Call of Duty: WWII is definitely not historically accurate. This is an insult to the realities of global war.

Call of Duty World War II General Discussion

Call of Duty: WWII is definitely not historically accurate. This is an insult to the realities of global war.

[ Edited ]

I'm not exactly amazing with words, so I will keep this nice and simple. I am a gamer who has played since the early 1990's. I have played various Call of Duty games from the "golden age" of gaming, such as Call of Duty 2. I have also played BF1942, as well as other WW2-genre games such as War Thunder, in addition to ArmA 2/3 (and the WW2 version).

 

I am, in short, a World War 2 enthusiast who reads up on military history on a regular basis. This message is simply an expression of what I think about Activision's approach to the World War 2 genre. I'll start by explaining the most blatant error I've seen in the trailer released today.

 

The first and most glaring problem I saw with the trailer today was the fact that they showed an early-war Stuka strafing infantry on the ground. With a 37mm cannon that had twice the rate-of-fire of its real-world counterpart, and far more than its real-world load of 24 rounds (12 per gun). In addition to this, its sound effect is like a small caliber machine gun (.50 or smaller) with a Brrrrt.

 

In reality, it is more like Donk donk donk donk donk. (2.5 shots per second). Cannons are not machine guns. On top of that, why would you waste twenty-four 37mm cannon shells on mere infantry?

 

Those guns are meant to be used on lightly armored vehicles such as halftracks and light tanks such as the M24 Chaffee and M3 Stuarts (yes, Stuarts were still used in 1944 as scout and infantry-suppression tanks), in addition to attacking enemy bases by targeting vital assets (such as fuel tanks, vehicles, and maintenance yards).

 

Going back to the fact that it's an early-war Stuka, the dive sirens are visible on its landing struts - these dive sirens had lost their psychological impact halfway through the war, so the Germans ceased installing them on their Stukas starting with the D model in 1941. The aircraft shown in the trailer is supposed to be a Junker 87 G model based on the 37mm cannons, but in actuality the airplane itself is a Ju-87 B (first mass-produced model) from 1937 with gun pods from 1944 attached to the model.

 

Sledgehammer Games should be embarrassed that a deaf person can tell the difference. That's how blatant the error is.

 

My next problem is Activision's decision to start the story at Normandy as opposed to something that would allow the player to feel more invested in the history of World War II, from start to finish. They could have chosen to start the story from closer to the beginning to allow players to understand the context of World War 2, and its historical implications.

 

Like, say, the British retreat at Dunkirk, France. Imagine that as a tutorial level, complete with period-accurate tanks such as Frency Army Somua S35's engaging in the defense of Dunkirk to allow the British to escape the Germans. Imagine yourself as a player in the middle of that situation as you evacuate to the ships at the beach, how would you feel?

 

I, for the record, would feel like I'd want to utterly and completely eviscerate the Krauts for that humiliation. However, it seems that the developers chose a very cookie-cutter and generic story. The Normandy scene they depicted still doesn't measure up to what I remember experiencing in Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. (WHERE ARE THOSE ***** BANGALORES?!)

 

Honestly, there is a tremendous amount of potential content that Activision could have done for Call of Duty: WWII, and they could have done it in chronological order, and made each game focus on different services such as the British for the Western Theater, the Americans for the Pacific Theater, and quite possibly even do a Free French campaign for Normandy to Berlin:

 

  1. British Retreat from France, North Africa, and Italian Theaters. (Setting up for a sequel such as, say, "Call of Duty: Road to Berlin")
  2. Normandy to Berlin.
  3. Pacific Theater from start to finish.

In reality, Activision has missed a great deal of potential with this product to make it a truly gripping story that would draw today's young'uns into the world of World War II with historical accuracy and objective presentation of the facts. All they see is: "Oh, we haven't done a WW2 game in a long time. With that other war game gaining traction, we should totally follow suit by reviving the WW2 genre. We'll be raking in the dosh!"

 

Instead, we have a game that "glorifies and trivializes" World War 2. You can say it's about the "personal sacrifice" all you want, but the fact that Sledgehammer failed to understand the purpose of doing any World War 2 representations tells me that they do not understand a single whit about what "personal sacrifice" means in the context of World War 2.

 

Put another way, "If you cannot tell the story's world accurately to your audience, their perceptions of your story will become skewed and lose its meaning."

 

As an aside, as a tank combat enthusiast, I do appreciate the appearance of tanks in the trailer but I dislike the way it was done. Knowing the CoD series, they will still be just set-pieces to "enable" a hackneyed version of the war hero story. My comrades in the War Thunder Community Discord have found multiple problems with the trailer:

 

  • The Panzer IV, presumably an Ausf. F2 model, that was presented in the trailer uses a 75mm KwK 40 cannon, which is one of the earliest high-velocity tank cannons to hit the battlefield. Most F2 models would have been superseded by 1944 with the PzIV Ausf. G or the Pz IV Ausf. H (which began production in 1943) which had schurzen skirts and anti-magnetic zimmerit coating. The biggest problem with the way this tank was presented in the trailer was that its gun appeared to have equivalent power to an 88mm cannon that is found on the Tiger I. When a successful ammo-rack hit occurs with an M4 Sherman, they do not typically explode outright as if having had a 500 pound bomb dropped directly into the commander's hatch. They typically either A) blow up with the turret flying off, B) Become roasted as though in a pressure cooker with jets of flame shooting out of its hatches, or C) the ammo simply burns, allowing the crew to mostly escape alive. This is also accounting for the fact that the Germans possessed Armor-Piercing High-Explosive shells, which were AP shells with HE filler.
  • The King Tiger, which is depicted at 0:40 seconds into the trailer. We need to remember how few King Tigers were actually operational during Normandy - less than 25, deployed by the 1st Company of the 503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion. It should be treated with the gravity it deserves.
  • Speaking of gravity, what's with the weird tank physics? The way they depicted the King Tiger's movement is incorrect. It was actually far less maneuverable than that, because it used the same engine as the Panther tanks (which were lighter than the KT). The transmission and track systems were prone to breakdowns, and the King Tiger was not reliable enough to be used in the manner shown (even for a moment) in the trailer. And it couldn't pivot worth a ***** without risking a track breakage. The Germans had to baby them, quite the opposite from their majestic titles of "King Tiger".

All in all, while I appreciate Activision's return to the WW2 genre, they blew it. They showed us a trailer that was simply "modern warfare" game with a 1944-era skin wrapped around it. It shows a disgusting lack of research on their part. Their not-so-insignificant errors in historical accuracy attests to at least that much.

 

Additionally, AI programming and scenario programming in general in the game industry has declined dramatically since the early 2000's, with a shift from "lets achieve the desired effect as best as possible" to a mindset that focuses on "let's achieve the closest desired effect as cheaply and efficiently as possible", which results in a lot of dumb game design decisions in implementation. It results in a game that is far less satisfying to play. An example - Ghost Recon: Wildlands.

 

I am utterly disappointed. I'll probably be waiting 10 years for this game to hit the $5 bargain bin on Steam before I even seriously consider buying it. This is simply another game centered on the 'Merica! wankfest that has been going on since Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, easily one of the last good CoD games in my book.

 

For once, I'd like to see a war game that treats the subject matter with the respect it deserves. No sensationalization, no BS, no cutting corners, none of this "rule of cool" jacknapery. Just straight facts set in grounded reality.

 

-NKato

Level 1
Likes: 1
Posts: 3
Registered: ‎26-04-2017
30 REPLIES

Re: Call of Duty: WWII is definitely not historically accurate. This is an insult to the realities of global war.

in reply to NKato

You do realize that this is a trailer, and also there was a lot of cutting.It could have shown different years. They also never said they were going to start at d-day! Also, this is no insult! Putting technology at a historically innaccurate timeframe is not insulting the realities of global war. You sound like an idiot shouting  "It is an insult if they are changing a little something to add more action!" Go leave video games if you cannot recognize that they aim for a mix of historical accuracy AND fun.

Level 1
Likes: 4
Posts: 2
Registered: ‎26-04-2017

Re: Call of Duty: WWII is definitely not historically accurate. This is an insult to the realities of global war.

[ Edited ]
in reply to EldunarIan

The presser that came out with the trailer stated that it would be starting with Normandy.

"Call of Duty: WWII will take place between 1944 and 1945, Sledgehammer says." - Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/heres-our-first-look-at-call-of-duty-wwii-1794671246)

Additionally, you're only making yourself sound stupid to people who are history buffs. Putting historically inaccurate technologies in the context of the war is an insult to its reality.

It's really simple - knowing Activision, they'll crank out lots of DLC and other random junk that were actually only prototypical in nature, and were never really fielded in battle. In addition to this, the fact that they used a Junker 87 B Stuka (1937) fitted with 37mm cannon gun pods from the Junker 87 G (1943) is a significant error. In addition to this, as I've already explained, the gunpods themselves shoot with a rate of fire similar to .50 cal browning machine guns, when in actuality they have a rate of fire of 160 Rounds Per Minute (2.5 shots per second), and had only 12 rounds in each gun pod.

How did I notice this? Look at the shots of the Stukas as they fly to the camera. You'll notice the dive-sirens on the landing struts. The Ju87 G does not have those. Additionally, the Ju87 G does not have a massive air intake on the bottom of the fuselage as shown in the trailer.

Ju87G, note the gun pods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-655-5976-04,_Russland,_Sturzkampfbomber_Ju...

Ju87 B: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/ju87b-1.jpg

The Ju87 in the CoD WW2 trailer, note the dive sirens propellers on the landing struts, and the massive air intake that are characteristic of the Ju87 B from 1937: http://i.imgur.com/DwecCzk.jpg

 

What Sledgehammer did was take a 1937 dive bomber and stick guns from 1944 onto it. Which was never done in actual practice in World War 2.

This is essentially Sledgehammer not doing their technical research on WW2 technology and their variations between models.

Level 1
Likes: 1
Posts: 3
Registered: ‎26-04-2017

Re: Call of Duty: WWII is definitely not historically accurate. This is an insult to the realities of global war.

in reply to NKato

NKato, we are the only ones that care about historical accuracy, apparently. Watch my topic posted about an hour earlier: https://community.callofduty.com/t5/Call-of-Duty-World-War-II/Why-isn-t-call-of-duty-ww2-historicall...

Level 3
Likes: 0
Posts: 4
Registered: ‎26-04-2017

Re: Call of Duty: WWII is definitely not historically accurate. This is an insult to the realities of global war.

in reply to NKato

NKato wrote:

The presser that came out with the trailer stated that it would be starting with Normandy.

"Call of Duty: WWII will take place between 1944 and 1945, Sledgehammer says." - Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/heres-our-first-look-at-call-of-duty-wwii-1794671246)

Additionally, you're only making yourself sound stupid to people who are history buffs. Putting historically inaccurate technologies in the context of the war is an insult to its reality.

It's really simple - knowing Activision, they'll crank out lots of DLC and other random junk that were actually only prototypical in nature, and were never really fielded in battle. In addition to this, the fact that they used a Junker 87 B Stuka (1937) fitted with 37mm cannon gun pods from the Junker 87 G (1943) is a significant error. In addition to this, as I've already explained, the gunpods themselves shoot with a rate of fire similar to .50 cal browning machine guns, when in actuality they have a rate of fire of 160 Rounds Per Minute (2.5 shots per second), and had only 12 rounds in each gun pod.

How did I notice this? Look at the shots of the Stukas as they fly to the camera. You'll notice the dive-sirens on the landing struts. The Ju87 G does not have those. Additionally, the Ju87 G does not have a massive air intake on the bottom of the fuselage as shown in the trailer.

Ju87G, note the gun pods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-655-5976-04,_Russland,_Sturzkampfbomber_Ju...

Ju87 B: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/ju87b-1.jpg

The Ju87 in the CoD WW2 trailer, note the dive sirens propellers on the landing struts, and the massive air intake that are characteristic of the Ju87 B from 1937: http://i.imgur.com/DwecCzk.jpg

 

What Sledgehammer did was take a 1937 dive bomber and stick guns from 1944 onto it. Which was never done in actual practice in World War 2.

This is essentially Sledgehammer not doing their technical research on WW2 technology and their variations between models.


False.

It does not mean they "didn't do their research". It means it's a video game. And they decided that they needed to adjust things to fit the theatrics and mood they were going for. 

If you "just can't stand it" , don't but it. It would be annoying as he'll to sit by you while playing. "That gun didn't shoot like that, it was 3 decibels louder. That grenade didn't look like that, it was one shade darker. "

It's a video game. Not a documentary. 

 

Activision Ambassador
Likes: 9709
Posts: 13118
Registered: ‎21-03-2013

Re: Call of Duty: WWII is definitely not historically accurate. This is an insult to the realities of global war.

in reply to gotsomestars
This kind of stuff drives me crazy.

Story is critical with a Video Campaign. When putting it in a Historical setting, its important to get the details right, but minutiae like we've seen discussed the past few days is just silly. Wait till the MP comes out and they change the RPM on an AR.... which makes sense from a balancing perspective but may not be 100% historically accurate.

Nitpicking like this drives me nuts. It's the same as people who excoriate a movie based on a book for not having every little detail the book had. It's people trashing a Star Wars movie because one character had the wrong color lightsaber. It's crazy and it shows that people don't understand storytelling or the art of creating a mood or feeling.


"You ain't gotta like me, you just mad,cause I tell it how it is, and you tell it how it might be" - Victory
Activision Ambassador
Likes: 13886
Posts: 23629
Registered: ‎02-09-2011

Re: Call of Duty: WWII is definitely not historically accurate. This is an insult to the realities of global war.

in reply to NKato

You realize it's a game right? Just like other entertainment,  some things are tweaked for the story. If you want historically 100% accurate maybe you should be watching documentaries instead of playing games. 

At no point anywhere in the trailer did I see "everything shown is 100% accurate". So there's no reason to expect it to be.

Activision Ambassador
Likes: 9709
Posts: 13118
Registered: ‎21-03-2013

Re: Call of Duty: WWII is definitely not historically accurate. This is an insult to the realities of global war.

in reply to gotsomestars
Honestly, when we're talking about World War 2, it's my personal opinion today with the rapidly declining numbers of WW2 veterans alive with each passing year that we need to treat the time period with the respect and accuracy it deserves.

Call of Duty: WWII fails to accomplish this, and will continue to fail to do so. At least the movie "Fury" was better than this by actually doing their research.
Level 1
Likes: 1
Posts: 3
Registered: ‎26-04-2017

Re: Call of Duty: WWII is definitely not historically accurate. This is an insult to the realities of global war.

in reply to NKato
You are judging a lot based on a 2 minute trailer.

The importance of telling a Story isn't in the minute details of RPM of weapons or what kind of ordnance was fired, it's in retelling the context of history, the stories of the people involved, and the story's place within the bigger picture of the War.

This is not a true story. They aren't telling the Story of Easy Company here, they are telling a made-up story set against the backdrop of historical events. I am sure they did their research. I am sure they put the time in.

It's a trailer.


"You ain't gotta like me, you just mad,cause I tell it how it is, and you tell it how it might be" - Victory
Activision Ambassador
Likes: 13886
Posts: 23629
Registered: ‎02-09-2011

Re: Call of Duty: WWII is definitely not historically accurate. This is an insult to the realities of global war.

in reply to NKato

NKato wrote:

Call of Duty: WWII fails to accomplish this, and will continue to fail to do so. At least the movie "Fury" was better than this by actually doing their research.

I could've replied directly to the op but I think it's easier just to reply to this one comment ...

 

So you're claiming fury was more historically accurate? the whole premise of the film was basicaly what to show the realities of a tank crew in ww2...

The tank fury in the film was a easy8 as were others in the tank platoon..

 

Theres a scene where it goes head to head against a german tiger... yet wierdly none of fury's shell or those of the other easy8's penetrated the tigers armor, which in reality would;ve easily happened at the ranges depicted in the film. Heck one direct hit from any of the easy 8s wouldbt taken it out of commision.

 

None of the joint tank/infantry scenes on either side were accurately depicted, and don't even get me started on the whole germans rushing headlong directly tanks while us soldiers al stodd around happily firing from the hip.

 

Fury like codwwii is an entertainment media NOT an exact carbon copy historically accurate in every aspect documentary.

 

 

Level 75
Likes: 4297
Posts: 15726
Registered: ‎31-05-2011

Studios