WW2 Vidya

How exactly have they marketed the game as historically accurate?

>treated the period with respect and care.
Not quite, actually. Soviet campaign of the first CoD was full of flaws. And those flaws weren't just Enemy at the Gates references.

>M1 Garand
>Slaps the bolt home EVERY TIME

wew lads, someone didn't take care of their rifle

Played for awhile and to be honest it's pretty sub-par in my opinion.
The maps are pretty limited and is just too similar to Ostfront. There are rarely any diversity in the matches, it's either custom bridge map or Grain elevator. It is so bad now people forgot that the t60 update was in the game.
As for the Single player it's basically the Multiplayer with Bots and narration.

Now the equipment in the game is also pretty generic, there is the standard roster of German And Soviet Firearms and tanks but that's it, it doesn't really explore beyond generic Germans and soviets.

Rising storm same shit, young and abandoned.

This is a single player thread btw.
It is, but keep it single player.

Nobody wants to listen to your wacky Youtube rants fuck off.

youtu.be/b3K0tI-EyGY

watch the dev interviews shill, i'm not going to spoon feed you
like what? when they don't give you a rifle at the start? this shit tended to happen IRL and it was meant to show how fucking insignificant you are in the overall battle, compared to being a rambo in American and British campaigns
CoD 1 is literally GOAT WW2 game and i will defend it till death, fight me

>Rising storm same shit, young and abandoned.

True but boy was it a load of fun in its hey-day, I sunk hours into that game. Shame about RO2 though, it really did pale in comparison to OstFront and fucking TripWire didn't come through with half of their promises. I'm seeing the same happening for RS2 now too.

>Played for awhile and to be honest it's pretty sub-par in my opinion.
>The maps are pretty limited and is just too similar to Ostfront. There are rarely any diversity in the matches, it's either custom bridge map or Grain elevator. It is so bad now people forgot that the t60 update was in the game.
There's always a running vanilla maps server though
>As for the Single player it's basically the Multiplayer with Bots and narration.
Reading diaries of men actually in Stalingrad and then playing maps based on those actual events is really great. Has any other game featured that horrific grain elevator?
>Now the equipment in the game is also pretty generic, there is the standard roster of German And Soviet Firearms and tanks but that's it, it doesn't really explore beyond generic Germans and soviets.
That's the best part IMO.
This isn't CoD where everyone gets some machine gun to run and gun as a bullet sponge. You will overwhelmingly find bolt action rifles as you would in actuality, and those bolt action rifle still put a man down.

COD WW2 is verging on wolfenstein tier with the "ebil nazis" or its based on propaganda taken from 1942

Tripwire pisses me off. They sure know how to give their playerbase blue balls.

>all these babies playing their shitty FPS
outta my way casual fucking shits
a real man's game coming through

challenge play SH6 in realtime

>German troops using captured Russian weapons on the Western Front

Press X to Doubt

its pretty obvious you want to be mad, dumb polfag

>The maps are pretty limited
Because they're built around one place and one battle.
>and is just too similar to Ostfront.
What do you mean, "similar"?
>here are rarely any diversity in the matches
Blame the players. It's like CS, when the most popular maps are Italy and Dust 2.
>As for the Single player it's basically the Multiplayer with Bots and narration.
I agree, they could put some effort in it too.
>Now the equipment in the game is also pretty generic
Here's a surprise for you: real WWII equipment for most of the soldiers was pretty generic. Of course, I'd like to run around dressed in Amoeba suit, waving a suppressed sniper Mosin and a Walther PPK. But that's not that kind of game.
Silent Storm had lots of variety. But it's pretty outdated.
>when they don't give you a rifle at the start?
This is a EatG reference. I said that there are many of them which are not related to the movie's flaws.
>this shit tended to happen IRL
I agree. But it tended to happen in 1941. By the time of Stalingrad battle the troops were equipped pretty well. And, according to memoirs, they recieved their weapons on the eastern shore of Volga.
The most visible trouble with CoD soviet campaign is shoulder marks. They weren't introduced in the army until 1943, while the game begins in 1942.
Other trouble is T-34/85 being used in 1942. But it's a common trouble in post-war media.
I would add more troubles including the EatG mistakes, but I'm too lazy right now.
I remember SH3. All those tasty tankers, goddamn

I think often times historical accuracy is the first thing to be cut for gameplay. Most companies use it as inspiration, but when they know only a niche of players enjoy the one shot bolt action type of gameplay, or accurate long distance shotguns (non MW2 shotguns) they will generalize it to what gets a better reaction in playtesting
but what if it's fun to play tho

you know whats the WORSE thing about COD? all the sovietboos it produced in the mid 2000s

>Italy and Dust 2
>Italy
I think you mean inferno, friend

r u being sarcastic

wrong thread buddy

Killing krauts with different guns doesn't create "russiaboos", I'm pretty sure in the games it showed how shitty Russia was as a whole

I saw the fucking 1903 reload animation and immediately made my mind up about this POS

I got this game for Christmas when I was 10. It has v good campaigns (both American and German) and 6 skirmish maps in which you can play as the Americans, Germans, or Soviets against one of these teams (but not your own). You're basically the commander of your forces in Europe in the campaign, either General or Oberst. The American campaign goes from D-day to invading Germany and destroying their K5 Leopold Guns (so I suppose there's some historical inaccuracy since you're not actually meeting with the Russians), whereas the German campaign consists of winning small victories before having to defend the Fatherland in one epic battle at the end. As far as units go, there's basic infantry, heavy, elite, anti-tank, and paratroopers. There are usually two types of AA gun for each team and about 6 tanks. E.g. The Germans have 88s and Flakpanzer Gepards, Stugs, Mark iVs, Mark Vs, Panthers. Tigers, and Tiger IIs. The Russian and American teams have tanks of about equal strength with their most powerful being the Joseph Stalin and the Pershing respectively. Each team in skirmishes can use heavy bombers, dive bombers, and infantry-attack bombers as well as naval cannons too. There is other equipment unique to some teams such as Russian katyushas and German nebelwerfers, or Canadian kaliopes if you're playing as the Americans.

Forgot pic

>It's a video game
Yeah, it's a video game based on one of most crucial real historical event, aka WW2, not a pure fantasy or fiction, there is fine boundary of "creative freedom" on such historical subject, you don't go full bullshit and revisionist on this matter just to suit your modern SJW "political correction" narrative, otherwise they're no better than the Nazi/Fascists they hate so much, just the same means for different ideology.

If they want non-white "diversity" in their dull and repetitive game, they can easily put China and SEA campaign in it, China along fought for over 8 years and suffered 20 millions causalities, not to mention the Flying Tiger classic, how many games about them so far? But no no no, they just want some racial/gender-fluid Blacked Nazi, Blacked Female US Paratroopers to fulfill their "forced diversity" utopia, and no 卐 allowed. SO FUCKING FUN!

On top of what you said, this is a History board, of course we're going to discuss the historical accuracy of it. Fucking retards don't realize this

Where is my China/SEA campaign? Why are COD and Activision so racist?

i think that's made by the people who made world of tanks

its one of those games i bought years ago and have never installed and is still on my shelf lol

racism only applies to black people

>Waaaah SJWs

It's not SJWs that are to blame so much as it is greedy corporate shills that will sell out anything for an extra buck. Activision doesn't care about historical accuracy or even diversity. It cares about units sold and profit margins. That's it.

If you want historical accuracy, watch a documentary. Don't expect it from a video game that's entire purpose to get as many people as possible to play it for any reason.

>If you want historical accuracy, watch a documentary.

Holy shit this. I downloaded the mod just some time ago and it's fun as fuck, especially a mission where Anglos have to take some Italian posts at the top of a hill in Ethiopia

>i think that's made by the people who made world of tanks
I think you're right. Wargaming is listed in the opening as a producer

Get saged. Another game/ console bundle release just in time for the holidays. Gotta feed the consumerist monkey.
Fuck WW2. Look what self-hating ungrateful shits they have turned themselves into since then. We should have stopped the Holocaust in a different way. Essentially invading made a hostage situation worse.

>implying allied leaders cared about the Jews in 1940

>mad we're discussing the historical accuracy of a game on a history board

rly m8

>implying I'm mad

I'm not upset. I understand the complaint. I'm just saying it's just something to expect when it comes to video games and media in general.

Historical accuracy is at the bottom of the list in terms of things they want to see in devolpment and release.

>Waaaah SJWs
Yes, (((they))) pretty much are this time, and the lowest kind. You sound like one of (((them))) as well.

Here's the thing: it isn't, the game is basically the recent call of dutys without wall running or gadgets to keep a fast pace. People who like fun twitch shooters will go to the other cod games, ans ww2 spergs will go to more accurate games.

>This "game" is specifically based on WW2 and promoted that way.
>But hey "If you want historical accuracy, watch a documentary."
Such an intelligent, open-minded, history-loving thinker! WEW!

they wont include a Chinese campaign because they dont complain about it. The Chinese dealt with what happened and moved on. Negros are still assmad, SJWs have to pander to them

>Based on means an absolute, 100% true to history recreation

I've got bad news for you. Nothing that says "based on a true story" is even close to accurate. It's a loose inspiration and nothing more.

Yes, if you want something historically accurate, watch a documentary. Anything else is going to change things to fit the narrative and design choices.

So are you saying documentaries like "The Greatest Story Never Told" don't change things to fit the narrative and design choices?

it doesn't take a genius to figure out there weren't no ni*ger german soldiers
>inb4 that one pic that germans took for propaganda purposes
there's being a loose inspiration and then there's flat out lying and twisting history to your own sick version of it

Close combat is cool. I only liked the Russian front and Cross of Iron tho

>if you want something historically accurate, watch a documentary

At least I hope this is bait

>people get bored of future cods
>time to go back to the past boys
>proceed to combine the modern cods recoilless shooting with tired cliches of ww2 cods

Kek, you've war across Asia, Europe, and Northern Africa and yet still 90% of the time it always boils down to same handful of battles, seen from same perspectives. If you're going to go with D-Day couldn't you at least use some less common perspective? Make player a German machine gunner gunning down landing yanks, have them storm Sword Beach instead, or give them command over some Allied warship's turrets and hammer nazi fortifications apart with big guns.

>They are going for profit not historical accuracy.

And you're defending this you fucking cuck

just go play Wolfenstein 2, at least that game is up front with its message

>Based on means an absolute, 100% true to history recreation
When did I or they say this?

Only its not World War 2 and it's alternative history

>muh documentary.
You mean "documentary" like this?
youtu.be/TIkrgOmsbVY

But you seem surprised that people are discussing the historical accuracy of a WWII game on a history board, which leads me to believe you're retarded or a plebbitor

>Only its not World War 2 and it's alternative history
sounds like the new CoD

not really, the new COD is more like some uber retarded american propaganda like Fury or Inglorious basterds

"Remember, no German"

The game makes no claim about being historically accurate, it just uses the setting of WW2, and its widely known that it will not be accurate.

It's ridiculous to complain that Call of Duty is not a historical simulation.

they should add a mission where you play as a jew getting gassed, make it all sad and dramatic

>Not mentioning Day of Infamy
For your casual historical ww2 fix

>they wont include a Chinese campaign because they dont complain about it. The Chinese dealt with what happened and moved on.
Lol, have you ever spoken to a Chinese person about ww2 or the Japanese? You'll find they have not moved on...

Their school history is Germany levels of indoctrination about the holocaust except aimed at Japan

We had one of those and it sold like shit.

What message?

It would be more fun if it featured Eastern Front, servers for 64 players, and had more scope skins for sniper rifles.

...

It will feature more theatres eventually.

Actually you can get new skins, you need to get 800 kills with a weapon, then you unlock cool skins like cloth wrapped around the rifle, etc.

Maybe. All that really troubles me is small servers, small maps, Lee Enfield with a Winchester A6 scope and a Kar98 with a 7x Zf39 instead of Jena Zielsechs or Zielacht.

>doesn't know the battle of keren.

>will never get an accurate WW1 FPS
>will never get to play as the King of Montenegro, who led his men into battle with horse and saber
Not only is there no accurate WW1 FPS, there's barely any that take place in WW1 at all. Why does the fun war get ignored?

The dev team is involved enough that you could actually tell them that and they would respond.

Have you played insurgency? The small maps are because its based on that, it's meant to be the classic CS style shooting but in hardcore mode, not an ARMA/Squad style 2sq KM map kind of game, go look at Hell Let Loose, that's gonna be like that.

>>will never get an accurate WW1 FPS
Verdun??? Sure its small time and has dodgy animations but it's WW1 and pretty damn authentic.
I'm assuming you don't know about this game or else you wouldnt comment.

>yet another fucking d day video game
yawn

Verdun is not good enough?
Also, Rise of Flight is pretty fun
>Have you played insurgency?
The mod, not the game.
>The dev team is involved enough that you could actually tell them that and they would respond.
As far as I recall, they said that they don't plan to include Eastern Front, and my distaste with their choices for scope skins is not really significant.

The insurgency game is very good, day of infamy started as a mod of insurgency (which also was a mod lel) before becoming a full polished game

>Make player a German machine gunner gunning down landing yanks

kek

cos that'll go down well in america, then the game company would get banned from releasing games in the biggest gaming market in the world

Man all you would really need to do to make a decent WWI game is reskin RO2 to the Western or Eastern Front and take the SMGs and semi auto rifles out of it.

>people tried to act like battlefield 1 would be at least somewhat accurate ww1 fps
>it is so inaccurate that even a fucking horror shooter with zombie krauts, vampires under somme, and demonic invasion during www1 is more accurate than it

>day of infamy started as a mod of insurgency
Wasn't that a sort of an attempt to make a new Day of Defeat?
In my opinion, giving the player "a stationary cock we've seen for 1000 times" in the very first mission is the sign of an crisis of ideas.

Verdun does it better.

>Wasn't that a sort of an attempt to make a new Day of Defeat?
Yes, hence the name, it is the spiritual successor

Verdun is shit, stop shilling an unfinished game.

You literally claimed there are no historical ww1 shooters when there is one, and it is finished

I am not him and no it's not shut up!

>ww1 game
>respawn
>Get blown up by artillery or sniped by an mg
>respawn
>repeat
so interesting...
you literally need to make a ww2 type of game (see BF1) to make it engaging
it was a pretty boring war

I FUCKING SAID FROM THE FUCKING BEGINNING THIS ISN'T A BATTLEFIELD 1 THREAD I WAS ASKING ABOUT OTHER WW2 GAMES THAT HAD A SINGLEPLAYER CAMPAIGN AND HOW HISTORICALLY ACCURATE YOU ACCOUNT IT BY I AM NOT FUCKING INTERESTED IN YOUR MULTIPLAYER SHIT FESTS OR LISTENING TO YOUR BRAINLET UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I ASKED IN THE ORIGINAL POST
GET OUT OF MY THREAD GET THE FUCK OUT!!!!!!

>there was only trench fighting in ww1
>trench warfare tactics never evolved beyond over the top and charging like lemmings into enemy machine gun fire

Found a brainlet.

>single player campaign
looks like it might even be kind of realistic. Might be worth a pirate
>multiplayer
looks like trash

> he doesn't know
I feel bad for you user

Calm the fuck down dickhead

>All of WWI was like the western front

what fuck are you even gurgling about. the campaign follows a squad in the fucking 1st infantry. and diverges off for a couple of other things. its not about fucking rainbow desi squad. thats multiplayer and they have said they arnt even trying to be accurate with that. you dumb fucking /pol/ fag.

honestly id play that. i also want a korean war game someday.