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 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).
?!?!
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.
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:? USS Texas was part of Normandy...
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.
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?
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.
I liked infinite warfare :/
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.
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.
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.)
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.
The slippery slope is real, this all started when Modern Warfare 2 tried a level in Pakistan and used Arabic instead of Urdu.
In the first Modern Warfare they had Arabic script without the connecting ligatures and rendering left to right!
Oh hey.
Just to prove I'm not crazy.
Pages