What Call of Duty: WWII's Content Could Be Based on a Single Screenshot

By now many of you seen those leaked screenshots of Call of Duty: WWII.

The one that stood out the most to me is this one:

If you look closely, you'll see a 1st Infantry Division patch on his shoulder. Because of it's distinctive patch, this infantry division is nicknamed "The Big Red One."

The nickname may sound familiar to some of you, because that was the subtitle of another Call of Duty game, Call of Duty 2: Big Red One.

If the campaign is multi-national, will the 1st Infantry Division's role in the war be the focus of the American aspect of the campaign?

If the campaign isn't going to be multi-national, then is the sole focus of the whole game really going to be playing through battles that some of us may have already experienced but with better graphics?

What do you guys think?

They already repeated a battle (if memory serves), with the final Reichstag levels.

World At Wars version is very lame, it really does exemplify how macho-macho, overblown the series had become when compared to the tone of the original.

What do i think? I think of a care package sold for $5. That's what i think.

I hope they do a classic campaign. Bit of Russia, bit of America, bit of British. Throw some French in there.

the D day part in MOH AA and COD2 are my fav parts in WW2 games. and if this game has it. it would be my first COD I may play since last time i played was black ops 1 (which suck along with ever other post COD4).

@uninspiredcup: as much as I adore WAW, I agree with ya there. Reichstag level was one of the worst levels in the game, only that stupid on-rails plane level was worse than that one. F*cking RPG--ahem, I mean Panzerschrek--firing off everywhere.

They even fight in the war? =P

Who gives a shit about offending Japanese. They certainly don't give a shit about offending people they brutalized. If we can't offend Asian Nazis who killed just as many as European Nazis, then why the f*ck are we even having WW2 games to begin with.

I hope they redo the invasion of Normandy scene.

What a waste. So many unused theatres and battles...

@funsohng: Funny you should mention that. I have a history professor who has lived in Japan for most of his life, and during a class lecture he told us that Japanese kids aren't even taught about World War II, and that the controversial Yasukuni Shrine states that the war started when the U.S. issued the oil embargo on Japan with no mention of Pearl Harbor.

So unlike Germany, Japan still hasn't owed up for their actions even after all these years.

@xdude85: that is partially true is it not though? I mean US did cut off oil lines for Japan or something which prompted the attack on pearl harbour.

Consinder the reason as to why US cut off oil supply (unprovoked war on China, war crimes on civilian population, allying themselves with Nazi Germany), Japan has only itself to blame. The economic blockade was not just the US bullying an Asian country, but in conjunction with Britain, Netherlands, and China. At the time of the blockade (1941), Britain was at war with Japan's ally, Germany, Netherlands was occupied by Germany, and China was, of course, at war with Japan since 1936.

And before the attack on Pearl Harbour, the two countries met to negotiate a deal. US wanted Japan to denounce alliance with Germany, back out of China, and get rid of their puppet state in Manchuria. Japan instead demanded US to approve of their colonization of Asia and their continued expansionist policy.

And still, that doesn't justify invading a country without declaration of war.

Very true, I should have probably phrased that far better, apologies.

And yes, invading without declaration was playing dirty. Dropping the nukes was also dirty.

I'm no proponent of every single American action during the war, nor any of the allies, who were mostly old imperialist countries that did the similar things, just without the same intensity. In fact, the nukes in both Hiroshima and Nagaskaki killed quite a few Koreans and Chinese, a lot of whom were forcibly taken from their homes to work in factories, fact that vast majority of both Americans and Japanese seem to ignore about. I am also very much aware of the Tokyo bombings, as well as full-scale bombings on other cities, which were more devastating than the actual nukes to the civilian populations.

But this does not justify feeling "sorry" for Japan. Maybe Japanese civilians, most of whom were very much willing to comply and enjoy their given privileges without feeling any sort of guilt, but then again, they are civilians who were just ignorant about their country massacring millions of civilians overseas. I'm not going to make a moral judgment on that, not only because this isn't my major therefore my knowledge on this is not complete but because it is never something you can actually make a judgment on. But the actual administration itself? Oh I have one or two things to say about them.

Considering what the Truman administration had in stores if they didn't use nukes, a full-scale invasion of Japanese islands that would have likely resulted in civilian casualties up to a million, I don't know. Considering what Japanese Army did in Okinawa, and what they were about to do, arming women and middle school children win bamboo spears to attack the Americans.... I wouldn't say it was the better choice, because you shouldn't target civilians. But still, history has a cruel way of being ironic.

So before you bring up "dropping nukes was also dirty" let's step back a bit. History is never something you can just say "they are both equally bad."

Besides, I don't think a lot of Japanese youngsters even know they were nuked by Americans, considering their history curriculum.

Welp it's already ruined. Why is a member of the 1st infantry division carrying around a pre-WWII Thompson with a drum magazine? Only the British really had those earlier Thompson and none of them had the drum magazines. Pretty much only the Marines were issued the drum magazines. It was extremely rare for the Army to have them.

Looks like Activision is going to Activision with this one and screw it all up again.

Ever hear about what went on in Japanese POW camps? What they did to the Chinese. The Koreans?

Besides, it's well known that the Japanese killed 3-14 million (mostly Chinese) during WWII. The number is so varied because it was very covered up, undocumented, and done in remote areas. Unlike with the Germans.

Read up, bro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

"Some historians and governments hold Japanese military forces, namely the Imperial Japanese Army, the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the Imperial Japanese family, especially under Emperor Hirohito, responsible for the deaths of millions, some estimate between 3,000,000 and 14,000,000 civilians and prisoners of war through massacre, human experimentation, starvation, and forced labor that was either directly perpetrated or condoned by the Japanese military and government.Some Japanese soldiers have admitted to committing these crimes"

dammit wasdie

couldn't you just keep that to yourself and let the rest of us believe? lol

Yeah I'm fearing the worst

Allies spawning in with STGs, axis spawning in with M1 garands.

I just want a game where Germans speak german and only have access to their standard issue equipement. Like MOHAA, COD 2 or like Day of Infamy.

I don't really like Battlefield 1s system of having every side have access to every gun just for the sake of having more crap to unlock.

This stuff triggers me.

They'll go the BF1 route because it's easiest to balance. Asymmetrical weapon loadouts are a bitch to balance and I don't blame them for not even attempting. FPS weapon balance is hard enough as it is without asymmetrical loadouts per fecation.

I'm not as worried about the multiplayer because I expect that to be an arcade fest like CoD 1/2 were. Spawning with any weapon was fine. Matches the gameplay. I'm more triggered about the campaign. There is no reason why the campaign can't have accurate weapons.

Of course using M1 Garands, K98s, Lee Enfield No.4s, and Mosin Nagants throughout most of the campaign would be boring. So of course they'll focus on automatic weapons. I can accept the use of automatic weapons for the player, just make sure the weapons are period/theater correct and that the NPCs have more accurate loadouts of the time. Everybody running around with gangster Thompsons is a real bummer.

Yeah ok, that ending bit is really lame and too much like a cinematic walking section/QTE.

But everything up until that point is pretty good and I'd say better than COD1s interpretation because I couldn't even remember that COD1 mission.

Well I could remember planting the flag, because than again COD 1 does that part better than WaW.

Hmmm yeah but that ain't proven yet.

Of course the campaign will have Germans shooting their Kar98kurz and Americans firing their M1 garands;

For me it makes all the difference in the world for multiplayer.

In day of Infamy the battles just feel more real and grounded because Germans actually speak 100% german and their weapons are 100% what people used back then.

In games like Battlefield 1 they can't help themselves but break the fourth wall constantly and slam into my head that I'm playing a video game, not fighting a real battle (eventhough the maps are pretty damn real...)

It's a disease that has carried over from the modern warfare days and having Russians shoot M16s and M4s at Americans using AKs.

@R4gn4r0k: Day of Infamy takes some massive liberties with the weapon loadouts, especially the Germans. Not as bad as Tripewire with Red Orchestra 2. Though both greatly over exaggerated how many fully automatic weapons were in a platoon sized element in WWII.

Also Day of Infamy doesn't worry about weapon balance in the same way that BF1 and CoD games do. You don't take multiple rounds in Day of Infamy to die. Headshot bonuses and range penalties simply don't matter with such low TTK. Rate of fire and vertical/horizontal recoil matter a lot more in Day of Infamy. That's easier to balance in a asymmetrical setting.

In CoD/BF1, the TTK is much lower (relatively) and thus the damage per shot, headshot bonuses, and range drop off all matters a lot more. This make asymmetrical balance even more difficult.

If there are no levels where you play as the Japanese, Chinese, or Germans, I'll count that as an opportunity missed.

Yeah right that's why COD and Battlefield could do it perfectly at the start...

Like I said it's a disease that has carried over from the modern warfare days aka we need to give the player a bunch of crap to unlock days.

I never said RO 2 or DOI are real and grounded, I said they feel real and grounded because of the weaponry they give you. The situation they put you in. Wouldn't be fun to have 90% of the army be bolt actions on the german side, now would it ?

Captivating and solid gameplay > a bunch of crap to unlock to tie the player over into playing your game longer.

Because guess what, people are already quitting Battlefield 1 because "there is not enough crap to unlock like in Battlefield 4"

I'm not saying Battlefield 1 should be 99.999999% bolt action rifles. I'm saying that germans should only carry german weapons (MP18, Madsen, selbstlader, Gewehr 98) and french should be able to carry only their weapons.

Because Germans running around with Benet-Merciers is fcking rediculous.

I mean DICE even did it with the grenades, but it couldn't carry it over to the weapons because they fear players will get tired of the game if there isn't stuff to unlock ? Really ? to me that sounds like you don't have very much faith in your game.

@xdude85: First ID is an entire Division in the US Army. My company was forward support for it. There are enough avenues of battle to fill up more than one game.

That said, I certainly hope the campaign is multinational. I want some harrowing battle of Stalingrad time. Russia more than any other of the allies was responsible for the Nazi war machine's destruction.

@R4gn4r0k:They didn't do it perfectly at the start. Battlefield 1942 and even BF2's weapons were one set of weapons with different skins per faction. There wasn't asymmetrical balance. They did the same for BC2 Modern Combat.

You can disagree with them going symmetrical and whatnot, but the majority of the people who play shooters just want to unlock and use any weapon. That's by far the most popular thing. Feel free to skip CoD WWII because it's going to be more of what sells.

I actually find BF1's gameplay to be more captivating and solid than Day of Infamy's or even Red Orchestra's myself. Those games end up sitting in a poor spot between simulation and arcade. They end up playing nothing like actual combat but lack the balance of a competitive shooter. So you get kind of the worst of both worlds.

@MasterNumemon: I just hope they do not put the campaign in the Pacific. That could be offensive to some Japanese"

What? Germans and Italians just have to accept they were on the wrong side, but the Japanese should be spared to emotional hurt of their own history?

Fvck them. They weren't worried about anybody's feelings when they were slaughtering south east Asia then attacked pearl harbor.

@Wasdie: Sounds very subjective of you. I can't argue with you not liking RO2 or DoI, but I do know lots of people like those games. BF and COD sell more ? Of course they do they are long running series with billion dollar marketing budgets, where every piece of news about them gets hyped up by news sites.

It's not even these semi realistic games:

Day of defeat, mohaa, cod, uo, cod 2, bf1942, bf vietnam, rtcw, enemy territory, all the greats have assymetrical weapons.

I never said I disliked BF1 either. I said seeing a German getting killed by a french guy that spawned in with an MP18 is fcking rediculous.

"but the majority of the people who play shooters just want to unlock and use any weapon"

So your arguments have boiled down to making stuff up now ? Or do you actually have real proof for this ?

@R4gn4r0k: Sales are the proof. I didn't think that had to be explained. There is a reason why CoD stuck with symmetrical weapon balance and Battlefield went there. That's what was selling better and became expected.

It's not just marketing no matter how much you may think it is. People enjoy playing the CoD and Battlefield series because they are good series that meet their expectations. It's really that simple.

You can not like those games and that's fine, but you can't refute the fact that the two largest FPS series in the world have gone to symmetrical weapon balance. It's clearly more popular. CoD 4 didn't just become popular because Activision marketed it. It became popular because it threw out limited factors of player customization like faction locked weapons. That's just how it is.

@Wasdie: People also drop COD and BF as soon as the new one arrives because the progression in the last one obviously didn't hold them over forever.

I knew sales would be your proof. Newer games selling more in an ever expanding market isn't much proof of anything you said.

I don't get you wasdie, I really don't:

US soldier running around with tommy gun instead of M1A1 = unrealistic

Germans spawning with M1 garands and US spawning with STGs = totally fine

@R4gn4r0k: I don't see a very healthy audience in a lot of those games you just said though. You didn't really prove your point. You just called them greats, but that doesn't mean they are still played and stood the test of time as you were implying.

Even Day of Infamy has a pretty weak audience. It's big brother Insurgency doesn't even crack the Steam 100 list anymore, neither does Red Orchestra 2 or Rising Storm. Sad because I liked those games.

So I have sales and active communities/playerbase size as proof and you've got nothing so far.

Honestly it seems that the bulk of the FPS community is either playing CSGO or is doing one of those Battleground games like H1Z1 King of the Hill or the PLAYERUNKNOWN BATTLEGROUND crap that is popular. Ugh.

We also weren't talking about what's realistic, only what is popular.

I'm also not dissing those games. I'm just trying to elaborate on the current state of the FPS market and why Activision is going to most likely keep the whole symmetrical multiplayer balance.

TBH my memory is abit foggy, remember World At War being one of the better newer games, but it's like saying the least smelliest shit.

I remember, and we discussed like a month back with even the console iteration was the change in tone.

In the original (which as we know rips off Enemy Of The Gates) you have scared boys being kicked through the door with menacing music, propaganda and outright lies. It's foreboding. Instead of making you feel empowered like modern Call Of Duty games, it gives the impression of futility. When we get to that point of the flag being waved, it's earned.

In the console version, and subsequently after we have bad ass's ready to kick ass with triumphant music. In World At War, it subverts the original, turning that tone of how terrible and ruthless it was into something cool, a Russian bear who ain't got time to bleed.

I'll maybe boot up Call Of Duty again, in another life.

@_Matt_: that is partially true is it not though? I mean US did cut off oil lines for Japan or something which prompted the attack on pearl harbour"

Yeah not until after japan had invaded China and ransacked much of east Asia. The US wasn't going to support their war machine with oil. Makes sense.

@R4gn4r0k: Most people playing BF1 don't have a clue what gun what army used, it doesn't matter to them one bit. It's awesome you're a history buff and are knowledgeable on the subject, but at the end of the day dice/sledgehammer are going to cater to the MUCH LARGER audience of people who want to use whatever gun they want online and have it more balanced. I've never once thought in the heat of battle in BF1 "Hey that French dude shouldn't have that gun", why? Because it doesn't matter that much, it's a game.

Gotta have them perks.

Unfortunate times we live in.

Wow you are looking at this very one sided. Day of Defeat Source and Red Orchestra 2 still having very active communities is proof enough for me.

How many Call of Duties can I find in the top 1000 games played in steam stats ? none.

Yeah but a game selling millions of copies, getting mass marketing not appearing is somehow more excusable than Insurgency... an indie game.

According to your logic we should've never gotten different settings than modern warfare in our FPS. Because according to you Modern Warfare is what is popular, and Modern Warfare is what sells. So why stray from that ? Well, Battlefield and Call of Duty are straying from that. With as a result that they generate a lot of positive buzz among gamers.

Let me ask you this: If you play a Vietnam game, do you really want the Vietcong running around with M16s while the US forces use their SKSs ? I sure don't. What about you ?

Also about realism, this is from your very first reply to me.

"I'm not as worried about the multiplayer because I expect that to be an arcade fest like CoD 1/2 were. Spawning with any weapon was fine. Matches the gameplay. I'm more triggered about the campaign. There is no reason why the campaign can't have accurate weapons."

A game set in a historical context.

Why does DICE put hundreds of hours into researching realistic locations when it doesn't matter to the players like you say ? Because all of it sells the location and time line to the player.

Why did they include a zeppelin and not a spaceship or F16 if people aren't knowledgable of what happened in WW1 ?

Guns like Gewehr 98 or Selbtslader M1916 sure sound German to me. While guns like Benet-Mercie or Chauchat sound a lot like French words to me.

Automatico ? Now that can't be anything else than Italian, now can it ?

It doesn't even matter how good you know history or not.

You should tell my great uncle that everything he went through and barely survived (one of a handful) during the building of the Burma railway is rumour and hearsay. The Japanese Imperial Army were animals especially to the Chinese and prisoners of war. The atrocities carried out by the Japanese before and during WWII are extremely well documented.

Don't try an re-write history because you think Japanese games are cool.

@R4gn4r0k: Again it's great that you notice this and are into history and guns and such, the majority of people playing don't give a rat's ass.

I actually agree that in the campaign the weapons should be accurate, online though not so much. Balance and fun gameplay are way more important there.

Again, it's a game and it's never going to get everything 100% correct, not because they couldn't but because it would (potentially) make for a boring or broken game.

And Battlefield 1 had none of that.

It's also not a fact that the majority of people want that. It's what they think the majority of people want.

Just like they thought that the majority of people wanted a modern warfare setting, and not a historical setting;

EA thought people were too ignorant or dumb to even know what WW1 was about or that it even happened. DICE took a risk trying to go back to a historical setting. Guess what, it payed off against expectations.

So unless you have proof that the majority of people want every weapon for every side, it simply remains your opinion.

@R4gn4r0k: Can you offer any evidence to support the majority of people care about accurate faction specific weapons? You're the one making the claim. I've already provided you with evidence against you, which you immediately dismissed because it badly hurts your argument. You can't just keep saying "show me the proof" without backing your own argument. You're not even arguing at this point, you're throwing a hissy fit.

We get it that you really like your faction specific and period accurate weapons, but the past 20 years of successful FPS games disagree with the notion that the average gamer cares about that. They seem to buy whatever they want without too much of a thought about the weaponry.

Even within a group of gamers I play simulation games like ArmA 2/3, IL-2, and other historically accurate military games, they don't care too much about CoD/Battlefield having Marines running around with AKs other than a comment how it's wrong and then they move on. They don't not purchase a game because of that.

You're getting all worked up against something that is ultimately one of the least important factors if a game is fun or not. It may be important to you, but so far you're the only one here who has made really big deal about it. I even started my commenting in this thread about how they are going to get the weapons wrong. This doesn't mean I'm not interested in the game, I'm just commenting. It just doesn't matter that much to me and doesn't prevent me from playing fun looking games.

So please, provide some evidence that the majority of people care. You've failed to provide any so far.

Hell I'll go as far as to say that most people don't even know about what weapons are period accurate and faction specific. Most people I've talked to about firearms, even avid guns owners, don't know shit about historical military firearms. It's funny on the gun range when I have one of my WWII rifles out, people are asking me "is that the Russian rifle" when I'm clearly using my K98. They just don't know or care that much. For video games, as long as the weapon looks like it fits the setting, they are happy.

You've also deflected from my point about what FPSs are popular and have come to some ridiculous conclusions while throwing this little temper tantrum of yours. The whole statement "According to your logic we should've never gotten different settings than modern warfare in our FPS" is absolutely absurd and isn't what I've said at all. I have no idea why you even came to that conclusion. It really just sounds like you're a frustrated toddler not getting your way when you say stupid shit like this.