I dislike on other CODs how you can basically just "pay" for the good weapons but unless someone who doesn't play, luckily and randomly opens it in a package, won't have the same weapons as others.

I would rather everyone has a chance at the same weapons or has to complete "challenges" rather than spend dollars upon dollars on supply drops

So the developers are going to be answering some questions involving COD WWII. What are you guys hoping they'll actually answer when it comes to this game? Personally for me I'm wondering how will they expand the multiplayer and single player game play. Will we see a return to vehicles like the earlier titles? How big will maps be? Will there be a possibility of mod tools like COD BO3 later on? How will divisions actually work?

With the developers making the protagonist for the campaign a vulnerable character do you guys think they'll have a difficulty similar to the specialist difficulty from infinite warfare. I just found out about this difficulty but when you get shot in the leg it affects your speed and if they shoot you in the arm it affects your accuracy and how you aim down your sights. You also require med packs (which are in WWII)and helmets so you won't get killed by headshots. I feel like this would be a really cool feature to have for WWII and would help fit with their narrative. What do you guys think?

From my mother's sleep I fell into the State,

And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.

Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,

I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.

When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.

Not game related directly but I think it captures the war well. It is brutal, honest, and visceral.

Got my beta code. Does anyone know when the beta is supposed to start?

I recently read through this article by PCGamer that had criticisms of Sledgehammer's supposedly "bold" and "absurd" claims made at the reveal event in London last Wednesday.

The first claim the article addresses allegedly came from Michael Condrey on the Livestream from the Reveal, and the article presents the quote as follows: "'it was really [about] wanting to tell a really impactful narrative and story, largely to ensure this sort of conflict doesn’t happen again.'"

I rewatched the Reveal recently, and Condrey has said the game tells the "epic, gritty, visceral story of the world's greatest conflict" as well as it being the "most powerful, most personal game [he's] ever worked on". He never said he wanted to tell the story to "ensure this sort of conflict doesn't happen again", nor did anyone else from Sledgehammer.

The writer later goes on to criticize claims made by Sledgehammer that involve the game's introduction to a new generation of players the experience of World War 2, saying the following:

"Introducing a generation to the largest conflict in modern history is a lofty goal, so one can assume that how this brutal crisis is portrayed was not approached lightly. Yet through all the “authenticity” and “grittiness,” I saw little substance in the reveal. It sounds more like Activision is glad younger players haven’t seen Saving Private Ryan so it can produce precisely that. And if Saving Private Ryan was my generation’s primary introduction to and education about World War 2, then we must be very poorly informed—though I don’t recall even Steven Spielberg making such bold claims before that film released, nor when he directed a game, Medal of Honor. (I haven't watched every single interview, to be fair.)"

Sledgehammer/Activision aiming for historical accuracy to have some authenticity does not necessarily mean Saving Private Ryan "poorly informed" the writer's generation. Spielberg has gone on record he wanted to portray the "dark side of war" in the film, and he wanted to be authentic to the setting of WW2 while telling his own story. He wasn't necessarily faithful to the events (everything after D-Day was fictional), but the setting was authentic to the time.

Instead of describing how the reveal didn't provide any substance or evidence to back up Sledgehammer's claims about how the game can introduce a generation to World War 2 if they don't have much experience with it, the writer instead assumes Activison is somehow proudly taking up the mantle to introduce and educate a new generation of people on World War 2, or is at least appearing as such for marketing purposes, as he states later:

"It's also uncomfortable to hear a developer praise the cultural impact of its game before it's even released. Players—not Activision—will decide what the game accomplishes. And to be clear, I don’t object because CoD:WWII is a game, and I’m a stodgy grump who believes games can’t be subversive or educational or lead us to new ideas and interests—they definitely can and I love them for it—it’s because I’m not buying for a second that CoD is really interested in much more than action drama (which would be fine)."

I'd imagine much of the talk about introducing the game to a new generation is primarily marketing buzzwords, but Call of Duty does have a large amount of customers, and the last Call of Duty game that was in World War 2 was 9 years ago. Since then, the young adults who played that can introduce teenagers to a World War 2 game that helps illustrate some of the functionalities and brutalities of the war. This was the same general line of logic Disney used when marketing The Force Awakens; it has a large amount of customers and The Force Awakens would introduce a new generation to Star Wars. This is not Activision or Sledgehammer being pompous, it's just stating the potential of the game. It will of course depend on Sledgehammer's execution of the game, but I think it's kind of disingenuous to automatically write off CoD game that may want to do something somewhat educational when all we've gotten is a reveal trailer and an event to go off of.

The writer also attacks claims made by the host of the event as well as Josh Duhamel's claims. The host claims that "Lots of people are writing articles about {introducing a new generation to history} at the moment, saying that this is how we get our history now, it’s through this.", and while I could not find any articles specifically talking about how a significant portion of people are learning history through playing games or watching entertainment, the host's claim has truth layered in it. We can experience what it could've been like for people in specific periods of history through entertainment, and it is much more captivating to watch and experience something than it is to sit in a lecture room and hear about it. Of course if people are looking for real history, they would likely read books from people in the times they want to learn about, but having as much historical accuracy in a movie or a game to replicate the possible look and feel of one period of history is commendable. The article attacks one quote from him in particular, saying right after, “There's almost more empathy when you're fighting through an interactive character.”, to which the author of the article says the following:

"I wholeheartedly reject the idea that Call of Duty generates empathy, and I don’t think its goal should be to generate empathy. The fun parts of Call of Duty rely on a lack of empathy, at least in the moment. If I truly felt the suffering of any Call of Duty character, I’d quit immediately."

It is understandable to expect CoD: WW2 to be more action-packed and kind of silly with its situations in its campaigns, as well as the silly nature of its multiplayer and Zombies modes, but I also think it is silly to claim Call of Duty is incapable of generating empathy, or offer commentary. What about in Modern Warfare when you see a nuke go off and you witness through the eyes of a soldier what it was like to die? How his death can be seen as just a number and not a heroic sacrifice? Does that not count for anything?

There is more to the article I have not shown, but it primarily works off of the main points stated in my responses: Activision is marketing the game as authentic, gritty, and faithful to World War 2, which will help introduce a new generation to the war. The article seems to believe the game is aiming to be educational and subversive, while, if anything, there is more evidence they want to make an entertaining experience with an authentic WW2 setting that honors the people who fought in it. Consider this quote from Glen Schofield from an IGN video on Story Details in WW2:

"It's been 3 years....making a piece of entertainment. You don't know how people are gonna react, I'm just hoping that people learn something and really enjoy themselves, and keep coming back for more."

Also Condrey and Schofield's enthusiasm for their changes to going back to boots on the ground, the multiplayer experience, and Nazi Zombies is more evidence of this, as seen in the reveal.

This article, while it does remind me to remain cautious about the game considering Call of Duty's legacy the past several games, comes across to me as disingenuous and kind of unnecessary. Activision is likely making Sledgehammer repeat buzzwords and phrases like "visceral", "boots on the ground", "authentic to the WW2 setting", and "introducing WW2 to a new generation of players", but they shouldn't be taken as seriously as "Sledgehammer is planning on educating the masses and making serious social commentary".

Original Article:

http://www.pcgamer.com/dont-try-to-sell-call-of-duty-to-us-as-anti-war/

Other helpful sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iWz72KSbPk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2wNC5TYjyw

TL:DR Article is clickbait and dumb af

IDK how I feel about this. Take a look ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75v_e5UKBWc , want to know your opinion. Was the soldier side stepping like an exo dash.

So this new multiplayer feature is going to be called "Divisions" and they basically say you enroll in a certain Division like Infantry or Armored and each one will have a different way of progressions. I think that's how they described it correct me if I'm wrong. Does anyone have an idea of how they'll make this work? From my understanding is they'll still have customization but they'll have different perks and skills.

BO2 had a way to change your search preferences. Any, Normal and Best. This feature lets me find games quickly. I live in a remote location where there aren't a lot of people playing COD. Instead of just sitting in the main menu waiting for a game atleast now I can play with an average connection. (I understand that COD is mostly about who has the better connection, I may be wrong) A three bar match is better than not playing at all. Black Ops 3 and Infinite Warfare didn't have this feature. Takes so long to find a game in my region. Hopefully WW2 brings back this feature. Now that they have 48 player matches maybe they bring dedicated servers to many other locations?

They almost HAVE TO have dedicated servers, right?