Author Topic: Call of Duty WW2 (Read 8374 times)

Decepticon · April 24, 2017, 10:28:10 AM

Quote from: Insert Name Here� on April 23, 2017, 12:19:32 AM

"the game is bad because they included core historical elements from ww2"

would you rather them include battles that literally no one knows about due to the said battles being extremely minimal, short, and influence literally nothing

oh sorry, my fault for thinking that the continuation war's battles (which lasted from 1941 to 1944 and involved the germans, finns, and soviets and had just over a million casualties) were extremely minimal, short, and had no influence on the outcome of ww2. sorry for thinking the vistula-oder offensive of 1945 also had any influence on world war 2, or for thinking playing as a soviet tanker in the offensive would've been an interesting campaign piece. the 50 day long siege of budapest between 180,000/102,000 germans and hungarians defending themselves from over 500,000 (102k+ for the actual assault) of the red army and the romanian army, and where 38,000 civilians died?

nah man forget that dude lmao lets keep flooding media/the video game market with the same normandy landings and stalingrad battles like we've been doing for almost 20 years now

Ad Bot · Advertisement

Malleo100 · April 24, 2017, 10:37:48 AM

If I'm not able to nuke Japan it's not worth it

crazy54311 · April 24, 2017, 01:50:28 PM

Quote from: Malleo100 on April 24, 2017, 10:37:48 AM

If I'm not able to nuke Japan it's not worth it

this is probably the one thing that im hoping for

The Murderous Cop · April 24, 2017, 01:58:53 PM

i've given up all hope on the call of duty franchise after infinite warfare

if this doesn't suck i'm gonna be surprised

Wesley Williams · April 24, 2017, 03:28:27 PM

Quote from: The Murderous Cop on April 24, 2017, 01:58:53 PM

i've given up all hope on the call of duty franchise after infinite warfare

if this doesn't suck i'm gonna be surprised

I gave up all hope at MW3. Completely uninteresting and a terrible successor to MW2.

Jairo · April 24, 2017, 03:38:19 PM

the leak makes it sound like this is western front only

no pacific, no barbarossa

RedGajin · April 24, 2017, 05:45:30 PM

Quote from: Wesley Williams on April 24, 2017, 03:28:27 PM

I gave up all hope at MW3. Completely uninteresting and a terrible successor to MW2.

drop the addy and we can debate this physically

Legoboss · April 25, 2017, 09:51:25 AM

Quote from: Superbro11 on April 21, 2017, 03:06:48 PM

Of loving course they are gonna copy Battlefields 1 success by putting it in a similar timeline.
Glad they actually cut the dam future crap, it was getting annoying.

even though it was already in development before battlefields release, alright

Quote from: The Murderous Cop on April 24, 2017, 01:58:53 PM

i've given up all hope on the call of duty franchise after infinite warfare

if this doesn't suck i'm gonna be surprised

honestly infinite warfare was better than black ops 3, advanced warfare, and ghosts
naughty dog writers on the campaign helped a stuff ton and produced an actually good story which surprised me for cod standards

RedGajin · April 25, 2017, 12:59:14 PM

Quote from: Legoboss on April 25, 2017, 09:51:25 AM

honestly infinite warfare was better than black ops 3, advanced warfare, and ghosts
naughty dog writers on the campaign helped a stuff ton and produced an actually good story which surprised me for cod standards

gotta disagree with this, in terms of multiplayer/zombies (havent played campaign for inf so cant speak on it). whole game felt like a reskin of black ops 3 and hardly provided any sort of new experience gameplay-wise. i mean yeah, cod's arent super innovative to start with, but this just felt like a whole new level of lazy. advanced warfare was at least the first game with the jumppack gameplay, blackops 3 introduced specialists and improved on the jumppack gameplay, but inf warfare just stufftily redid both. lets not mention the incredibly weak zombie gameplay that tried to find a good balance between blackops 3's difficulty and previous zombies arcadeyness, but just turned out very subpar.

ill agree it was better than ghosts tho, because that just sucked (minus the campaign ofc)

TheScout · April 25, 2017, 02:47:42 PM

the blops 3 movement is actually perfect and ill fight anyone who says otherwise

Mr Queeba · April 25, 2017, 02:49:08 PM

is this just another cheap generic call of duty but set in world war 2

Zloff · April 25, 2017, 03:33:11 PM

i'm not expecting much from this title tbh

last cod game i bought was blops 2 and it was great. ghosts was painful but i played a lot at friends' houses, advanced warfare was too bland to justify buying (got like only 2 hours into it), didn't even bother trying the other titles

imo based on what i've played
mw1 > blops 1 > blops 2 > mw3 > cod3 = cod2 > mw2 > ghosts
and bf4 is better than all of them

Insert Name Here� · April 25, 2017, 04:44:44 PM

blops

SlayerZ99 · April 25, 2017, 06:45:13 PM

Quote from: Zloff on April 25, 2017, 03:33:11 PM

i'm not expecting much from this title tbh

last cod game i bought was blops 2 and it was great. ghosts was painful but i played a lot at friends' houses, advanced warfare was too bland to justify buying (got like only 2 hours into it), didn't even bother trying the other titles

imo based on what i've played
mw1 > blops 1 > blops 2 > mw3 > cod3 = cod2 > mw2 > ghosts
and bf4 is better than all of them

Really you think that MW2 is worse than MW3 and CoD3??

I am honestly excited but extremely skeptical and I also hope it has the Pacific theater

Brings me back to the medal of honors games

SimpleFish · April 25, 2017, 07:14:07 PM

Black Ops > Call of Duty 2 > Call of Duty 3 > Black Ops 2 > any other cod game > Black Ops 3

black ops 3 was such a huge letdown to me, was expecting to see it wrap up the story and everything but instead we get a campaign that had nothing to do with the other two games aside from the few very small references.