Call of Duty WW2 - Multiplayer Trailer - General

I only care about the SP I've never cared for the MP in any of the CoD games. Well maybe except Black Ops 1. [editline]15th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Hauptmann;52574925]"We did our research on the weapons and recorded the real gun sounds" my ass. Only the Garand looks and sounds decent, the other guns are catastrophic in all aspects. [B]but is that a Dutch uniform that I see [url=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHOP6QVXYAA62LV.jpg]here[/url] ?[/B][/QUOTE] Might be. I believe they said there would be uniforms from other nations other then just America and Germany.

[QUOTE=cdr248;52576281]What bothers me most is how unvaried the weapon roster is. Give us some shitty italian guns. Give us all those funky forgotten japanese guns.[/QUOTE] This trailer and some recent gameplay footage showed that the japanese Type 100 and the Johnson rifle.

Okay this is tangential but there's not really a lot to say about this game in specific yet. I'm holding out for a game that comes up with a dynamic weapon damage / player damage system. So that guns can actually do more damage, and not just have that abstracted to simulate it. Both for SP in that it's jarring to have a player talk about their lives as if they were fragile when you've seen them survive gunshots to the face. And also for MP in that weapons don't really feel more or less any different. If you shoot somebody with a .22 or a 12 gauge they still flinch with the exact same animation. Damage is all damage so it doesn't matter if it's a rocket, fire, melee, projectiles... because they all do their respective 'points' of damage. If I do 50 points of damage to somebody with a machine gun or my fists, there is no difference. Literally none. To me that's what would make a game like this work. I'm not worried about historical accuracy so much as I am playing a shooter in WWII that's going to feel like we never left Modern Warfare.

[QUOTE=download;52574425]Apparently if you shoot a paratrooper their parachute falls off. This looks so boring and uninspired. Pretty typical of CoD game.[/QUOTE] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfituOuJBkI[/media] Also, does this really matter?

[QUOTE=cdr248;52576281]What bothers me most is how unvaried the weapon roster is. There's not many weapons for one thing, and the ones that are there are the same 10 guns we've seen in every single ww2 game. Like why not choose another theater instead of the reg US v Germany. Give us some shitty italian guns. Give us all those funky forgotten japanese guns. All I see in this is a weird sidegrade to World at War, possibly even a downgrade.[/QUOTE] There's already a few weird obscure WW2 weapons visible from what we've seen so far like that toggle lock shotgun and I'm pretty sure I saw a Johnnson LMG in this trailer and that's barely been in any games at all. There's probably a lot we still haven't seen.

[QUOTE=scurr;52575175]Ah yes, the MP40 Schemizer, famous for its complete lack of recoil.[/QUOTE] Pretty much though, being 9 mm [editline]16th August 2017[/editline] [media]http://youtu.be/O38a_Bx18RU[/media]

[QUOTE=psychofox67;52574820][video]https://youtu.be/wFLSECMf8pk[/video] some of the specks for the gun are pretty historically inaccurate and a couple the reloading animations :sick:[/QUOTE] They even fucked up by having the Garand's clip produce the same "ping" noise with rounds still in it And the 1911's extended mag holding 2 more rounds but is twice as long Fuck I'm 30s in and they've already fucked it on the weapon authenticity side of things Oh god the Luger looks awful, how do they do it? Stupid-arse "tactical" reload animations, swivelling about with a nearly-10kg machinegun like it's an M4 Apparently Thompsons had a bolt hold-open The MG-15 - What's a rear sight? They did a really nice job with the winchester though, I'll give them that. But they fucked it up anyway by giving it a capacity of 10 Nitpicky I know, that's the point - When Red Orchestra 2 came out in what, 2010 or 11 there's not really any excuse for a triple-A studio to get details like this wrong in 2017. Even if they're not going for realism or historical accuracy, it still lacks authenticity in this aspect alone. That's not even going into the whole "Black female paratroopers" and whatnot.

[QUOTE=psychofox67;52574820][video]https://youtu.be/wFLSECMf8pk[/video] some of the specks for the gun are pretty historically inaccurate and a couple the reloading animations :sick:[/QUOTE] This must be the alternate history WW2 where the trench gun has a 10-round tube and where a ludicrously long M1911 magazine only holds three rounds more than the standard one.

[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;52577392]This must be the alternate history WW2 where the trench gun has a 10-round tube and where a ludicrously long M1911 magazine only holds [B]three[/B] rounds more than the standard one.[/QUOTE] "One in the chamber" is a foreign concept to COD despite that being the name of one of its gamemodes

[QUOTE=redBadger;52574693]Apparently no guns have recoil. Or maybe they forgot to animate it???[/QUOTE] you don't animate recoil

[QUOTE=DMGaina;52577457]you don't animate recoil[/QUOTE] Idk if you're implying they didn't use animation tools to create the effect, but if you create movement you've animated something.

[QUOTE=MedicWine;52577520]Idk if you're implying they didn't use animation tools to create the effect, but if you create movement you've animated something.[/QUOTE] I am, because you don't animate the recoil the others are talking about, like on the MP40, where there seems to be barely any recoil at all. However, this is not animated, you do not use animation tools for that. The first person model is simply shooting forwards, the weapon only visually moves within it's own space when firing, without affecting the player's actual aim. A proramer implements the designed recoil pattern for the specific weapon... behavior like the aiming moving upwards, if it jumps across a set range, or what causes the recoil. He does that only by code, giving some velocity here, moving the aim across set vectors over curves, etc It would be silly as fuck if your recoil always follows the same pre-animated sequence. Imagine patching recoil patters by replacing animations over and over again :v:

Sorry, is this COD WW2 or MW? What's with the red dot sights?

[QUOTE=ChronoBlade;52577597]Sorry, is this COD WW2 or MW? What's with the red dot sights?[/QUOTE] Battlefield 1 proved that you can put holo sights on tenuously authentic assault rifles years before either should exist in that capacity and no one will bat an eye. Can't see why this game should be treated differently, unless people have a stigma against COD.

I don't know why people are so against the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflector_sight]sights[/url]. Sure, they didn't really gain much traction until the 70s but it's not like they didn't [url=https://www.forgottenweapons.com/accessories/nydar-reflex-sight/]exist[/url] before then. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Howard_Grubb_Reflexvisier_2.jpg/800px-Howard_Grubb_Reflexvisier_2.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;52577658]Battlefield 1 proved that you can put holo sights on tenuously authentic assault rifles years before either should exist in that capacity and no one will bat an eye. Can't see why this game should be treated differently, unless people have a stigma against COD.[/QUOTE] Well I haven't played Battlefield 1 didn't know they had that. That's odd.

[QUOTE=Vassikin;52577674]I don't know why people are so against the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflector_sight]sights[/url]. Sure, they didn't really gain much traction until the 70s but it's not like they didn't [url=https://www.forgottenweapons.com/accessories/nydar-reflex-sight/]exist[/url] before then. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Howard_Grubb_Reflexvisier_2.jpg/800px-Howard_Grubb_Reflexvisier_2.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Yeah the Nydar at least sort of fits in with the WW2 theme, I mean Treyarch has done way bigger anachronisms before (late 90s Famas FELIN and a brand new Jeep in Black Ops 1 for example).

[QUOTE=Kecske;52577731]Yeah the Nydar at least sort of fits in with the WW2 theme, I mean Treyarch has done way bigger anachronisms before (late 90s Famas FELIN and a brand new Jeep in Black Ops 1 for example).[/QUOTE] Black Ops 1 at least had throws around an "experimental tech" excuse and feels a lot like a movie that would have those kinds of anachronisms. Call of Duty games usually don't bother to justify them otherwise.

[QUOTE=Vassikin;52577674]I don't know why people are so against the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflector_sight]sights[/url]. Sure, they didn't really gain much traction until the 70s but it's not like they didn't [url=https://www.forgottenweapons.com/accessories/nydar-reflex-sight/]exist[/url] before then. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Howard_Grubb_Reflexvisier_2.jpg/800px-Howard_Grubb_Reflexvisier_2.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] [quote] introduced in 1945. It was intended as a sight for shotgun hunters[/quote] Yeah I hated the notion of stuffing in every anachronistic gadget, semi-automatic and select-fire rifle possible into BF1 to the point that bog-standard was the exception rather than rule too. Don't get me wrong, mechanically it makes sense cause what would you keep people playing to grind and unlock if not stuff that [I]might as well[/I] have not existed in the historical context your game's set in. I'm disappointed they didn't fully embrace the end of the spectrum it's leaning towards and go completely crazy with retro-"futuristic" assets. There's already so much stuff in there that just plain aesthetically it might as well not be WW1 at all. I just find it disappointing that authenticity, realism and historical accuracy are incompatible with AAA games. Actually, I don't, since "AA" games end up being better since they don't have publishers breathing money so hard down their necks they have to resort to such gimmicks to maximise profits

2017, and the 1911 STILL has the original CoD4 reload animation for pistols.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;52577877]There's already so much stuff in there that just plain aesthetically it might as well not be WW1 at all.[/QUOTE] what are you referring to specifically

[QUOTE=milktree;52576291]dont get your hopes up. I doubt a return to ww2 in battlefield will be much like 1942 anyway.[/QUOTE] 100% this. A Battlefield 1944 (or whatever it ends up being called) is inevitable at this point and I'm scared. As much as I would [I]love[/I] a new Battlefield 1942, that's simply not going to happen. It [I]can't[/I] happen. Battlefield today isn't what it used to be. It doesn't help that the series is old enough, and has had games varied enough published under its name, that it's acquired a Need for Speed like identity crisis. You can ask three different people what they think a Battlefield game should be and you'll get three completely different answers. Suppose EA pulls the "going back to its roots" card when they decide to start marketing it. What does that even mean anymore? The gaming landscape has changed, and so has the target audience that EA/DICE shoots for with these games now. Everything has to be fast. It has to have unlockables and progression, I mean why else are you playing? You can't have it be faction vs faction because why shouldn't I be able to use my favorite gun? It's gotten to the point where I will be pleasantly surprised if we [I]don't[/I] have Americans rolling around in Tiger tanks with US Army markings in the Pacific fighting Japanese soldiers equipped with golden BAR 1918s. It's so many little things that have added up over time to have driven me away from the series. Battlefield 1 was the last straw. I've only put something like 20 hours into it, when previous games in the series you could measure that number in hundreds of hours. In other news, [t]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/019/304/old.jpg[/t]

Unpopular opinion but it doesn't look that bad to me. I never go into a CoD trailer expecting the tightest graphics or the best audio, and I don't know why other people do either. The series has never been about that. Still not buying it though because of the crate nonsense.

[QUOTE=Why485;52578420]100% this. A Battlefield 1944 (or whatever it ends up being called) is inevitable at this point and I'm scared. As much as I would [I]love[/I] a new Battlefield 1942, that's simply not going to happen. It [I]can't[/I] happen. Battlefield today isn't what it used to be. It doesn't help that the series is old enough, and has had games varied enough published under its name, that it's acquired a Need for Speed like identity crisis. You can ask three different people what they think a Battlefield game should be and you'll get three completely different answers. Supposing EA pulls the "going back to its roots" card when they decide to start marketing it. What does that even mean anymore? The gaming landscape has changed, and so has the target audience that EA/DICE shoots for with these games now. Everything has to be fast. It has to have unlockables and progression, I mean why else are you playing? You can't have it be faction vs faction because why shouldn't I be able to use my favorite gun? It's gotten to the point where I will be pleasantly surprised if we [I]don't[/I] have Americans rolling around in Tiger tanks with US Army markings in the Pacific fighting Japanese soldiers equipped with golden BAR 1918s. It's so many little things that have added up over time to have driven me away from the series. Battlefield 1 was the last straw. I've only put something like 20 hours into it, when previous games in the series you could measure that number in hundreds of hours. In other news, [t]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/019/304/old.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] A significant portion of my time is spent playing Bad Company 2 and crying about the specifics of the way games are being made lately or how they aren't made 'for me' anymore. Now I know how the FGC feels :v:

I'm hoping that the IP eventually dies off in popularity to the point where making new games is unsustainable and activision decides to sell the IP to another studio/publisher with good intention that will create a reboot of United Offensive with full mapping/modding support and no bullshit grinding/loot crates tied up to it. Unfortunately that'll probably only happen near the heat death of the universe.

If Guitar Hero or Tony Hawk are any indication, I think Activision is more than fine with running a franchise into the absolute fucking dirt and moving on to something else, unfortunately. Hell even the newest Guitar Hero was marketed as "going back to its roots" by just having the guitar, and now its probably dead forever. Lets hope Destiny doesn't suffer the same fate.

[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;52577392]This must be the alternate history WW2 where the trench gun has a 10-round tube and where a ludicrously long M1911 magazine only holds three rounds more than the standard one.[/QUOTE] The extra rounds are reaaaally big :v:

[QUOTE=cdr248;52576281]What bothers me most is how unvaried the weapon roster is. There's not many weapons for one thing, and the ones that are there are the same 10 guns we've seen in every single ww2 game. Like why not choose another theater instead of the reg US v Germany. Give us some shitty italian guns. Give us all those funky forgotten japanese guns. All I see in this is a weird sidegrade to World at War, possibly even a downgrade.[/QUOTE] Once upon a time CoD was intended to actually provide at least some semblance of the feeling of soldiers in WWII. The early games had some pretty awesome campaigns. Now we have Germans with pump action shotguns. Germans used effectively zero shotguns during WWII as they considered them to be something along the lines of a war crime. I know, weird line to draw, but they were pretty adamant about hating shotguns. Americans were basically the only ones who fielded shotguns. Like I would be okay with this if they managed to make it more than 30 seconds into the trailer before a ridiculous inaccuracy became apparent.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52579182]Once upon a time CoD was intended to actually provide at least some semblance of the feeling of soldiers in WWII. The early games had some pretty awesome campaigns. Now we have Germans with pump action shotguns. Germans used effectively zero shotguns during WWII as they considered them to be something along the lines of a war crime. I know, weird line to draw, but they were pretty adamant about hating shotguns. Americans were basically the only ones who fielded shotguns. Like I would be okay with this if they managed to make it more than 30 seconds into the trailer before a ridiculous inaccuracy became apparent.[/QUOTE] Do you mind explaining how they came that conclusion? I mean ignoring the obvious thing to bring up, what did they think a shotgun does that's worse than anything else in war?

[QUOTE=MedicWine;52579453]Do you mind explaining how they came that conclusion? I mean ignoring the obvious thing to bring up, what did they think a shotgun does that's worse than anything else in war?[/QUOTE] It started during WW1 when they were up against people using shotguns in trenches. They loathed people using shotguns and from what I heard shot anybody that they captured who wielded a shotgun.