Those Call of Duty: WWII Images Are Related to This Year's Game, Sources Say

Those Call of Duty: WWII Images Are Related to This Year's Game, Sources Say

cod-wwii-320

It turns out that the Call of Duty: WWII images that showed up over the weekend are actually related to this year's installment.

Over the weekend, a series of images popped up that purported to be from this year's installment in the Call of Duty series. The images were published on The Family Video Gamers YouTube channel, and showed the box art from what appeared to be this year's CoD title, Call of Duty: WWII. The images looked somewhat plausible, but without more confirmation, it was hard to take them seriously. Today, sources have told Eurogamer that the images and title are indeed accurate.

It's not terribly surprising to hear that the newest CoD is set in World War II, as Activision said during a financial call back in February that the series was going "back to its roots" in the next game.

We've reached out to Activision for comment on the images, but as the company declined to comment to Eurogamer, it's doubtful we'll hear anything back. You can see the images in question below.

Permalink

Well of course. Battlefield 1 ate Call of Halo's lunch, so it's back to basics.

Hopefully they bother to put in a full length campaign and not just a 3 hour practice level.

I still don't think those images and especially the name are real.
The setting of WW2 again? Possible, certainly. But I don't buy the images or that the next game has the most generic subtitle since "World at War" (which at least sounded somewhat cool)

Before anyone goes "hurr durr, they ripping of BF1", just know that this game was greenlight more than 3 years ago, around the same time BF1 would've been, and Sledgehammer has been working on it since Advanced Warfare came out.

OT: I'm really looking forward to this one if true. Advance Warfare was the best campaign CoD had in the last five years and I've always loved the original WW2 games made by (True) Infinity Ward. Would be nice to see some WW2 with current tech too.

@silentpony BF1 had a great launch and in some regions(UK) it beat CoD for week 1 sales, but by the end of the year things normalised and Infinite Warfare sold more copies and was the best selling game of that year.

They did have some aggressive discounts on launch stock in underperforming areas, but that's not really the thing that hurt CoD. The thing that hurt them was that the multiplayer for IW was shite so people went back to Blops 3 so their DLC and microtransaction revenue from the game sucked.

Bindal:
I still don't think those images and especially the name are real.
The setting of WW2 again? Possible, certainly. But I don't buy the images or that the next game has the most generic subtitle since "World at War" (which at least sounded somewhat cool)

Funnily enough, this is exactly what everyone said when the name "Battlefield 1" was rumoured

The age of creative names is behind us, I guess.

Laggyteabag:

Bindal:
I still don't think those images and especially the name are real.
The setting of WW2 again? Possible, certainly. But I don't buy the images or that the next game has the most generic subtitle since "World at War" (which at least sounded somewhat cool)

Funnily enough, this is exactly what everyone said when the name "Battlefield 1" was rumoured

The age of creative names is behind us, I guess.

At least they called it straight up "Battlefield 1" and not just "Battlefield" trying to disguise it as a reboot. And given the justification "it's WW1, so it's the first battlefield" thing kind of makes sense.
Just calling it "Call fo Duty: World War 2" would imply that there weren't any CoD in WW2 before and this would be a new approach - similar how "Modern Warfare" was stating it back in the day. Except there are FOUR main installments set in WW2 already: CoD 1, CoD 2, CoD 3 and CoD 5. Also some spin-offs/console variants like Big Red One and WaW: Final Fronts.
So even in THAT regards the name doesn't make any sense. Unless WW2 stands for "World at War 2", the name is stupid in every way I can possibly imagine. And even "World at War 2" isn't a good name, either - and completely senseless to limit it to only a WW2-Setting as ANY potential worldwide conflict could be used for a game called "World at War", including the recent Black Ops 3 which was a good half the world VS another (due the Winslow Accord and the CDP being 90% of the world at that point).

I hope they add a punch button

I don't know if this is how everyone else feels, but I never got over being sick of WW2 shooters from over 10 years ago.

Meh, I liked it better when it was in space.

I am currently very interested in shooting virtual nazis.

World at War 2 would make more sense as a title at this point. WW2 or World War 2 just sounds weird with well... five of them that come to mind that I own being set during the second world war not including expansion packs.

That and I get the feeling that this is a mock up of some variety, both with the title and the pictures.

"Developers infamous for their total lack of inventiveness and imagination return to their roots to rehash the original formula that they never evolved in the first place."

I'll have more fun putting my $60 into investment banking.

Hm...the current rotation means that Sledgehammer is making the next CoD (Advanced Warfare) since the last 2 were Treyarch and Infinity Ward. IW were the ones who made the better WW2 CoD's though. We will see how this turns out though. I am more excited than not though.

CyanCat47:
I hope they add a punch button

I did not get this until I read Jag's post.

altnameJag:
I am currently very interested in shooting virtual nazis.

I can see this being good if they go for a war movie kind of feel, have a real story, stick with the realism (I don't want to be killing nazis who somehow invented the nuke or something) keep it tight, show the other neglected fronts of the war, i'm thinking the beginning polish war, and the Ardenne assault in 40. Finally get some game play where you play as a Czechoslovakian forced to fight in Russia.

Finally relating to the Ardenne war, you fight as one of the British BEF, get left behind at Dunkirk, and get captured, but some french Maquis in 41 free you and you continue the campaign as you fight to escape and reconnect with the British in Egypt.

Finally they should redesign it so you can go from Tanks to infantry to air craft similar to Battlefield, have some nifty missions where as a German speaking Englishmen (Don't have the guy be a silent protagonist, I want him to be talking to himself constantly like he's a nutter) where you can do something crazy like hijack a Panzer 4 and proceed to destroy a train station or something.

MeatMachine:
"Developers infamous for their total lack of inventiveness and imagination return to their roots to rehash the original formula that they never evolved in the first place."

I'll have more fun putting my $60 into investment banking.

While I'm not an enormous fan of the Call of Duty games, I do get some small enjoyment out of them as sort of a 24/Pierce Brosnan era James Bond type adventure, but to say that they never used any inventiveness or imagination and have just rehashed the original formula is patently false. Literally the only thing you can say about any lack of inventiveness is that in every game you point guns at people and they die.

Damn. D-Day was my favorite part of MoH and Saving Private Ryan. It will be hard to resist this.

But I'm sure Activision will do something to ruin it for me. I'm guessing DLC whoring, microtransactions and more of the same twitch shooting multiplayer.

meowchef:

MeatMachine:
"Developers infamous for their total lack of inventiveness and imagination return to their roots to rehash the original formula that they never evolved in the first place."

I'll have more fun putting my $60 into investment banking.

While I'm not an enormous fan of the Call of Duty games, I do get some small enjoyment out of them as sort of a 24/Pierce Brosnan era James Bond type adventure, but to say that they never used any inventiveness or imagination and have just rehashed the original formula is patently false. Literally the only thing you can say about any lack of inventiveness is that in every game you point guns at people and they die.

I suppose to people that enjoy the games, that is true.

For me, however, you can take a screenshot of any given Call of Duty game, and I MIGHT be able to properly identify one or two of them. Perhaps I'm ignorant, or perhaps the games are totally indistinguishable from one another unless you've played most of them for several hours each. Perhaps I'm superficial and only pass judgement on the asthetics and window-dressing of the franchise, or perhaps they really do tread the same ground over and over.

Regardless of the truth, this perspective has shriveled up any interest I will ever have in the franchise.

MeatMachine:

meowchef:

MeatMachine:
"Developers infamous for their total lack of inventiveness and imagination return to their roots to rehash the original formula that they never evolved in the first place."

I'll have more fun putting my $60 into investment banking.

While I'm not an enormous fan of the Call of Duty games, I do get some small enjoyment out of them as sort of a 24/Pierce Brosnan era James Bond type adventure, but to say that they never used any inventiveness or imagination and have just rehashed the original formula is patently false. Literally the only thing you can say about any lack of inventiveness is that in every game you point guns at people and they die.

I suppose to people that enjoy the games, that is true.

For me, however, you can take a screenshot of any given Call of Duty game, and I MIGHT be able to properly identify one or two of them. Perhaps I'm ignorant, or perhaps the games are totally indistinguishable from one another unless you've played most of them for several hours each. Perhaps I'm superficial and only pass judgement on the asthetics and window-dressing of the franchise, or perhaps they really do tread the same ground over and over.

Regardless of the truth, this perspective has shriveled up any interest I will ever have in the franchise.

I'd go with ignorant, then as there are some distinct differences between some itterations.
For example, classes and killstreaks weren't part of the franchise until CoD4. Black Ops 2 replaced the classes (one primary with up to two attachments, one secondary with one attachment, one lethal grenade, one tactical grenade, three seperate types of perks) with the so-called "Pick 10" system (giving you 10 points and you just take what you like - don't want tactical grenades? Leave them out, gives you a point you can use to add a sight to your gun) and Advanced Warfare then added the Advanced Movement (double jumps, wallrunning and ground sliding). And then Black Ops 3 added the Specialists (specific characters with a dedicated ability) which IW renamed combat rigs due not having unique characters for multiplayer anymore.
Then there were a few other minor changes like killstreaks now also getting progression from doing the objective instead of kills, slight alterations how the prestige works and so on, but those aren't that big or noteworthy and change back and forth on a per-game-basis at times.

So saying that the series never tried to innovate is objectively false and you deliberately ignoring it when some of that stuff is well known or in one case even a selling point just shows you don't want to see that the series tried to innovate - simply because you obviously don't like the franchise to begin with, which you probably do due it being "in" to hate on CoD.

Okay, but hopefully you guys can recapture the fun of the campaigns from those early days. The ones where you're just a regular soldier in a massive army, not some covert one man "I'm taking this entire base by myself in stealth mode" killing machine that you've turned into the past few games. Lord, I want to storm a beach again and hope that I'm one of the lucky ones that make it.

Also--and here's a fun thought for original--no U.S. forces for the campaign. And no Russian either. Give us a new country. Britain, France, China, or even some of the smaller players from Africa or Europe.

Every last thing about this- the artwork, the title- screams "generic". I fear that we'll see a rehash of the original Call of Duty with 3000% more setpieces, but without any of the good parts.

CyanCat47:
I hope they add a punch button

Don't be silly. Punching wasn't invented until 1968.

Sniper Team 4:
Also--and here's a fun thought for original--no U.S. forces for the campaign. And no Russian either. Give us a new country. Britain, France, China, or even some of the smaller players from Africa or Europe.

A bunch of people lost their shit at there being black people in a World War 1 game. Having Chinese people in a World War 2 game would probably make them explode.

...so yeah, let's do it!

Bindal:

I'd go with ignorant, then as there are some distinct differences between some itterations.
For example, classes and killstreaks weren't part of the franchise until CoD4. Black Ops 2 replaced the classes (one primary with up to two attachments, one secondary with one attachment, one lethal grenade, one tactical grenade, three seperate types of perks) with the so-called "Pick 10" system (giving you 10 points and you just take what you like - don't want tactical grenades? Leave them out, gives you a point you can use to add a sight to your gun) and Advanced Warfare then added the Advanced Movement (double jumps, wallrunning and ground sliding). And then Black Ops 3 added the Specialists (specific characters with a dedicated ability) which IW renamed combat rigs due not having unique characters for multiplayer anymore.
Then there were a few other minor changes like killstreaks now also getting progression from doing the objective instead of kills, slight alterations how the prestige works and so on, but those aren't that big or noteworthy and change back and forth on a per-game-basis at times.

So saying that the series never tried to innovate is objectively false and you deliberately ignoring it when some of that stuff is well known or in one case even a selling point...

Those are all really good points that I've never heard brought up. I've played 4 of the games, and have seen the commercials and a few YouTube videos of multiplayer matches, but for one reason or another, the differences made in the series were never made clear to me by anyone, outside of a few images or mentions of new features that seemed like underwhelming or tacky additions.

Maybe I'll look into it more, or try playing a few of them back-to-back to see how much they've really changed.

simply because you obviously don't like the franchise to begin with

Yeah, I played Modern Warfare, Black Ops, Black Ops 2, and Ghosts, and found them all to be very unexciting and samey - whatever differences that were in the multiplayer were so underwhelming to me that I either barely noticed or totally forgot about. Those experiences colored my opinion of the rest of the franchise as dismissable, but again, I was repeatedly too unimpressed to invested enough to attention into taking note of new or altered features that improved the gameplay.

which you probably do due it being "in" to hate on CoD.

Don't go there. My opinion is superficial and quite possibly unfair, but my superficial and unfair opinion is mine alone. Even if I'm disillusioned, I think for myself.

The Rogue Wolf:

Sniper Team 4:
Also--and here's a fun thought for original--no U.S. forces for the campaign. And no Russian either. Give us a new country. Britain, France, China, or even some of the smaller players from Africa or Europe.

A bunch of people lost their shit at there being black people in a World War 1 game. Having Chinese people in a World War 2 game would probably make them explode.

...so yeah, let's do it!

Despite it meaning that I wouldn't get to shoot Nazis for that portion of the game, playing a lady Chinese resistance fighter for any length of time would be worth it for the popcorn alone.

altnameJag:

The Rogue Wolf:

Sniper Team 4:
Also--and here's a fun thought for original--no U.S. forces for the campaign. And no Russian either. Give us a new country. Britain, France, China, or even some of the smaller players from Africa or Europe.

A bunch of people lost their shit at there being black people in a World War 1 game. Having Chinese people in a World War 2 game would probably make them explode.

...so yeah, let's do it!

Despite it meaning that I wouldn't get to shoot Nazis for that portion of the game, playing a lady Chinese resistance fighter for any length of time would be worth it for the popcorn alone.

What's funny is that in the second Medal of Honour game, you played a female French resistance fighter. Not that the Internet had really taken off back then, but I can't help but wonder if there was anyone crying foul at the shift in nationality and gender.

Because as we all know, playing as a female in an FPS is a sign of a political agenda. 0_0

The Rogue Wolf:
A bunch of people lost their shit at there being black people in a World War 1 game. Having Chinese people in a World War 2 game would probably make them explode.

...so yeah, let's do it!

Yeah, why would anyone possibly get pissed at them putting black guys in the game while omitting the existance of the French in WW1. Despite said black guys serving under the French during the war due to era specific racism. Whoops.

Better yet, how about including the most important participants in WW1 instead of going for this obscure&trivia crap on the first fucking AAA game set in WW1.

It seems like the people in favour of immediately going for the obscure shit have not realised how malicious and fucking repugnant they are. How nice of you to ignore the literal millions of dead boring fucking honkeys of who cares what nationality in Europe, in favour making your diversity panties moist by focusing on sub 0.1% trivialities and made up fantasy stories. How can some be so oblivious to how disgusting a piece of shit they are when they think this, I don't know. Probably the same thing that makes racists oblivious to similar things.

GG, you reaffirmed your modern day politics to feel better about yourselves on the corpses of millions dead, for whom you don't even want to give a cursory amount of respect to.

Sorry for the rant. Obviously, it wasn't aimed at you for the most part, you didn't do anything to illicit such a response. Just venting in general about the subject.

Sniper Team 4:

Also--and here's a fun thought for original--no U.S. forces for the campaign. And no Russian either. Give us a new country. Britain, France, China, or even some of the smaller players from Africa or Europe.

I love the intention but ignoring two of(with one being THE) the biggest contributors in the allied war effort would be insane. Instead, make it the first Call of Duty that tackles all of the major fronts and some minor. Get proper views from the Chinese front and some actual French resistance. Russians fighting the Japanese. Hell, the Pacific front in general which World at War was the first in the series to actually know it existed. I'd be even more impressed if they had the balls to have a few chapters from the Axis side, in a bit more of a humanizing effort of people that fought because they were swept up in the firestorm. I'd pay some real money for that.

And for the love of God, bring back the Afrika Korp and the Crusader Charge.


Include a secret bonus mission that actually has Patton fighting Rommel one on one.

The Rogue Wolf:
Every last thing about this- the artwork, the title- screams "generic". I fear that we'll see a rehash of the original Call of Duty with 3000% more setpieces, but without any of the good parts.

CyanCat47:
I hope they add a punch button

Don't be silly. Punching wasn't invented until 1968.

A hip thrusting button then. I don't care which hard mass of my body is doing it so long as i'm knocking a nazi's teeth out

MC1980:

Yeah, why would anyone possibly get pissed at them putting black guys in the game while omitting the existance of the French in WW1. Despite said black guys serving under the French during the war due to era specific racism. Whoops.

Better yet, how about including the most important participants in WW1 instead of going for this obscure&trivia crap on the first fucking AAA game set in WW1.

It seems like the people in favour of immediately going for the obscure shit have not realised how malicious and fucking repugnant they are. How nice of you to ignore the literal millions of dead boring fucking honkeys of who cares what nationality in Europe, in favour making your diversity panties moist by focusing on sub 0.1% trivialities and made up fantasy stories. How can some be so oblivious to how disgusting a piece of shit they are when they think this, I don't know. Probably the same thing that makes racists oblivious to similar things.

GG, you reaffirmed your modern day politics to feel better about yourselves on the corpses of millions dead, for whom you don't even want to give a cursory amount of respect to.

Sorry for the rant. Obviously, it wasn't aimed at you for the most part, you didn't do anything to illicit such a response. Just venting in general about the subject.

Those things are barely comparable. You're assuming that making non-white soldiers is somehow mutually exclusive with excluding the French. No coding expert, but making a character model seems a bit less time-intensive than designing a faction, maps for that faction, weapons, vehicles, etc. You'd have an easier time asking why the US is a playable faction and not the French, as the former was a late entry into the war, while the latter was there from the start. Now, there's an obvious reason why the US is a playable faction from the start, since that's where a large bulk of the game's audience is going to come from, but are you really suggesting that the time spent on black soldiers was so labour intensive that it meant the French faction had to be implemented as DLC?

Also, if black soldiers in a WWI game is "tokenism," then it's a form of tokenism that existed long beforehand. You need look no further for the Medal of Honour games, how they have to get creative for inserting American soldiers into fronts/operations that they historically took no part in. Or, citing Rising Sun specifically, we have an American soldier in the Pacific theatre (logical protagonist), fighting alongside British, Nisei, and Indian soldiers. Funny how no-one seemed to have a problem with "tokenism" then.

Silentpony:
Hopefully they bother to put in a full length campaign and not just a 3 hour practice level.

Hopefully they get Jason Statham back to do the voice work for the English.

I dunno what you're responding to, certainly not the contents of my post with that spiel of yours.

Sniper Team 4:
Okay, but hopefully you guys can recapture the fun of the campaigns from those early days. The ones where you're just a regular soldier in a massive army, not some covert one man "I'm taking this entire base by myself in stealth mode" killing machine that you've turned into the past few games. Lord, I want to storm a beach again and hope that I'm one of the lucky ones that make it.

Narrative wise you're right, however from a gameplay perspective, the old AI was just as dumb as in the current games and the player would kill thousands of enemies all by himself. The big problem with CoD games is that the gameplay hasn't changed for well over 10 years now, just the setting.

 

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.