Call of Duty: WW2 - 2017 Sledgehammer's return to CoD "roots"


But its probably nice for the black chick to have a character she can identify with, instead of white young males all around. The gaming crowd has expanded wildly over the past few years, to include people of all sizes, genders and races, so thats probably something we have to get used to, pandering or not.
Also, its better business, as Telefrog mentions.


As I said:

I don’t have to like it, because I know that in the post-post-truthian years of the 22nd century, games are going to be used as primary source material for historical research. Luckily, only my severed head in a jar will be alive then, joined together with the rest of us grognards in our own little singularity.


Devil’s Advocate:

So seeing a woman character on the battlefield is odd but dual-wielding (akimbo) Sturmgewehr 44s with perks that increase your speed and silent your footsteps is mostly acceptable?


Away with thee, Satan. I’m still trying to process the profligacy of personal automatic weapons in WW1 (Battlefield 1) into my monumental, exhaustive historical epic, Ass.


Do we really have to get used to it? I gave other options up above that allow for her to be black and playing soldier in WWII that don’t put her in the Wehrmacht on a Tuesday in 1944.


What about muslim chicks? Or Asian chicks? I’m sure they want to identify with their characters too. Are there no lines to be drawn for who can be in the Wehrmacht during WWII in a Call of Duty game?


Just like Womens teams came into FIFA17, more and more of those options will enter other games I’m sure - Its just a matter of time. And I don’t think there are any lines to be drawn. Why would there be?


Women’s soccer is totally a thing. We have the best team in the world in the US. Of course it would be added to FIFA. This is not that.


Since I’m sitting here at work, upgrading a few machines to windows 10, I can reply instantly :-)

I just meant, that its all about being inclusive to the new breed of gamers. Realism or not, thats probably not the issue for these girls, people of color and so on, but more that they can feel the game is more suited to their particular…eh…is phenotype the word I’m looking for here?

edit: I do like your idea of having each side seeing the other side as something else than you do though. That’s a nice solution as well.


What this is, is an extremely unrealistic arcade shooter that has very tenuous claims to authenticity.

From the very beginning Call of Duty was not really about authenticity, realism, or simulation. Sure the marketing may have claimed that but COD, at best was just trying to make players feel like they were in Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers and trying to be more over the top than those movies.

By the second installment you had regenerating health, by World at War you had zombies.


I understand what you’re saying, but history is history. When you start building historical trappings for something, there are expectations that even this so-called “new breed of gamers” can understand and adhere to. My kids are in that generation. I’m interested to see how they will respond to this change. I know them rather well and I think they’re going to say, “That’s stupid.” because they know that’s not WWII.

I don’t agree that Call of Duty is “extremely unrealistic arcade shooting” either. The series certainly didn’t start out that way, and while it’s not simulating being a soldier in all ways, the idea is that you’re participating in a film-like portrayal of the war with all the horror and excitement that sort of portrayal indicates. Taking you out of that milieu by inserting race and gender changes that are jarringly wrong for the period upsets the expectation of the WWII setting.

There were other ways to do this without knocking you right out of the headspace the game is trying to create.


That might be the part where we disagree and that is OK.

I still enjoy the arcade quality of COD and Battlefield but I feel like a super-soldier running around at high speeds, taking an ungodly amount of damage from enemy fire, and carrying a rather impressive arsenal of weapons. When I am selecting perks and killstreaks in multiplayer the historical immersion is already broken. That’s why female or nonwhite character models don’t really bother me in this context. I am already an inhuman god on the battlefield. If players are already customizing killstreaks, perks, weapon loadouts, camo patterns, weapon attachments, and so on, why not extend that line of reasoning a little farther and let them customize player appearance as well. The campaign is where players will find more attempts at authenticity and immersion.

ARMA presents a much more realistic and authentic portrayal of war. You walk for 20 minutes under high tension and are killed by a single bullet fired from a marksman you never saw 300 meters away.


Red Orchestra obviously comes to mind as well, except you run for 1 minute and are killed by a single bullet fired from a marksman you never saw 100 meters away.


War, war never changes.



As always, crazy cast.

David Tennant
Elodie Yung
Katheryn Winnick
Udo Kier
Ving Rhames


dont forget Gabourey Sidibe, playing the end boss of World War Two.



Oh no.

Headquarters seems to act as a lobby that up to 48 people can spend time in between online multiplayer matches. One of the things you can do is open the aforementioned cosmetic loot boxes you’ll unlock while playing, or you can watch others open theirs in the hopes of winning prizes for doing so. Activision-Blizzard, of course, knows more about loot boxes than any company in the world, and doubtless seeing your friends unlock cool cosmetic gear leads to more purchases overall.


Yes! I love watching friends open loot boxes and get awesome stuff.

Said no one ever.


There are countless Youtube videos (FIFA packs, Hearthstone cards, Overwatch crates, etc) with hundreds of thousands of positive comments and thumbs up saying otherwise.