Call of Duty: Vanguard Has Designed Multiplayer to Take Liberties

Realistic? The last realistic call of duty i played was the the first game that was on the xbox 360..since then they have hardly ever been what i'd describe as realistic..even call of duty ww2 was more inglorious ***** than realistic...

Looks great. Just from playing the Alpha it’s already infinitely better that Cold War.

Very excited for Battlefield and COD this year!

I get that certain creative liberties need to be taken to make a game fun. But what's the point of making a WW2 game if it's barely going to resemble WW2. Barely any of the characters look like a soldier from that era. It's not unreasonable to expect an attempt at making an authentic experience. COD has stepped so far away from being but arcadey enough to be fun but having realistic assets. Now that COD has thrown any attempt at historical accuracy out of the window, there's nowhere to go for that experience that COD used to offer.

I don't get who on Earth they're trying to appeal to. People who are interested in a game being about WW2 most likely want it to seem somewhat realistic. People who want wackiness and unlimited customisation with female soldiers, probably won't look to a WW2 shooter. These design choices don't make any sense.

@ThroughTheIris56 You know women fought on multiple fronts in WW2, right?

Hahaha! LESS realistic...cold war was an absolute joke

@MFTWrecks The vast majority of soldiers in WW2 were male. Most females who were in the military were in non combat roles, such as medical. Most female combatants would be partisans, and not soldiers in a formal army. The Soviet Union has the highest percentage of female soldiers, but even that was only 3% and most of them were medics. In other countries, the women served as auxillaries, not in front line combat roles.

Women played a massive role in the war effort on both sides, and that should be recognised. However, making up rubbish and pretending that women largely participated in conventional combat, is disingenuous and doesn't honour anyone. It just makes a historical game bad at representing history, for no good reason. I honestly liked the Rosseau in CODWW2, and it's great that there is a female sniper in the campaign for Vanguard, because those ways actually represent women in WW2. Flooding the MP with female soldiers, does not represent women in WW2.

@ThroughTheIris56 I hate to inform you no COD is truly realistic nor completely historically accurate, and they've never tried to be.

Did you know when soldiers got shot in the field of battle they didn't respawn in a safe zone safe from camping snipers? And that not a single conflict was settled by a game of king of the hill?

Get over it. It's a videogame.

Unfortunately it looks like another side step rather than a step forward. MW2019 will still be the best CoD experience until MW2022.

@MFTWrecks the point being is that they are claiming its more realistic..i agree with what you are saying but when the devs have this odd perception of what realism entails then you can understand why people who tune in to see how they have made it more "realistic" are disappointed..i never expect call of duty to be anything more than an arcadey fps set in a ww2/modern/near future setting..but claiming realism...pffftt 🤣

Let's be real, COD isn't about realism.
I mean, how else would they be able to push Micro transactions down people's throats?
Most kids want neon soldiers with flaming weapon skins.

@MFTWrecks I literally prefaced my first comment, with that first sentence I wrote, because I knew that argument would be made if I didn't. Apparently that was a waste of time because you clearly didn't read it.

Thank you very much for making aware that a war game wouldn't be fun if it wasn't entirely realistic and involved being blown to pieces by artillery before seeing the enemy. That is why I obviously favour gameplay not being 100% realistic, so it can be fun. However, flooding the Battle of Okinawa with tons of female US Marines, isn't realistic, and doesn't improve the gameplay whatsover, so is completely pointless and is only detrimental to the game. Do you get my argument?

@Tasuki Unfortunately so. Granted COD's audience has always consisted of kids and teenagers (I was 12 when I started), but I miss when it at least tried to appeal to adults. Too much customisation sometimes really can make a MP worse.

@RawnDawn Would you believe me, if I told you about a time where COD didn't have ridiculous skins, and customisation options that didn't look completely out of place. And the characters actually, (gasp) fit the historical context!

@ThroughTheIris56 It may be pointless to you, but it's not pointless for female players to be able to play as a character they feel better represents themselves in a fictional war fantasy.

@Northern_munkey They added all sorts of realistic elements like destructible environments, so I think THAT realism takes precedence over character avatars being 100% accurate to each front.

No call of duty multiplayer has ever been 'realistic`. Vanguard will be no different to all the others, don't be fooled people.

@ThroughTheIris56 Oh no are you for real?!
I didn't know that! /s
Point is, COD isn't about realism anymore and won't be with them making buck selling skins with bathroom graffiti on it.
Nothing wrong with those skins but realism and COD shouldn't be in the same sentence unless it's in disagreement.

@Tasuki Completely agree. There are games where wacky customisation options are for the better, for example I love Fall Guys for it. But yeah, it's not massively welcome in a series that started off portraying it's setting really well.

@MFTWrecks There's no need to aim to make everyone feel represented. Maybe I'd like to feel represented by having the choice to play as a vegan, atheist, Brit in the battle of Iwo Jima. Those are characteristics that represent me, so the devs should strive to put them in right? No they shouldn't because it's totally unreasonable.

If a female wants to play a game in which they feel their gender is represented, given that the overwhelmingly majority of soldiers throughout history have been men, choosing a war game really is not the smartest pick and they should probably look elsewhere. Besides, the whole point of a historical game is to put you in someone elses shoes, depending on the relevant context. Hence why I wouldn't expect devs to let me a play as a character modeled of my aforementioned characteristics if the setting was Iwo Jima. I would expect to play as a young, male, Christian, American, because that's who most of the Allies there were.

@RawnDawn That is a valid point. Customisation is so much more extensive in COD nowadays, precisely because it can be monetised.

Fun of a game > realism

that said though , its world war - the most boring , dullest , ugliest , blandest, lamest setting of them all . so that kills the fun for me .

@ThroughTheIris56 stop making too much sense. It’s triggering the NPCs. Excellent points though. I’ve said similar things about this, but unfortunately we’re still feeling the fallout from #gamergate and it looks like the media won that battle. I tend to stay away from the games heavily affected by it the best I can in an attempt to maintain some level of sanity, though it is disappointing when it rarely does indeed impact an otherwise great game.

@Tecton217 Aha, cheers dude.In some ways, devs thinking about inclusion can be a good thing, it can attract more players and make games more interesting. But yeah, sometimes it's just done extremely poorly.

@ThroughTheIris56 yeah, as long as it makes sense and isn’t blatantly forced / out of context I’m fine with it… but this trendy new buzzword “inclusion” in and of itself is a forced concept by definition in this scenario, since it requires devs going out of their way and adding something extra they didn’t necessarily think of when designing the game. It’s more like, an upper level corporate guy comes in and says “squeeze xyz into this game SOMEHOW.” That’s what I don’t like, and it’s obvious when they’re forced to do it, probably against their will at times.

@MFTWrecks destructible enviroments? Battlefield 5 has destructible enviroments..buildings collapse etc..call of duty has none of that bar a few scorch marks...i think you need to play them again..

@Jacko11 Really? Are we seeing and playing two completely different games? This Vanguard alpha was a sick joke, yesterday's preview didn't changed my mind at all, so no COD for me this year. But still playing and enjoying Cold War until this day...

@neon-xxiv nope, i’m sure we played the same game. And clearly you have a different opinion, one which I massively disagree with as Cold War was not only a step backwards in terms of campaign which was trash, but the gameplay was incredibly sluggish and heavy and unlike any COD before it. Its like they was trying to be a middle man between feeling like COD with an element of Battlefield. Which failed greatly.

You may say that this makes it unique, I say if it ain’t broke…

Not really sure where you’re coming from in terms of Cold War > Vanguard so far, but you do you.

@Tasuki Lol. You misunderstood my comment.

My point is that war videogames are fantasy settings in multiple ways. They may be based on real conflicts but there are multiple aspects that make them pure fantasy, such as characters, situations, and gameplay elements.

They're meant for fun, not 100% realism.

How many WW2 vets could see through walls and rise from the dead in a safe zone after being gunned down after a 360 no scope death?

@ThroughTheIris56 I'm sorry that a videogame avatar gender triggers you so so hard.

@Northern_munkey One of Vanguard's big selling points is that it includes destructible environments (though not to Battlefield's scale).

You should maybe pay attention to the game being discussed.

@MFTWrecks we were discussing call of duty games in general..cold war was mentioned so vanguard was not the only topic of discussion here..what was the topic is that the devs have said its more realistic than ever before..but its not and i fail to see how it can have destructible enviroments when its using the same modified source engine that its been rolling out for countless iterations of cod now...i love warzone and a few of the other call of dutys but its never going to be realistic...ever...just not going to happen..

@Northern_munkey Thank you. I'm literally the one saying it's not realistic.

Also, I don't care whether you THINK Vanguard has destructible environments, the game literally has them. There are trailers showing it off and articles all over the place about it.

Whatever dude..no need to get all uppety and on your high horse..if you cant handle a simple discussion without getting stressed and resorting to insulting people on here maybe you should take up a different hobby..dont bother replying as i really dont care about your views..

@ThroughTheIris56 i’ve Read all your comments through this thread and I’m impressed with your reason, logic, facts and supporting evidence.

I’d love a more realistic FPS shooter that either focuses on unknown ww2 campaigns or the Korean War, Vietnam or gulf war. Won’t happen and we’ll be stuck in a cycle of ww2 shooter and the future.

I chuckled to myself when I saw the trailer for this COD MP and had to giggle that you could customise your guns. Not sure that was an even an option for a soldier in WW2 due to the lack of materials and resources. Fairly surely the Thompson had a choice of different a magazine, a barrel grip and stock.

@MFTWrecks I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the appeal of historical media. As in, actually feeling authentic to the context it's trying to represent.

@ThroughTheIris56 I'm sorry you think COD is accurate in nearly any manner.

@MFTWrecks Have you ever played a COD game before the PS4? COD WAW was not fully lifelike WW2 simulator, that doesn't mean it didn't at least try to be accurate. All the player avatars represent the demographics of each faction, the soldiers wear uniforms that make them look like actual soldiers, and the used weapons and equipment that would have been used by the men they are based off. Unlike Vanguard, it even wisely omitted the STG-44 (a rifle made in 1944), from the mission in Stalingrad (a battle fought in in 1942/3) As I've said repeatedly said, devs may and often need to take creative liberties to make a game fun to play. COD WAW doesn't play exactly like WW2 was fought, but the assets are what make it a good WW2 game, because it somewhat resembles the context. But the above don't seem to apply much to COD Vanguard, so it makes me wonder what part of it IS actually based off WW2. If you honestly like the aesthetics of the game, power to you. But I'm willing to bet you're not interested in the game because of what it's based off. Granted, I don't think WAW was perfect, Dogs as a killstreak were pretty ridiculous (partly for gameplay reasons as well), but that's nothing compared to RC-XD tanks.

I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain this. If you're not interested in historical games, I don't get why you're arguing about this.

@ThroughTheIris56 And I simply don't get why you still argue COD is historically accurate. It's just not the right series to strive for that. Hasn't been for ages. You're citing ways in which it's inaccurate then mad it's inaccurate. If accuracy is your goal, then playing COD isn't the best option. Period.

@MFTWrecks Compared to newer CODs, older COD games weren't bad for historical accuracy. If you've played any game before Black Ops, you should know that. I agree that CURRENT COD games aren't accurate, and that's my issue. The whole problem is that COD used to be a series you could go to for fun gameplay, which gave a decent depiction of history. I am fully aware it isn't the best option, and it shouldn't be that way.

@Thelegend159 Cheers man! Personally I'd love a Korean War game, or even another shot at Vietnam. I don't mind lots of WW2 games because it's such a vast conflict and there's so many different areas, as long as devs actually utilise them.

I don't mind a bit of customisation to improve gameplay, but yeah it should be done in a semi believable way. Sometimes more isn't always better.

@ThroughTheIris56 i think your responses have been spot on too bud and i dont understand why you keep trying to get through to this miscreant as he/she evidently is only interested in their own oppinion and everybody else be damned..i've given up with it as its giving me a headache having to make sense of his/hers own tail chasing through out this..

@Northern_munkey Cheers man, I appreciate it. I even implied it myself, but I would have given up if I wasn't so stubborn lol.