Weekly BF

Call of Duty WWII beta......sad :(

Comments

  • DeathByFeathers
    1665 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    COD WWII seems to be boring and a waste of money (maybe, just maybe, I'll install it when it's free on Xbox gold or buy a used copy for $5)

    What I will save my money for is Wolenstein II: The New Colossus because you get to ride a wheelchair and shoot they-who-must-not-be-named at the beginning.

  • Loqtrall
    12057 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    ITT: Battlefield fans describing aspects of Cod ww2 they dislike, either being staple features of the franchise, or gross over-exaggerations.
  • TEKNOCODE
    11141 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2017
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    ITT: Battlefield fans describing aspects of Cod ww2 they dislike, either being staple features of the franchise, or gross over-exaggerations.
    @Loqtrall

    This is my first bf game and I truly enjoy it.

    I played cod from cod 2 up until modern warfare 2 (I also played a few matches of ghosts). I wasn't going to purchase ghosts, but I bought it for $20 when Xbox one was released.

    This game feels identical to what I remember, which is a complete negative. It hasn't evolved at at.
  • Loqtrall
    12057 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2017

    TEKNOCODE wrote: »

    This is my first bf game and I truly enjoy it.

    I played cod from cod 2 up until modern warfare 2 (I also played a few matches of ghosts). I wasn't going to purchase ghosts, but I bought it for $20 when Xbox one was released.

    This game feels identical to what I remember, which is a complete negative. It hasn't evolved at at.

    I could easily say the same thing about Battlefield 1 compared to BF games since BC2 or at least BF3. Really, apart from the class setup, BF1 "feels" identical to BF3 and BF4. With the upcoming balancing pass they're actually trying to make weapons/TTK FEEL MORE like BF4.

    The reality is that CoD has changed over the years in the same way BF has - it's kept it's core gameplay the same and molded changes around that gameplay model. For instance, the Division system in WWII is a big departure from the perk system we had available in past games. Now if you don't want to be seen by UAV on the minimap while using an SMG, you have to use The Mountain division and sacrifice by skipping out on the Airborne's SMG-centric perks, but also miss out on the Mountain's sniper-rifle-centric perks just to gain a perk that used to be openly usable no matter which weapon you used in past games (Ghost, Cold Blooded, etc).

    Scorestreaks in this game are significantly toned back compared to the past 3 games (with the max scorestreak now being essentially a gunship). We don't see anymore AI-controlled aim-bot killstreaks like Talon, GI Unit, Cerberus, etc like we did in past games, where scorestreaks would literally just traverse the map and get kills for you. The most we have of that in WW2 is Paratroopers, which die just as fast as normal enemies and are like bots on Normal difficulty in other games.

    The only people who claim CoD has never changed are people who either didn't like the games in the first place to begin with, or people who have just not played much of the games in the first place.

    I've not only played each and every CoD game extensively (yes, including the originals that were only on PC), but I've reached max prestige (so far) in every single CoD game that has featured the prestige system.

    I love all shooters, so I'm not approaching judging titles in CoD from a biased or too-opinionated position. In reality, the mere fact people are trying to compare CoD to Battlefield is just dumb. The two games are nothing alike and have never been anything alike - yet people who PREFER games like Battlefield are consistently comparing it to CoD and act like CoD is supposed to "change" to be more like BF, and otherwise call it a horrible game.

    I mean really, some of the comments in this thread are blatantly biased, made by people who obviously prefer the type of game that Battlefield is over the type of game CoD is - and their dislike of CoD is majorly due in part to them not enjoying the type of game it is and has been for over a decade.

    We have people in this thread bringing up 6v6 or small map design like they're "bad things", when in reality those things have been a part of this franchise for a very long time now.

    That's like the people who complain CQL in BF is "horrible" because it only allows 64 players and that's what we've gotten in past games. I've actually seen people say BF1 was a failure because CQL wasn't over 100 players on PC. Yes, that argument actually existed when this game was released.

    Then you have guys claiming that what we see in the beta is "definitely" going to be in the full game, when that's as far from the truth as possible. I can't put into words how many balancing changes were made between Black Ops 3's beta and it's full release. The same goes for Infinite Warfare, many things changed in the testing phases of that game. (Plus, the same guy said the STG44 was the "best weapon in the game", when the PPSH eats the STG44 alive at everything aside from long-range).

    Or the over-exaggeration of netcode issues in the game, like they're even significantly worse than the BS we see in large modes of ANY Battlefield game in existence.

    The bottom line is that CoD has changed, whether blatant fans of the BF franchise are willing to see that fact or not. To claim the game "hasn't changed" because the gist or crux of the gameplay is the same as EVERY other Call of Duty released in the past 10 years is just illogical. It's just like the guys who claimed BF1 was a "reskin" of BF4 just because the games played similarly. Of course they play similarly, they're both Battlefield games made by the same studio using the same game engine.

    I GUARANTEE I could find people in the CoD community that would say the EXACT same things about BF that people are saying about CoD in this thread. That it's either descended into being crap, has always been crap, and has been a stale game that "nobody likes but it still sells".

    CoD WWII, from the standpoint of someone who not only owns every CoD game but enjoys CoD for what it is and has been, is just another CoD game. It feels like a CoD game, it plays like other CoD games, it's got the player count and map design other CoD games have, it is a game designed for people who enjoy CoD games or the franchise as a whole.

    The fact that anybody (especially on this forum) simply dislike the type of game CoD is does not objectively mean it's a terrible game, nor does the fact that it plays like other CoD games mean it "hasn't changed".
  • 68Keif
    4628 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I think the game is decent. Unfortunately I won't have anyone to squad with :/
  • HardAimedKid
    11386 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I just don't think it plays good. I had plenty of good matches when I played, but you also get plenty of guys with bad connection and you hit them with what appears to be 3-6 shots and the kill cam shows them taking no damage and they melt you. I think I'm just done with cod until they get dedicated servers. I had hopes of loving it cause I miss having that style of game. It's just not there for me.

    I'm actually considering battlefront 2 now instead
  • 68Keif
    4628 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I just don't think it plays good. I had plenty of good matches when I played, but you also get plenty of guys with bad connection and you hit them with what appears to be 3-6 shots and the kill cam shows them taking no damage and they melt you. I think I'm just done with cod until they get dedicated servers. I had hopes of loving it cause I miss having that style of game. It's just not there for me.

    I'm actually considering battlefront 2 now instead

    I will definitely get battlefront 2
  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »

    I mean really, some of the comments in this thread are blatantly biased, made by people who obviously prefer the type of game that Battlefield is over the type of game CoD is - and their dislike of CoD is majorly due in part to them not enjoying the type of game it is and has been for over a decade.

    We have people in this thread bringing up 6v6 or small map design like they're "bad things", when in reality those things have been a part of this franchise for a very long time now.

    That's like the people who complain CQL in BF is "horrible" because it only allows 64 players and that's what we've gotten in past games. I've actually seen people say BF1 was a failure because CQL wasn't over 100 players on PC. Yes, that argument actually existed when this game was released.

    Then you have guys claiming that what we see in the beta is "definitely" going to be in the full game, when that's as far from the truth as possible. I can't put into words how many balancing changes were made between Black Ops 3's beta and it's full release. The same goes for Infinite Warfare, many things changed in the testing phases of that game. (Plus, the same guy said the STG44 was the "best weapon in the game", when the PPSH eats the STG44 alive at everything aside from long-range).

    Or the over-exaggeration of netcode issues in the game, like they're even significantly worse than the BS we see in large modes of ANY Battlefield game in existence.

    The bottom line is that CoD has changed, whether blatant fans of the BF franchise are willing to see that fact or not. To claim the game "hasn't changed" because the gist or crux of the gameplay is the same as EVERY other Call of Duty released in the past 10 years is just illogical. It's just like the guys who claimed BF1 was a "reskin" of BF4 just because the games played similarly. Of course they play similarly, they're both Battlefield games made by the same studio using the same game engine.

    I GUARANTEE I could find people in the CoD community that would say the EXACT same things about BF that people are saying about CoD in this thread. That it's either descended into being crap, has always been crap, and has been a stale game that "nobody likes but it still sells".

    CoD WWII, from the standpoint of someone who not only owns every CoD game but enjoys CoD for what it is and has been, is just another CoD game. It feels like a CoD game, it plays like other CoD games, it's got the player count and map design other CoD games have, it is a game designed for people who enjoy CoD games or the franchise as a whole.

    The fact that anybody (especially on this forum) simply dislike the type of game CoD is does not objectively mean it's a terrible game, nor does the fact that it plays like other CoD games mean it "hasn't changed".

    In my posts I was comparing it to the older cods ive played , i've played alot more cod than battlefield and used to much prefer cod over battlefield.

    Compared to battlefield yes the cod maps are small but its a completely different game and only 6 a side so I wouldn't want battlefield sized maps, the issue is the maps in this new cod are smaller and alot more cluttered than previous cod maps, theres only 1 viable tactic smg pray and spray or quick scoping it makes for a stale and boring game theres barely any space for mid range engagements and no long range, the worst issue is on the smallest map Gibraltar in less than a minute I could run from my spawn to the enemy's and then just spawn kill them, lots of spawn trapping was going on in the beta.

    I played the black ops 3 beta and the full game, other than a couple of small balancing tweaks nothing was changed, more than likely its gonna be the same this time around despite ww2's much larger issues.

    Cod built up a large loyal playerbase with its good games, theres plenty of people who are brand loyal enough and will just buy cod just because its cod. All the hate the last game got didn't even affect its sale that much.

    I will agree at the core it is just another cod game but its still possible to make a bad cod game thats not as good as the previous 1's, the studio/dev team this year have proved that they have made a right mess of it the core mechanics are broken and the content is dull and lackluster.
    I don't remember the maps ever being this bad look at the maps from war at world , mw2 , mw3 which had the best maps and compare them to this they just aren't the same.

    The game isn't bad just because its cod, the game is bad because a bad developer got hold of it this year and done a terrible job, hopefully next year treyarch does a much better job and makes cod great again.


  • BaconRebellion
    2462 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »

    I mean really, some of the comments in this thread are blatantly biased, made by people who obviously prefer the type of game that Battlefield is over the type of game CoD is - and their dislike of CoD is majorly due in part to them not enjoying the type of game it is and has been for over a decade.

    We have people in this thread bringing up 6v6 or small map design like they're "bad things", when in reality those things have been a part of this franchise for a very long time now.

    That's like the people who complain CQL in BF is "horrible" because it only allows 64 players and that's what we've gotten in past games. I've actually seen people say BF1 was a failure because CQL wasn't over 100 players on PC. Yes, that argument actually existed when this game was released.

    Then you have guys claiming that what we see in the beta is "definitely" going to be in the full game, when that's as far from the truth as possible. I can't put into words how many balancing changes were made between Black Ops 3's beta and it's full release. The same goes for Infinite Warfare, many things changed in the testing phases of that game. (Plus, the same guy said the STG44 was the "best weapon in the game", when the PPSH eats the STG44 alive at everything aside from long-range).

    Or the over-exaggeration of netcode issues in the game, like they're even significantly worse than the BS we see in large modes of ANY Battlefield game in existence.

    The bottom line is that CoD has changed, whether blatant fans of the BF franchise are willing to see that fact or not. To claim the game "hasn't changed" because the gist or crux of the gameplay is the same as EVERY other Call of Duty released in the past 10 years is just illogical. It's just like the guys who claimed BF1 was a "reskin" of BF4 just because the games played similarly. Of course they play similarly, they're both Battlefield games made by the same studio using the same game engine.

    I GUARANTEE I could find people in the CoD community that would say the EXACT same things about BF that people are saying about CoD in this thread. That it's either descended into being crap, has always been crap, and has been a stale game that "nobody likes but it still sells".

    CoD WWII, from the standpoint of someone who not only owns every CoD game but enjoys CoD for what it is and has been, is just another CoD game. It feels like a CoD game, it plays like other CoD games, it's got the player count and map design other CoD games have, it is a game designed for people who enjoy CoD games or the franchise as a whole.

    The fact that anybody (especially on this forum) simply dislike the type of game CoD is does not objectively mean it's a terrible game, nor does the fact that it plays like other CoD games mean it "hasn't changed".

    In my posts I was comparing it to the older cods ive played , i've played alot more cod than battlefield and used to much prefer cod over battlefield.

    Compared to battlefield yes the cod maps are small but its a completely different game and only 6 a side so I wouldn't want battlefield sized maps, the issue is the maps in this new cod are smaller and alot more cluttered than previous cod maps, theres only 1 viable tactic smg pray and spray or quick scoping it makes for a stale and boring game theres barely any space for mid range engagements and no long range, the worst issue is on the smallest map Gibraltar in less than a minute I could run from my spawn to the enemy's and then just spawn kill them, lots of spawn trapping was going on in the beta.

    I played the black ops 3 beta and the full game, other than a couple of small balancing tweaks nothing was changed, more than likely its gonna be the same this time around despite ww2's much larger issues.

    Cod built up a large loyal playerbase with its good games, theres plenty of people who are brand loyal enough and will just buy cod just because its cod. All the hate the last game got didn't even affect its sale that much.

    I will agree at the core it is just another cod game but its still possible to make a bad cod game thats not as good as the previous 1's, the studio/dev team this year have proved that they have made a right mess of it the core mechanics are broken and the content is dull and lackluster.
    I don't remember the maps ever being this bad look at the maps from war at world , mw2 , mw3 which had the best maps and compare them to this they just aren't the same.

    The game isn't bad just because its cod, the game is bad because a bad developer got hold of it this year and done a terrible job, hopefully next year treyarch does a much better job and makes cod great again.


    Yeah I dont remember any previous cod maps being as bad as they were in the beta. Ardennes was terribpe and would result in a spawn trap within 30 seconds of tdm starting. Usually the allies spawn trapping the germans and there was nothing you could do about it because the map design was so terrible. You literally only have 2 open spaces at the end of the map for the spawn then hallways and bottlenecks connecting them.

    I mean look at this map. Who thought it was a good design?

    https://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ardennes.jpg?w=800&resize=800,446&strip=all
  • rock1obsta
    3812 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I just cannot get past the omission of the symbol.
    I absolutely love killing not-sees. Love it. Now, they're just regular guys in uniforms. I can get that anywhere.

    Some poster above mentioned Wolfenstein. That's a game company that hasn't been neutered by society and lets me kill as many not-sees as I want. I eagerly await slaughtering more of them in the next one.
  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The historical accuracy is the least of that games problems.
  • LOLGotYerTags
    13412 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    I've watched a few videos and I am seriously unimpressed.

    I just don't understand what people see in it, yay call in an artillery strike for getting a killstreak.


    Bruh I can call in an artillery strike in BF1 on Rush and it has noticeable damage on the terrain.

    It kinda reminds me of the "fish AI" they boasted about.. Which is a laughable thing to boast about tbh.


    Who cares about fish when you're shooting bad guys?

    Yeesh.
  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The score streaks in older cods were much better and there was more streaks to choose from, some cods even had offensive and support based streaks, they were much more rewarding and added much more to the game in the older cods. In this ww2 game however they do stuck there just dull , unrewarding and don't really add anything to the game.
  • Troopperfofo
    371 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    So my neighbor gave me his beta access.

    Well I know what I wont be purchasing.

    The guns felt terrible. Zero recoil even when compared to slightly older call of duty games. The last one I bought was ghost. But no gun had recoil. No even the semi auto sniper rifle , the Karabin or something.

    The reloads are so weird. The SMGs reload in 1 second. The LMGs like the Bren reload in 8+. Its like the LMGs where made for a different game. On these tiny maps the Bren was completely useless. Especially when you have guns like the stg44.

    The maps are terrible. I used to like a lot of call of duties maps. Small maps don't bother me. But these are just terrible. The Gibraltar map was so awful. I have never in a game wanted to badly to not play a map. The other ones are nothing great.

    So many jump shooters. Especially with the incendiary shotgun rounds.

    The M1 carbine sights are wrong and this bothers me. They gave it the G41 front sight for some reason.

    Why is the Johnson lmg in the rifle category when there is a Johnson rifle?

    Aw well back to Call of Duty 3 for me. It has become weirdly populated recently , not a lot but enough to find matches.
  • HonestSoul333
    1402 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    The score streaks in older cods were much better and there was more streaks to choose from, some cods even had offensive and support based streaks, they were much more rewarding and added much more to the game in the older cods. In this ww2 game however they do stuck there just dull , unrewarding and don't really add anything to the game.

    Yea i think CoD really startef to go down hill whem they replaced kill streaks with score streaks. It seemed lile a good idea but in practice it just isn't as good imo.

    I miss the days where i could gun down 3 guys in a row and have a UAV waiting on me. Now you have to kill 5 or 6 guys, or take 6 objects in 1 life to get a UAV. Its a bit ridiculous...
  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I think mw3 got it right with the streaks, you had the defensive streaks based on score that didn't reset when you die, and you had the offensive streaks based on kills.

    I didn't have a problem getting streaks in the beta nor did other players judging by the amount of recon plane spam, its just the streaks were very lacking and I didn't feel that added anything to the game.
  • Squirrel_trip
    194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited September 2017
    The last CoD i played was BlackOps 1 on Xbox 360. It was a great change for a while, but didn' t make me want another CoD game after that. I think their cartoony Nuke Town map ruined the franchise. The next 3 CoDs after BO1 all had a Nuke Town maps. They took CoD into that direction (cartoon-like maps) and ruined what the first 2 CoDs gave us. CoDWWII sure don't feel like "back to the roots of CoD." CoD can't handle large battles at 60 fps.....

    Spread the word about how truly horrible CoD WWII is and cancel your preorders. Maybe CoD can be great again some day.....
  • Vespervin
    1344 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I would cancel my pre-order because the game is terrible, even by Call of Duty's standards however my wife wants to mess around with it so Activism gets my money once again.
  • BaconRebellion
    2462 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Vespervin wrote: »
    I would cancel my pre-order because the game is terrible, even by Call of Duty's standards however my wife wants to mess around with it so Activism gets my money once again.

    Sadly I may get it as well to mess around with zombies and to have more content on my channel that isnt BF or AC.
  • decimation420x
    392 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield Member
    edited September 2017
    *profanity is not permitted, Neither is referring to others in the community as "scrubs" *
    Post edited by LOLGotYerTags on
Sign In or Register to comment.