspect they did it just to generate buzz about the game. I can't think of any other reason to bother with doing it. Its the most irrelevant thing they could do while still conceivably generating a controversy that would get people talking about the game for a few days. Wouldn't put it past Activision for a second.[/QUOTE] Because they want to? I mean at the end of the day if they feel like it's going to hurt sales they aren't gonna do it. Hell, I bet a lot of people who are getting angry about this wouldn't have noticed if they hadn't explicitly said it
[QUOTE=cire992;52379223]I can't think of any particular reason to do this. - It's not a gameplay reason, it's just an aesthetic change. - It's not a player reason, they're still playing as nazis, swastikas or not. - It's not a political reason, since if they had left the swastikas alone, no one would have cared, as with other games set in the era- including recent ones and including half of this one. - It's not a statement because they didn't release a clear reason for it. "There's a lot of emotions attached to that symbol" is what they said. You can replace 'symbol' with any noun in the dictionary, i.e. party, era, war, nation, person, etc. It's a vacuous insight. In fact, this is so trivial and arbitrary that I suspect they did it just to generate buzz about the game. I can't think of any other reason to bother with doing it. Its the most irrelevant thing they could do while still conceivably generating a controversy that would get people talking about the game for a few days. Wouldn't put it past Activision for a second.[/QUOTE] All it really is is marketing and, like you said, generate buzz. They're covering all the bases that would, typically, 'alienate' potential players. No swastikas opens up players in countries [and people] who find such things taboo (Germany) and customization of race and gender opens up to those players that care so much about "identifying" with their avatar.
CoD had always used Iron Crosses in MP. It wasn't a problem back then, I don't see one now. Not even Wolfenstein MP used nazi symbols, people just think everything is ran by SJWs these days.
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;52379856]CoD had always used Iron Crosses in MP. It wasn't a problem back then, I don't see one now. Not even Wolfenstein MP used nazi symbols, people just think everything is ran by SJWs these days.[/QUOTE] BF1942 avoided swastikas as well, actually. It only had iron crosses. It didn't even refer to them as Nazis, only "Axis".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.