Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Call of Duty goes back to WW2

Chris Avelltwo

Scholar
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
678
suggesting that the Japanese code only partially was to blame. I'd say that had the initial brutality and rumors not got around, then even fewer Japanese would have killed themselves.

I agree Bushido was only part of it, and a lot was due to the fear of atrocities, whether those fears were based in fact or not. In any war when you surrender you're putting your life in an enemy's hands, and you don't know if they are going to treat you humanely and honorably, of if you're going to be tortured and killed. I'm sure some Americans who wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor or for some other reason probably did just that to Japanese prisoners, so there would be some basis in fact for Japanese wartime propaganda telling their soldiers not to surrender because Americans were barbarian savages, and since that wartime propaganda was the only information the Japanese soldiers had, why would they doubt it? But the reasons why they wouldn't surrender isn't really the point of this conversation; the fact of the matter is they wouldn't.

BTW, if you've never seen them I'd recommend giving Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima films a watch. Both are about the battle of Iwo Jima and based on true stories, but from opposite points of view. In those films you see both the best and the worst of both sides. There was a part where some Japanese soldiers surrendered, and the American G.I. didn't want to deal with it, so he just killed them. I don't know if that specific part is true, or if Clint Eastwood just put it in regardless, but I'm sure stuff like that did indeed happen, but understandably it is poorly documented.

Anyway, WW2 wasn't as black and white as most people believe, but I really do believe that Axis and Soviet atrocities were far worse than American or British atrocities. I accept that the western allies do have some innocent blood on their hands, but mostly isolated incidents and not systematic like the others were. So that's one reason why you won't see Americans acting as badly in WAW as the other sides, because that was historically the case. And I'm not just saying this because I'm an American.

Also, another reason is that Treyarch is an American studio and Activision is an American publisher, so maybe there was some bias as well. Plus the majority of the target market for this game is Americans so that factors into it too. No one wants to be told their side was wrong or the bad guys. That's probably also the reason you don't see a lot of WW2 games being made in Germany or Japan, because there's no way they could make such a game and be historically accurate about it, without portraying their countries in a negative light, so its easier to just simply not make such a game at all... so they don't... except for that Japanese game about anime tank girls, if you want to count that, I guess.

Personally, I prefer the dark and gritty style Treyarch used when making WAW. This game portrays war more accurately and horrifically than any other game in the COD series. You can gib people into parts, bayonet them, run over them with tanks, light them on fire with a flamethrower... and the character will scream in a realistic manner as it burns to death. This is a far cry from every COD game since then, where there is no longer and gibbing or gore, barely any blood, and no screaming of the characters. When you kill someone nowadays in COD, the character model just slumps over dead with maybe a grunt at best. This is giving the children who play COD a very unrealistic depiction of what war is about. WAW may not have been completely realistic either, but it was closer to the truth.
 

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
7,938
So tl;dr US and allied troops shot those surrendering and prisoners and this in turn led to a fear of capture by the Japanese which in turn made them more reluctant to surrender. This of course would only enrage the US troops further seeing this 'fanaticism' and they'd be even less reluctant to take prisoners!

How cute in dismissing Japanese culture at the time.

The reason they refused surrender was also the reason they were brutal to those who did, they viewed it as a dishonour and treated those that fell into their hands as shit who deserved it.

It was a pattern first witness by Europeans in the Russo-Japanese War, where officers were treated well, but the sailors captured after Tsushima were treated like dirt. Amusingly enough, it was an attitude also applied to their own sailors and conditions on board Japanese ships were terrible compared to other nations.

The Turks faced much the same problem centuries before. They were so used to giving no quarter with Christians, that when they felt like a battle was being lost, they broke and ran for their lives because they expected none to be given to them in return.

The proof is the statistics. The US command was actually annoyed at the lack of prisoners as it was around 1 in 800 at one point which hurt intelligence gathering.

Yes and they also had good reason to want captive Japs. Given the expectation that they'd kill themselves they were given zero training in resisting interrogation. Once in Allied hands they spilled their guts.

I'd say that had the initial brutality and rumors not got around, then even fewer Japanese would have killed themselves.

Initial brutality or their commanders telling them that they'd be treated brutally if they surrendered, and the shock that came when that turned out to be completely false.


But you've already made your mind up, keep doing those mental gymnastics to spin everything in your own paranoid way.

BTW, if you've never seen them I'd recommend giving Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima films a watch. Both are about the battle of Iwo Jima and based on true stories, but from opposite points of view. In those films you see both the best and the worst of both sides. There was a part where some Japanese soldiers surrendered, and the American G.I. didn't want to deal with it, so he just killed them. I don't know if that specific part is true, or if Clint Eastwood just put it in regardless, but I'm sure stuff like that did indeed happen, but understandably it is poorly documented.

Wut?

You recommend movies to learn about history when it's hard enough to get truth out of fucking documentaries?

The entire film medium is compromised. Read books or shut the fuck up.
 

Icymad

Novice
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
25
Personally, I prefer the dark and gritty style Treyarch used when making WAW. This game portrays war more accurately and horrifically than any other game in the COD series. You can gib people into parts, bayonet them, run over them with tanks, light them on fire with a flamethrower... and the character will scream in a realistic manner as it burns to death. This is a far cry from every COD game since then, where there is no longer and gibbing or gore, barely any blood, and no screaming of the characters. When you kill someone nowadays in COD, the character model just slumps over dead with maybe a grunt at best. This is giving the children who play COD a very unrealistic depiction of what war is about. WAW may not have been completely realistic either, but it was closer to the truth.
All Treyarch's COD feature more violence than mainline COD's, BLOPS 3 may be an exception but i don't remember since it's been a while since i played.
 

Chris Avelltwo

Scholar
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
678
Wut?

You recommend movies to learn about history when it's hard enough to get truth out of fucking documentaries?

The entire film medium is compromised. Read books or shut the fuck up.

1) The movie is based on a book, which is non-fiction. The movie probably deviates from it in some respects as movies often do, but its not like there isn't a basis in fact here. But you are absolutely correct that books are a better source of information; it's just that movies are more entertaining and accessible for most people these days.

2) I also think Clint Eastwood is far from the typical people you find in Hollywood. He's more conservative and old fashioned and not some SJW libtard or whatever like most Hollywood people are. In fact, Spike Lee attacked him and called him "racist" for not casting any blacks in these films - which he didn't do because it would have been anachronistic because the military was segregated at the time. I'm not at all saying these films are 100% accurate, but they're probably a lot more accurate than most Hollywood films are.

All Treyarch's COD feature more violence than mainline COD's, BLOPS 3 may be an exception but i don't remember since it's been a while since i played.

It may be, but I never played BLOPS 3 and quite probably never will. BLOPS 2 was the last COD game I've played when it came out 5 years ago. They lost me when they started adding robots and jetpacks and all that sci-fi halo crap. If this WW2 rumor turns out to be true and the game turns out to be good, I might come back to the franchise, but I'm not holding my breath on it. I'm far more interesting in RPGs than FPS games these days anyway.
 

Makabb

Arcane
Shitposter Bethestard
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
11,753
confirmed


3223890-unnamed-2.png
 

Makabb

Arcane
Shitposter Bethestard
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
11,753
Call of Duty returns to its roots with Call of Duty: WWII--a breathtaking experience that redefines World War II for a new gaming generation. Land in Normandy on D-Day and battle across Europe through iconic locations in history’s most monumental war. Experience classic Call of Duty combat, the bonds of camaraderie, and the unforgiving nature of war against a global power throwing the world into tyranny.


Call of Duty: WWII tells the story of an unbreakable brotherhood of common men fighting to preserve freedom in a world on the brink of tyranny. Players enlist in a gritty intense journey through the battlegrounds of war. The campaign features bold, lifelike visuals with the kind of blockbuster cinematic authenticity that only Call of Duty can deliver.


Call of Duty: WWII multiplayer engages players grounded, fast-paced combat across many of World War II's most iconic locations. Players will also enjoy exciting new ways to interact and socialize with their friends and the Call of Duty community.


Call of Duty: WWII's co-operative mode unleashes a new and original story. Play with your friends in this next-level standalone game experience full of unexpected, adrenaline-pumping moments.
 

Makabb

Arcane
Shitposter Bethestard
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
11,753
It's being made by Sledgehammer games, they've made Modern Warfare 3 and Advanced Warfare previously, i'm kind of dissapointed that Infinity Ward, the ones who made the original are not making this.
 

Makabb

Arcane
Shitposter Bethestard
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
11,753
Is it still a modified quake 3 engine?

it would be for the best if it was, because it would have that old gameplay feel

I've done some search and infinite warfare (the last one) is still using at core the quake 3 engine , so it's highy probable the newest one will also.
That's pretty good.


So far this looks like a high d1p contender for me.
 

Trodat

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Dec 17, 2014
Messages
795
Location
Finland
It's being made by Sledgehammer games, they've made Modern Warfare 3 and Advanced Warfare previously, i'm kind of dissapointed that Infinity Ward, the ones who made the original are not making this.

You do know that all of the key members of Infinite Ward and over 30 regular employees quit IW in 2010 to join Respawn Entertainment. That company has nothing do with the times of CoD 2.
 
Self-Ejected

buru5

Very Grumpy Dragon
Patron
Joined
Apr 9, 2017
Messages
2,048
This will be alright if it lets you play as the Nazis in multiplayer. Although I suspect Dino D-Day will still be the better WW2 game.
 

waterdeep

Learned
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
223
Location
Noregr
Watch the campaign be a cinematic, shitty pro-American Band of Brothers ripoff and the multiplayer be filled with crates and microtransactions
 

Orpheo

Barely Literate
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1
Call of Duty : World War II - the nazis developed Jet Pack (feel free to use)

I don't know if there is anything that can help this game. Surely, not Sledgehammer Games studio.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom