• 75 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for shadowknight508
#1 Edited by ShadowKnight508 (795 posts) -

RUMOR: Art work suggest COD 2017 will be called "Call of Duty: WWII" (Credit to Charlie Intel's site):

A YouTuber, “TheFamilyVideoGamers”, has posted a video of what appears to be leaked images of Call of Duty 2017 concept marketing artwork. The leaked images show that Call of Duty 2017, developed by Sledgehammer Games, will take place during the World War II era.

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

The images above show artwork that Activision appears to be creating for promotional images and box arts. It also appears that Activision has decided to be straightforward with the naming scheme for the game and call it ‘Call of Duty: WWII’. This would be, probably, the simplest name for a Call of Duty game since before Call of Duty 4.

Activision has not confirmed any of this as of now. Stay tuned.

Thus far, Activision has only confirmed that this year’s title is developed by Sledgehammer and will take ‘Call of Duty back to its roots.’

SOURCE:CALL OF DUTY: WWII LEAKED?

Video (mentioned in the article):

Avatar image for hans_maulwurf
#2 Posted by hans_maulwurf (641 posts) -

If this is true, they should've just called it "The Call of Duty" at that point. Or "COD: Total Warfare" to stay within their recent naming conventions. Whatever, I'd be ready to go back to ww2.

Avatar image for mems1224
#3 Posted by mems1224 (2505 posts) -

Idk if making cod slow as hell again is the right move. I'm interested in the campaign because advance warfare was good but have 0 interest in the multiplayer. I'm hoping for a WWII battlefield instead.

Avatar image for humanity
#4 Posted by Humanity (18715 posts) -

At first I thought "man what a total bummer that they'd go back to that dry ass well" but you know if anyone can make an interesting and fun to play campaign set in WW2 it's probably the Call of Duty people - cause it sure ain't Dice. Of course multiplayer will still probably be completely unplayable for me if they use the classic COD formula but who knows.

I like that a lot of these developers behind long running franchises are trying to rediscover themselves. Ubisoft is trying to rework Assassins Creed, Epic tried to start over Gears, EA took a shot at redefining Mass Effect and now we potentially have this Call of Duty on our hands that MIGHT do something different. Granted, from the examples above.. it hasn't exactly been paying off.. Gears was a very boring rehash of a formula that quite frankly is showing it's age in a world of gaming where mobility is king and dumping clip after clip into bad guys from behind a waist high wall isn't the bees knees anymore - and Mass Effect, well let's say it's not to everyone's liking. As a big fan of Assassins Creed I'm holding out hope that they'll really reinvent the wheel, but Wildlands and Watch Dogs 2 aren't great examples of that company "evolving" their games as much as it's a great showcase for how they're mindlessly stretching an already thin canvas even bigger.

So I dunno, this could be a cool thing, but if anything it seems like this new generation is bringing about a changing of the guard. It really seems like those old dev houses just don't "get it" anymore and the industry is about to get depopulated with new blood.

Avatar image for bollard
#5 Posted by Bollard (8163 posts) -

While I totally expect this year's COD to be set in WWII after the success of Battlefield 1, something about those images seems off. Why would they design 4 different steelbook covers? Unless they were internal concepts and not all of them are going to be released, it seems odd to me.

Avatar image for blackout62
#6 Edited by Blackout62 (2190 posts) -

@humanity said:

At first I thought "man what a total bummer that they'd go back to that dry ass well"

There's an Extra Credits that says that well is anything but dry.

Loading Video...

But nope, looks like this COD is sending us back to Normandy again.

Avatar image for humanity
#7 Posted by Humanity (18715 posts) -

@blackout62: WW2 is just a boring time at this point. I made this argument when BF1 was coming out and one war later t still holds true. The guns in those wars are just kinda boring and we have all used them to death. They may come up with fun new campaign stuff but ultimately you're still putting the crosshairs over a dood and pulling the trigger and if that's not significantly more interesting than what a Springfield rifle or an mp40 can deliver then it's just gonna be same ol same ol. Unless they come up with new weapons, at which point why bother with historical accuracy at all, just make it some weird Killzone parallel universe WW2.

Avatar image for wynnduffy
#8 Posted by WynnDuffy (1289 posts) -

@humanity said:

@blackout62: WW2 is just a boring time at this point.

WW2 is a golden opportunity to make something superb narratively, it's not the era, it's Activision who won't green light anything interesting. Near-future, current year, past wars... it's all the same to stale CoD gameplay.

Battlefield 1 is great anyway though I would still argue that Rainbow Six Siege is the most exciting and interesting first person shooter in over 5 years.

Avatar image for whatshisface
#9 Posted by WhatsHisFace (745 posts) -
@humanity said:

@blackout62: WW2 is just a boring time at this point. I made this argument when BF1 was coming out and one war later t still holds true. The guns in those wars are just kinda boring and we have all used them to death. They may come up with fun new campaign stuff but ultimately you're still putting the crosshairs over a dood and pulling the trigger and if that's not significantly more interesting than what a Springfield rifle or an mp40 can deliver then it's just gonna be same ol same ol. Unless they come up with new weapons, at which point why bother with historical accuracy at all, just make it some weird Killzone parallel universe WW2.

If you don't like that, maybe first person shooters is not your genre because you just described every single one of them. Also, we already have weird Killzone parallel universe WW2 games.

Avatar image for szlifier
#10 Posted by Szlifier (1496 posts) -

I think that's awesome. I want to see WWII again in a modern engine and a lot of money thrown at it.

Avatar image for pompouspizza
#11 Posted by pompouspizza (1563 posts) -

I'll definitely play the campaign. I really hope it's not called Call Of Duty: WW2 because while it may be accurate, I think it's terrible.

Avatar image for luchalma
#12 Edited by Luchalma (538 posts) -

I mean, it's cool because it actually has been long enough that WWII games would feel like a breath of fresh air again. I wonder if Dice planned on making the next Battlefield a WWII game and how or if this messes with their plan.

I always hear complaints about the guns in these historic games. Like, shooting a gun in any FPS feels the same. You pull the trigger and bullets come out. How that can be significantly more boring or unfun just based on the model of gun is beyond me. Good shooting mechanics and good maps etc are what's important.

Also, funnily enough I just started listening to the Bombcast from the very beginning, and COD: World at War has just been announced and the guys are bemoaning the return to WWII lol

Avatar image for wynnduffy
#13 Posted by WynnDuffy (1289 posts) -

@humanity said:

@blackout62: WW2 is just a boring time at this point. I made this argument when BF1 was coming out and one war later t still holds true. The guns in those wars are just kinda boring and we have all used them to death. They may come up with fun new campaign stuff but ultimately you're still putting the crosshairs over a dood and pulling the trigger and if that's not significantly more interesting than what a Springfield rifle or an mp40 can deliver then it's just gonna be same ol same ol. Unless they come up with new weapons, at which point why bother with historical accuracy at all, just make it some weird Killzone parallel universe WW2.

If you don't like that, maybe first person shooters is not your genre because you just described every single one of them. Also, we already have weird Killzone parallel universe WW2 games.

Singularity is the GOAT

Avatar image for dgtlty
#14 Posted by dgtlty (1221 posts) -

This shit's just coming full circle, isn't it?

Avatar image for jonny_anonymous
#15 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (3662 posts) -

@humanity said:

At first I thought "man what a total bummer that they'd go back to that dry ass well"

There's an Extra Credits that says that well is anything but dry.

Loading Video...

But nope, looks like this COD is sending us back to Normandy again.

These are all great points.

Avatar image for humanity
#16 Edited by Humanity (18715 posts) -

@whatshisface said:
@humanity said:

@blackout62: WW2 is just a boring time at this point. I made this argument when BF1 was coming out and one war later t still holds true. The guns in those wars are just kinda boring and we have all used them to death. They may come up with fun new campaign stuff but ultimately you're still putting the crosshairs over a dood and pulling the trigger and if that's not significantly more interesting than what a Springfield rifle or an mp40 can deliver then it's just gonna be same ol same ol. Unless they come up with new weapons, at which point why bother with historical accuracy at all, just make it some weird Killzone parallel universe WW2.

If you don't like that, maybe first person shooters is not your genre because you just described every single one of them. Also, we already have weird Killzone parallel universe WW2 games.

Singularity is the GOAT

Singularity is a great example of doing something exciting in that timeframe because you weren't simply pulling the trigger over doods and making it to the next checkpoint. Games have evolved and I've come to expect a little more from my shooters. Syndicate is a great example of how you can diversify your first person shooting gameplay - what a great system that game had. The newest Doom has cool guns, alternate modes on all of them and a really fun and visceral melee incentive, not to mention the vertical movement. Singularity is older and more rough around the edges but that game also tried for something difference.

So yah sure, a lot of games are point and shoot affairs with little else going on, but good first person shooters strive for something more, and if you're going to constrain yourself to a realistic time and place I just don't know how much more excitement they can gleam out of that.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a00c029ab7c1
#17 Edited by deactivated-5a00c029ab7c1 (1777 posts) -

Unfortunately WW2 isn't going to make the gameplay any better. WW2 is a good setting but you have to have great gameplay. BF1 is the same going back in history didn't make the game any better when you have shallow gameplay. The BF series use to be amazing Battlefield 2 was the last real BF game and the best before it got dumbed down to compete with COD.

Avatar image for jonny_anonymous
#18 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (3662 posts) -

Going back to WW2 is fine but playing Muricans during D-Day is just not interesting anymore.

Avatar image for jaalmo
#20 Posted by Jaalmo (1749 posts) -

For someone that really liked World at War and still hoping for a remaster of that game in the future, I’m happy to see a return to WW2.

My biggest concern here is the customization options. I don't mind if they include it but I want an option to not see it anywhere for myself. If I see people with neon mp40s or stupid reticule designs, it’s going to put me right the fuck off.

Avatar image for paulmako
#21 Posted by paulmako (1958 posts) -

Think you've seen the Normandy Landings? Think again! Wait until you see it with the added power of the GeForce Experience.

There's definitely room for a new WWII based story in a shooter campaign. Colour me intrigued.

If the art work is real then it's quite nice. That first picture of the dudes has some good composition going on. I don't know how much of a 'huge leak' this is though. I thought it's been kind of widely presumed for months that the next COD would be going back to the second world war.

Avatar image for fredchuckdave
#22 Posted by Fredchuckdave (10824 posts) -

Hasn't been a major WW2 game in ages (apologies to Sniper Elite); so go for it. Problem is the player count won't be high enough to satisfy most likely; WW2 demands 32-64.

Avatar image for thomasnash
#23 Posted by thomasnash (1106 posts) -

It wouldn't surprise me at all, but I'm convinced that one of those images is a screenshot from Saving Private Ryan

Avatar image for shindig
#24 Posted by Shindig (4910 posts) -

Do those games still come with a token 'gasp' moment like a No Russian? Because a holocaust nod would be right up that street.

Avatar image for brunothethird
#25 Edited by BrunoTheThird (827 posts) -

Shooting helmets off with an M1 Garand, storming bunkers, and foiling Nazis is still my favourite COD stuff, but those images seem fake to me for some reason. If they're not, then it just looks a bit boring, but I'm still intrigued.

MOH: Frontline had some fantastic missions. More undercover-style, sneaky stuff here and there, and I'd love that style of mission in more COD games. I wanna rig Hitler's meeting room to blow, re-creating that failed assassination attempt; I wanna break guys out of a prison camp. Stuff like that.

Avatar image for voidoid
#26 Posted by Voidoid (168 posts) -

Imagine a world where mainstream shooters were allowed to have cool box art like that top down one with the czech hedgehogs. No doubt the final box art will be a G.I. walking away from an explosion with a tommygun but it's fun to dream.

Avatar image for artisanbreads
#27 Edited by ArtisanBreads (9107 posts) -

I'm very down. BF 1 was really refreshing and I am down for more. BF 1 they ended up fudging the guns to make very WWII style anyways.

I hope we can see scale and destructibility to improve on what old WW II games were doing. I would love Brothers in Arms squad command style business but I do not expect it.

Avatar image for howardian
#28 Posted by Howardian (187 posts) -

A Call of Duty with a WW2 campaign.

Yes please.

Avatar image for zolroyce
#29 Posted by ZolRoyce (1589 posts) -

Hasn't been a major WW2 game in ages (apologies to Sniper Elite); so go for it. Problem is the player count won't be high enough to satisfy most likely; WW2 demands 32-64.

I'm with you on this. I wouldn't mind another major WW2 game, I dumped a lot of time into the original Call of Duty when I was a youngin' especially the expansion pack multiplayer, and part of what made that multiplayer so great was the large player count it allowed. I couldn't imagine multiplayer without at least a 32 player count minimum. Imagine storming Omaha Beach or Foy with COD's now traditional 8 guys versus 8 other guys. That would not feel right at all.

But I'll keep my fingers crossed, I know other people are bored by the whole idea, but I'm not, it's still an interesting time era to me and a gun is a gun is a gun to me, does it make the bullets go into the guy I'm looking at? Okay I'll use it then.

Avatar image for blackout62
#30 Edited by Blackout62 (2190 posts) -

@wynnduffy said:
@humanity said:

@blackout62: WW2 is just a boring time at this point.

WW2 is a golden opportunity to make something superb narratively, it's not the era, it's Activision who won't green light anything interesting. Near-future, current year, past wars... it's all the same to stale CoD gameplay.

Battlefield 1 is great anyway though I would still argue that Rainbow Six Siege is the most exciting and interesting first person shooter in over 5 years.

@brunothethird said:

Shooting helmets off with an M1 Garand, storming bunkers, and foiling Nazis is still my favourite COD stuff, but those images seem fake to me for some reason. If they're not, then it just looks a bit boring, but I'm still intrigued.

MOH: Frontline had some fantastic missions. More undercover-style, sneaky stuff here and there, and I'd love that style of mission in more COD games. I wanna rig Hitler's meeting room to blow, re-creating that failed assassination attempted; I wanna break guys out of a prison camp. Stuff like that.

It's settled then. Who is up for the great Christopher Lee WWII stealth-action FPS?

Avatar image for terminallychill
#31 Posted by terminallychill (100 posts) -

If they go through with naming it Call of Duty: WWII, it will be kind of hilarious. It's like they are conveniently forgetting that the first three or four games already took place there, and this is some brand new direction for the series.

Avatar image for nightriff
#32 Posted by Nightriff (7195 posts) -

Would rather see a return to a modern NON-future setting, but I would take this nonetheless. Last COD game I bought (well rented) was MW3. Advanced only one in recent years that peaked my interest but I ain't paying 30+ bucks for the PC version when I only want to play the 5 hour story, fuck you activision, put your games on sale.

Avatar image for sasnake
#34 Posted by SASnake (612 posts) -

If they go through with naming it Call of Duty: WWII, it will be kind of hilarious. It's like they are conveniently forgetting that the first three or four games already took place there, and this is some brand new direction for the series.

Are we sure it dosent mean World at War 2? And that WW2 is just a you know, play on that?

Avatar image for hayt
#35 Posted by Hayt (1671 posts) -

If you think World War 2 is boring you are a boring person. That said not sure going to Normandy again is a winning move. Maybe Juno beach. Or the 6th Airborne (although they were in Call of Duty 1).

Avatar image for frostyryan
#36 Posted by FrostyRyan (2920 posts) -

Please make it that title. That is fucking hilarious

Avatar image for luchalma
#37 Posted by Luchalma (538 posts) -

@jonny_anonymous: I dunno. The Normandy landings are like Hoth levels, or Triple H's hair, for me. It is a marker for how far we've progressed. Until we have a game that makes Saving Private Ryan's D-Day scene look like a kid playing with his army men toys, we gotta keep making them!

Avatar image for toxin066
#38 Edited by Toxin066 (3539 posts) -

As I grow older, I have a harder and harder time playing shooters based on real events. Something about no longer have a disconnect in my murder simulators. If they can give me a different angle than just "Kill Germans", I could be interested, but if it's just a re-tredding of the most popular theatres of WWII, I'm out.

Avatar image for terminallychill
#39 Posted by terminallychill (100 posts) -

@sasnake: hahahahahaha if they actually came out and said that I would lose it. brilliant.

Avatar image for briarpack
#40 Posted by briarpack (327 posts) -

If they go through with naming it Call of Duty: WWII, it will be kind of hilarious. It's like they are conveniently forgetting that the first three or four games already took place there, and this is some brand new direction for the series.

Nah, they're naming it WWII so that when they reveal the real money maker, MW2 Remastered, they can do it by animating that W flipping over all dramatic and shiet.

I'm not thrilled about about this, gotta be honest. From a multiplayer gameplay perspective, WWII doesn't really offer anything interesting. Best case scenario it's CoD4/MWR with a WWII skin, and that's just kinda meh.

Avatar image for omgfather
#41 Posted by OMGFather (1035 posts) -

I would love to return to WW2 games. They will probably mess it up though.

Avatar image for csl316
#42 Posted by csl316 (14959 posts) -

Works for me. I'd love to revisit that earlier tone with current tech.

Avatar image for arbitrarywater
#43 Edited by ArbitraryWater (15697 posts) -

We've managed to come full circle in only 10 years, huh? Well, I guess it's been long enough.

Avatar image for spaceinsomniac
#44 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (6353 posts) -

@sasnake said:
@terminallychill said:

If they go through with naming it Call of Duty: WWII, it will be kind of hilarious. It's like they are conveniently forgetting that the first three or four games already took place there, and this is some brand new direction for the series.

Are we sure it dosent mean World at War 2? And that WW2 is just a you know, play on that?

I thought of that as well, but I think Treyarch would be rightfully pissed, and Activision would be quite dumb to piss off their best COD studio. Black Ops 3 > Infinite Warfare / Ghosts > Advanced Warfare.

Then again, maybe Treyarch is exploring truly original territory for the series, and they'd be fine to let another studio make World at War 2. I guess we'll find out eventually.

Avatar image for evilsbane
#45 Posted by Evilsbane (5618 posts) -

COD was strongest in this era, I have zero interest in COD MP anymore but a good WW2 SP campaign would get me back for sure.

Avatar image for flasaltine
#46 Posted by flasaltine (2546 posts) -

I would actually be excited for this. CoD 2 is my favorite in the series.

Avatar image for nnickers
#47 Posted by nnickers (496 posts) -

@humanity: This is this most terrifying and depressing comment I've ever read about anything in any medium. Fuck man...god damn. Talk about desensitization.

Avatar image for clagnaught
#48 Posted by clagnaught (2115 posts) -

Call of Duty: WWII. More like Call of Duty 1, amirite?

Avatar image for theht
#49 Posted by TheHT (15834 posts) -
Avatar image for ripelivejam
#50 Edited by ripelivejam (13158 posts) -

what if it's WWII...in SPACE??????

in any case i'm more hyped for Dunkirk.