Call of Duty: WWII - Catch All

Aetius wrote:

Can't say I'm excited about this at all. The maps are tiny and claustrophobic, maybe 50 meters in diameter. After playing PUBG, it feels like a fist fight in a phone booth. Got multiple kills simply because I spawned behind the enemy. There's no gameplay other than run and gun - if you try to hold a position, you're instantly flanked and killed.

This is almost exactly how I felt in the beta, I've got about 170 pubg hours, and playing this game just made me realise that I prefer the more tactical approach as opposed to turning the first corner and being shot.

I think the smaller sized maps in beta is to showcase their new 'boots on the ground' philosophy. We've only seen 4 maps and i'm sure we'll see a mix up in the styles. Anyone expecting anything close to a PUBG experience is looking at the wrong game.

The game is beautiful and when it runs it runs great.
I like the new War mode and hope it gets a handful of other maps to play it on.
The weapons feel good although the SMG even after being nerfed still feel OP.
The kill streaks don't seem to be an overly dominating factor although we've only seen up to level 35.

There's definite performance issues. Especially at the low end of the requirement levels.
Even after upgrading my memory i had repeated crashes and the only way to play for more than 5 minutes was to goto my system config and stop everything i had starting on startup.
It wasn't that bad until they pushed out the new patch on Sunday.
Hacking is an issue although they almost never have safeguards in place during beta.

I'm a big fan of the series and i feel this has potential. It's definitely leagues better than IW which was a complete PoS from the start.

Minimum:

OS: Windows 7 64-Bit or later
CPU: CPU: Intel Core i3 3225 3.3 GHz or AMD Ryzen 5 1400
RAM: 8GB RAM
HDD: 90GB HD space
Video: Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 @ 2 GB / GTX 1050 or ATI Radeon HD 7850 @ 2GB / AMD RX 550
DirectX: Version 11.0 compatible video card or equivalent
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Sound Card: DirectX Compatible
Recommended:

CPU: Intel Core i5-2400 or AMD Ryzen R5 1600X
RAM: 12GB RAM
HDD: 90GB HD space
Video: Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 / GTX 1060 @ 6GB or AMD Radeon R9 390 / AMD RX 580
DirectX: Version 11.0 compatible video card or equivalent
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Sound Card: DirectX Compatible
Since the conclusion of the beta, Sledgehammer has increased the FOV slider range for most aspect ratios, with the following limits put in place to ensure that players with ultrawide or multi-monitor setups don't have an unfair advantage:

4:3 – 100 maximum FOV
16:10 – 100 maximum FOV
16:9 – 95 maximum FOV
21:9 – 80 maximum FOV
>21:9 – 70 maximum FOV

I pre-ordered on steam (had steam funds still from selling all my TF2 stuff). Debating as second copy on PS4 or steam. My kids love zombie mode but it looks like it's only two player local coop. Previous versions we have have 4 player. I think we could all play it on PC but that's 3 copies which is too much for me. If not for the steam credit I don't think I'd have gotten it on PC (even though I hate shooters on console, I'd have gotten it there).

New Nvidia driver just dropped stating it's 'Game Ready' for CoD:ww2

?!?!

detroit20 wrote:

?!?!

?!?!?

It's out. They had issues with launch (1.5 hours late), but since then it's been solid and fun. People that complained about small maps will be happy to know there's some massive (for CoD) maps out there.

Campaign is fun, but has some annoying QTE.

Last night I was watching somebody streaming this, and there is a multiplayer map on a warship which bears markings that say "USS Texas" and...

CVN-56.

Spoiler:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/1Y7fA3R.gif)

Middcore wrote:

Last night I was watching somebody streaming this, and there is a multiplayer map on a warship which bears markings that say "USS Texas" and...

CVN-56.

Spoiler:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/1Y7fA3R.gif)

? USS Texas was part of Normandy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Te...(BB-35)

ranalin wrote:
Middcore wrote:

Last night I was watching somebody streaming this, and there is a multiplayer map on a warship which bears markings that say "USS Texas" and...

CVN-56.

Spoiler:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/1Y7fA3R.gif)

? USS Texas was part of Normandy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Te...(BB-35)

Note your URL. Yes, Texas served in WW2. USS Texas, BB-35.

CVN is the hull code for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (which obviously did not exist in WW2), and the particular code CVN-56 has never been used. (The first nuclear powered carrier, Enterprise, was CVN-65 because they just continued from the sequence of conventionally-powered ships instead of starting over at 1).

It's possible I misread but I saw it several times. I strongly suspect they re-used a texture asset from one of the earlier games with a more modern setting that had a fictional nuclear-powered carrier designated CVN-56. Which is contemptible laziness.

Middcore wrote:
ranalin wrote:
Middcore wrote:

Last night I was watching somebody streaming this, and there is a multiplayer map on a warship which bears markings that say "USS Texas" and...

CVN-56.

Spoiler:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/1Y7fA3R.gif)

? USS Texas was part of Normandy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Te...(BB-35)

Note your URL. Yes, Texas served in WW2. USS Texas, BB-35.

CVN is the hull code for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (which obviously did not exist in WW2), and the particular code CVN-56 has never been used. (The first nuclear powered carrier, Enterprise, was CVN-65 because they just continued from the sequence of conventionally-powered ships instead of starting over at 1).

It's possible I misread but I saw it several times. I strongly suspect they re-used a texture asset from one of the earlier games with a more modern setting that had a fictional nuclear-powered carrier designated CVN-65. Which is contemptible laziness.

I'll have to look but just noticed USS Texas and not CVN. Trying to not get shot and all

There's definitely other anachronistic things in the game so wouldn't be surprised if they messed that up.

ranalin wrote:

There's definitely other anachronistic things in the game so wouldn't be surprised if they messed that up.

Well the dumb holo sights on everything (because they think CoD players can't aim without them I guess) and anachronisms like that I can understand for gameplay reasons even if I don't like it. This seems more like just a case of laziness/lack of research, though.

Wait...they put red dots/holo sights in the WWII game?

Mr Crinkle wrote:

Wait...they put red dots/holo sights in the WWII game?

Haven't seen a literal red dot yet but every multiplayer stream/YouTube video I've watched people have reflector and reflex sights. Which did technically exist in WW2, but were really only used on aircraft and AA guns. I mean, I dare you to find me a historical photo of an infantryman running around with one on his M1A1 Thompson or Stg-44.

So, the game has been out almost a full day and we are complaining about the naming of a boat. Just call it boaty mcboatface. Sure, someone made a mistake but for 99% of the players it's a non issue. I played about 40 minutes this morning of the single player campaign and it was fun. A little frustrating at first (no tutorial - you just get thrown in to Normandy) but fun. If you liked the previous WW2 versions I think you'll like this one. Ran great on my system (970, 16gb ram, i5 3870) at 1080P. I haven't tried 4k but my guess is that's a no go with my setup.

There are some serious historical inaccuracies - everything from uniforms, actual combatants, rates of fire on weapons etc... If you're a CoD fan, youll probably ne happy. If you were looking for a historically realistic, tactically sound shooter - look elsewhere. It's just a reskinned version of it's previous incarnations.

SpyNavy wrote:

There are some serious historical inaccuracies - everything from uniforms, actual combatants, rates of fire on weapons etc... If you're a CoD fan, youll probably ne happy. If you were looking for a historically realistic, tactically sound shooter - look elsewhere. It's just a reskinned version of it's previous incarnations.

It's definitely without a doubt a CoD game. No reason to think otherwise.

It's leagues better than IW though. Looks good, plays good.

I liked infinite warfare :/

EvilHomer3k wrote:

So, the game has been out almost a full day and we are complaining about the naming of a boat. Just call it boaty mcboatface.

A ship, actually, not a boat.

But it's not the historical inaccuracy that bothers me so much as it is my strong suspicion it's an asset lazily re-used from a previous game.

The most popular franchise in our hobby is phoned-in, has been for years, and everyone knows it.

It's a video game not a documentary. I don't remember any zombies in WW2 either but they are in Wolfenstein. If you want historical accuracy, I suggest you cross video games off your list entirely.

EvilHomer3k wrote:

It's a video game not a documentary. I don't remember any zombies in WW2 either but they are in Wolfenstein. If you want historical accuracy, I suggest you cross video games off your list entirely.

I don't expect documentary historical accuracy, but at a certain point, liberties taken make using a WW2 setting (which is the only thing that's supposed to distinguish this year's CoD installment) becomes meaningless. What if they gave everybody laser guns and rocket jump packs? "Eh, it's not a documentary."

But again, it's not so much the historical mistakes themselves that annoy me as the fact they make it obvious this is a low-effort coat of new paint slapped on the same game they've been making for the better part of a decade.

Middcore wrote:
EvilHomer3k wrote:

It's a video game not a documentary. I don't remember any zombies in WW2 either but they are in Wolfenstein. If you want historical accuracy, I suggest you cross video games off your list entirely.

I don't expect documentary historical accuracy, but at a certain point, liberties taken make using a WW2 setting (which is the only thing that's supposed to distinguish this year's CoD installment) becomes meaningless. What if they gave everybody laser guns and rocket jump packs? "Eh, it's not a documentary."

But again, it's not so much the historical mistakes themselves that annoy me as the fact they make it obvious this is a low-effort coat of new paint slapped on the same game they've been making for the better part of a decade.

You say this with authority. I don't buy it...

They've had only one other ship map back in MW3 and even if it's the same thing. It's theirs to use. wtf should anyone care?

ranalin wrote:

It's theirs to use. wtf should anyone care?

How far do you take this attitude, though?

What if they just didn't want to bother modeling an M1 Garand and decided to just re-use, say, an M16 model from Modern Warfare 3? I mean, it's theirs to use!

Actually, why not just re-release Modern Warfare 3 or whichever previous CoD game in a new box with a new title? All the assets are theirs to use! Why should anyone care, right?

The WW2 setting is what was supposed to make this game different, set it apart from the last, oh, 10 years of the series and bring the franchise back to its roots, and fill a void where the market of WW2 games went from being meme-worthily oversaturated to non-existence. Presumably they want us to care if it looks and "feels" like a WW2 setting or they wouldn't have chosen to use it. But if they don't really care... and the players don't really care... why bother buying the game this year? Because it's this year's new CoD, and that's just what you do?

That, I sadly suspect, is the case for the majority of people and what Activision is counting on.

(Caveat: again, I may have misread when watching the stream, I don't own the game and I'm certainly not going to buy it just to find this out. I'd rather be wrong.)

What's funny is i've yet to play on that map so can't confirm one way or the other... I still think what you suggest consists of ant/mole hills...

Middcore wrote:
ranalin wrote:

It's theirs to use. wtf should anyone care?

How far do you take this attitude, though?

Chill bro. Just don't buy the game and move on to something more realistic.

For WWII realistic fps', I suggest the Red Orchestra series.

The slippery slope is real, this all started when Modern Warfare 2 tried a level in Pakistan and used Arabic instead of Urdu.

Article.

Certis wrote:

The slippery slope is real, this all started when Modern Warfare 2 tried a level in Pakistan and used Arabic instead of Urdu.

Article.

In the first Modern Warfare they had Arabic script without the connecting ligatures and rendering left to right!

For the record there's no CVN (or any designation) on the ship. Just the name USS-Texas.

Oh hey.

Spoiler:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/dcjC4cg.jpg)

Just to prove I'm not crazy.