COD WW2 will it work??

World War II General Discussion

 

So, we got the reveal a few weeks ago and the trailer looks brilliant. There is a large section of the community that is excited to be going back to boots on the ground in a classic era. My one piece of advice to Sledge Hammer is this. You folks had better not screw this up. I know we haven't seen any of the multiplayer reveal yet and I am looking forward to seeing what they bring to the table. After all, AW was a fun game to play at the end of the day. It was far from perfect, after all it was Sledge Hammer's first COD title and they tried a lot of new things. However, this year they have zero margin for error on this game.

 

With AW they broke a lot of new ground with the exosuits and the weapon variants. Granted they made a lot of mistakes, but hopefully they have learned. It will be interestesting to see how they approach things this time around. After all there are not as many options for weapon attachments in the WW2 setting as there are in the modern and future CODs. Basically you had fixed power scopes or whatever iron sights the gun game with. Now, there were different barrel lengths, stocks, sized magazines and calibers of ammunition during the second world war for any given gun. So, aside from opticical options they could do most of the attachments we have in the past 2 CODs. Likewise, they could also fold some of them into perks like quickdraw, stalker and sleight of hand. Additionally, there are pleanty of options for perks and streaks they can use. So, the create a class sytem should work out.

 

I have 3 main concerns about how this game could fail and I think it's appropriate that we discuss them here.

 

1. Keep COD COD:

 

Call of Duty since it's inception has been a fast paced 6 on 6 arcade shooter. If they stick something like pick 10 and put us in 6 on 6 games on small to medium maps it should work fine. A lot of us have heard they are revmoing healt regen and picking up ammo from single player and that is fine. My concern here is that if those design decisions flow over to multiplayer or if they try to copy battle field this game is going to be screwed from day one. COD is not a tactical shooter with a ton of vehicles on huge maps. It's about quick and repetative close range infantry battles. If they want to introduce a larger 24 v 24 mode in addition to the classic COD multiplayer that is fine. But if they are doing WW2 they need to leave well enough alone.

 

2. Supply Drops:

 

Yeah those stupid things. Let's be honest folks there are going to be supply drops in this game and they are not going to be cosmetic only. BO3 proved that. My concern here is not that they are going to put weapon into the drops. My concern is they are not going to put enough weapons into the drops. I remember back in BO3 dropping 40 bucks on drops and not getting a weapon. I make Slege Hammer this promise, if they put guns in their drops and I spend $10 and don't get at least one weapon variant, I am not spending another dime on that aspect of the game. Realistically, the guns are what move the supply drops and no DLC weapon is worth 40 bucks it's that simple. Whatever system they decided to go with, they need to make sure whatever they put behind the pay wall is accessible by other means.

 

3. Weapon Balance:

 

The two above issue are a concern this is going to be what defines the game. I think most of us know that this was the biggest problem with AW from day one. They really didn't have a clue what they were doing and it showed. Rather than pick AW appart I am going to word it this way. I know in WW2 there were a lot of semiauotmatic ARs. I am going to gamestop tomorrow to put my 5 dollars down. If during the beta, I pick up a semiauto AR and I don't care if the fire cap is 12000 RPM and it has no recoil. If it takes me 4 shots to kill anyone at any range with it I am canceling my preorder and not buying the game.

 

I really hope sledge hammer proves me wrong and makes the best WW2 game in the history of the genre. Because if they screw this up, they could end up taking the whole franchise down with them.

darkrangeresp1
Likes: 761
Posts: 1451
Registered: ‎06-11-2013
1 REPLY 1

@darkrangeresp1 wrote:

 

So, we got the reveal a few weeks ago and the trailer looks brilliant. There is a large section of the community that is excited to be going back to boots on the ground in a classic era. My one piece of advice to Sledge Hammer is this. You folks had better not screw this up. I know we haven't seen any of the multiplayer reveal yet and I am looking forward to seeing what they bring to the table. After all, AW was a fun game to play at the end of the day. It was far from perfect, after all it was Sledge Hammer's first COD title and they tried a lot of new things. However, this year they have zero margin for error on this game.

 

With AW they broke a lot of new ground with the exosuits and the weapon variants. Granted they made a lot of mistakes, but hopefully they have learned. It will be interestesting to see how they approach things this time around. After all there are not as many options for weapon attachments in the WW2 setting as there are in the modern and future CODs. Basically you had fixed power scopes or whatever iron sights the gun game with. Now, there were different barrel lengths, stocks, sized magazines and calibers of ammunition during the second world war for any given gun. So, aside from opticical options they could do most of the attachments we have in the past 2 CODs. Likewise, they could also fold some of them into perks like quickdraw, stalker and sleight of hand. Additionally, there are pleanty of options for perks and streaks they can use. So, the create a class sytem should work out.

 

I have 3 main concerns about how this game could fail and I think it's appropriate that we discuss them here.

 

1. Keep COD COD:

 

Call of Duty since it's inception has been a fast paced 6 on 6 arcade shooter. If they stick something like pick 10 and put us in 6 on 6 games on small to medium maps it should work fine. A lot of us have heard they are revmoing healt regen and picking up ammo from single player and that is fine. My concern here is that if those design decisions flow over to multiplayer or if they try to copy battle field this game is going to be screwed from day one. COD is not a tactical shooter with a ton of vehicles on huge maps. It's about quick and repetative close range infantry battles. If they want to introduce a larger 24 v 24 mode in addition to the classic COD multiplayer that is fine. But if they are doing WW2 they need to leave well enough alone.

 

2. Supply Drops:

 

Yeah those stupid things. Let's be honest folks there are going to be supply drops in this game and they are not going to be cosmetic only. BO3 proved that. My concern here is not that they are going to put weapon into the drops. My concern is they are not going to put enough weapons into the drops. I remember back in BO3 dropping 40 bucks on drops and not getting a weapon. I make Slege Hammer this promise, if they put guns in their drops and I spend $10 and don't get at least one weapon variant, I am not spending another dime on that aspect of the game. Realistically, the guns are what move the supply drops and no DLC weapon is worth 40 bucks it's that simple. Whatever system they decided to go with, they need to make sure whatever they put behind the pay wall is accessible by other means.

 

3. Weapon Balance:

 

The two above issue are a concern this is going to be what defines the game. I think most of us know that this was the biggest problem with AW from day one. They really didn't have a clue what they were doing and it showed. Rather than pick AW appart I am going to word it this way. I know in WW2 there were a lot of semiauotmatic ARs. I am going to gamestop tomorrow to put my 5 dollars down. If during the beta, I pick up a semiauto AR and I don't care if the fire cap is 12000 RPM and it has no recoil. If it takes me 4 shots to kill anyone at any range with it I am canceling my preorder and not buying the game.

 

I really hope sledge hammer proves me wrong and makes the best WW2 game in the history of the genre. Because if they screw this up, they could end up taking the whole franchise down with them.


I agree with #2. However with #3, your saying you want guns that one-hit-kill players? That would be stupid. It needs to be a balanced weapon system. I think 3 shots with a pistol is more than enough to kill a person and the same should apply with Assault class variants. If you try to force the developers to give you the option of one hit kill assault classes, you really are perpetuating the idea that skill is not really valid in call of duty. Correct me if im wrong.

Now #1, yes, i get it. Its not battlefield. however if COD is going to their roots, they better have maps that adhere to all aspects of playstyle. People want boots on the ground. And if SHG gives us maps that allow different kinds of playstyles DEPENDING ON THE GAME MODE, i would be okay with that. I do NOT want to see another nuketown because that would just be a no skill map to play. "I shot you with my sniper though a wall and it got me a collateral" yeah good for you, no skill was required. I want a challenge. I want choke points. I want to feel like sniping should only be for the long distance battles. I want to see lense flares. I want bolt action rifles. I want lower powered semi auto snipers. I want to have the REAL WWII experience and I feel that is only going to happen if SHG makes maps different for each gamemode. If youn want to read more about my rant, you can see it here.
https://community.callofduty.com/t5/Call-of-Duty-World-War-II/Map-Design-Look-at-older-titles-Allow-...

PlayerLoaded
Likes: 14
Posts: 62
Registered: ‎11-11-2015

Studios