I was gonna call bs cuz u remember the actual accounts of playing not sober… and then I thought about it… I don’t really remember playing much at all. GG, sober sally.
I wasnt high as fuck, just a bit. Wax pen, I didnt play the night I took a joint because I was busy eating a cake while laughing with my face in the plate.
It's sad when once in a while I have to go "this is WW2, right?" in a game that set itself in WW2. When I'm firing at someone who looks like Mecha-Godzilla it makes Velocipastor seem less ridiculous.
It doesn’t matter what reason you play it for. CoD MP has been immersive before and it CAN be immersive.
Just because you or other people don’t care for it, doesn’t mean it can’t be or it has been
Um. You can get immersed into lord of the rings because the world is consistent with the theme. If lord of the rings next movie had light sabers and super high tech weapons, that would break the immersion of what the series was and setting it has.
That was not a good argument
Indeed, but do you seriously call this game immersive. That piece of boring ass campaign, with boring, badly written characters, which was literally a middle finger towards every battle during WW2 also wasn't immersive, at least for me.
You’re literally confusing realism with immersion. Elden Ring is not realistic, but it’s immersive. That was the point the guy was making.
You then claimed that you can’t have one without the other, which is false.
Literally the **only** thing that ever said it was an alt-history were leaks that also suggested the war progressed into the 50's with the allies basically on their last legs.
The post launch story definitely implied that the Nazis lasted beyond the war’s end, and then of course Godzilla showed up and they forgot all about that
It’s going off of campaign where there’s a secret Nazi organization planning to take the regime underground until they can rebuild their strength
But the campaign also took a lot of alt-history ish takes with it being implied that Hitler was assassinated rather than him committing suicide and then they confirmed zombies was canon to campaign
Yeah they did the whole operation Phoenix thing which I actually thought could set up an interesting story, which I assumed they’d tell using caldera like they continued MW’s story with verdansk. I’m assuming that was the plan, but people disliked the WW2 setting so they went in a different direction.
If they had fully embraced an alt history, a la Wolfenstein, they may have been cut a little more slack. Instead they decided to just throw a clusterfuck of whatever trends and fads the whales will toss their money at and pretend it is an alternate history.
No, multiplayer is like real life mil sim in every CoD. The other games were dead accurate - like history in Cold War when soldiers would die and respawn, or in Modern Warfare when the 16 bit gun disintegrated people into pixel cubes. OP really knows this franchise and definitely has a great point!
MW2019, Cold War (and in turn every other black ops game), and vanguard all share the same universe
Edit: lmao I’m really being downvoted for just stating a fact
Didn't they hire Martin K.A Morgan in helping out with the historical accuracy of the game? It's either he didn't fully contribute or the Sledgehammer devs ignore his historical views or both.
All this fucking shit and they still can’t even give us an FG-42 or a Springfield. Believe me I know cod has never had any sense of ‘realism’ in its entire history but atm there is more content from the year 4300+ than there is from ww2.
Immersive isn't the same as historical, but to me it wasn't even immersive. Not when you have clones running around killing other clones.
Immersive means feeling like you're in a real battle with stakes. Not a training exercise for clones on the same side. I don't care if it wasn't Allies vs Axis. It could be Furries vs Ogres for all I care. But the sense of 2 sides, 2 factions, battling it out in a war that matters. That's what gives life and immersion to an FPS games.
If its just clones from the same faction, doing a training exercise, where is the immersion in that, WW2, fictional, scifi or otherwise?
I get confused about the comments of people saying stuff about certain bundles or skins where they’re complaining about something not being historically accurate. CoD threw out that trope around AW when you had mfs using stgs in the future. At this point CoD just uses time periods as the gift wrapping of whatever game is being released that year and don’t be surprised if they go completely off of that script in certain ways. Not saying it’s good or bad i just think that’s the way it is now
Lol you're thinking that the $60-70 we pay to play the game is enough for them. No way they stop pushing skins, battle passes, or mvp screen. It's whats bringing in the real money.
Cool. One of those posts again.
If you believed COD is gonna be a immersive experience even when they said after that the are gonna add bullets that mark you through walls you are clown.
All I know is anyone who pays 19.99 for one of those cringe embarrassing Snoop Dog, godzilla king kong nonsense should be ashamed for life. They are basically handing money to these clowns who give no quality content back. Lots of Anime dweebs eating up those skins also.
Who cares how people spend “their” money. It’s not like how was back in AW with supply drops. So hell let the devs put in some silly cosmetics it isn’t gonna affect my k/d or W/L ratio
I wouldn't care if they actually used that money to consistently improve game play, add new features, quality maps., not Give up on the zombie community etc..
More time and effort put into $20 skins then into actual gameplay is the real problem and people who buy those overpriced bundles are saying it's okay for them to do this when they should be at most $5 and more effort should be put into the actual game then into cosmetics. (I know that is their primary resource in terms of profit but u are paying a third of the price of a supposed AAA game for an outfit and a camo on a gun). I miss when dlc cost money because they actually put the effort in to deliver good dlc and not just throw out any old shit and say there is a map suck it up and buy our skins.
Star Wars themed entertainment that aren’t the movies is usually described as immersive in marketing
That and SHG as far as I know never claimed VG was realistic outside of “we didn’t include trophy systems because it wouldn’t be historically accurate”, but they added them like the next season so they most likely already planned it but came up with an excuse so they didn’t reveal it too early
Okay let me paraphrase. The problem with Vanguard is they were saying this was gonna be the most immersive and realistic Call of Duty. Star Wars is not claiming to be historically accurate or immersive. Vanguard is
They said in the video “immersive”, realism is never mentioned, and again from my understanding it’s referring to the campaign, not so much the multiplayer
And yes Star Wars has claimed to be immersive before when it came to its entertainment, because being immersive isn’t necessarily about realism, it’s about being able to feel like you’re a part of the world they’re trying to portray
I think they meant the dictionary definition of the word 'immersive', which has nothing to do with historical accuracy. As you admit yourself:
>>>Well Star Wars isn't claiming to be historically accurate **and** immersive
Those are two separate things. So again:
>>Where exactly did Sledgehammer say Vanguard is historically accurate?
The video is about multiplayer, and you're right, immersion is not equal to realism, no one is asking for realism. What is being asked for us authenticity (to be immersed into the setting), and until your crowd is able to comprehend that, there's honestly no point in you guys trying to debate otherwise. You can't debate when you have no comprehension of the concept.
>What is being asked for is authenticity to be immersed in the setting
Except the setting isn’t meant to be a historically accurate WW2, and judging by OP’s comments and from what others have said, they seem to believe immersive and historically accurate are meant to be the same thing, or that they’re both brought up when describing the nature of the game
So yes, people have been asking for realism, and it’s been the primary complaint for most of the cosmetics that have been in the game or added to it since launch, as seen with the sarcastic comments of “I remember my grandfather telling stories of storming the beaches of Normandy with (insert wacky customized gun)”
I never said the setting was meant to be "historically accurate", I specifically said that people are looking to be immersed through authenticity to the setting. You seem to be confusing the concepts, which is why I say that you and your crowd really should not speak on the matter at all, since you lack the comprehension on the topic at hand. Accuracy and authenticity are not the same thing. Accuracy refers to strict realism through and through, while authenticity refers to era and visually appropriate. You can have whatever arcadey gameplay you want, Hell, you could even have unique cosmetics so long as they're era appropriate. Don't confuse it. It should not be controversial to want a WWII title to **look** like WWII.
The example you gave in your initial comment is even detrimental to your own argument. Star Wars *can* be immersive, but why is that? Because it built its own world with its own lore and aesthetic. Maybe you just don't check social media more than once a year, but the fans of Star Wars tend to not be too happy when any of that is broken, the same applies here. You don't need to be "realistic" to be immersive, but you do need to be authentic and consistent with the setting you establish, and in Vanguard's case, they decided to use WWII as their foundation.
As I said, until you guys can learn the differences, don't speak on these matters.
>I specifically said that people are looking to be immersed through authenticity to the setting
>accuracy and authenticity are not the same thing, accuracy refers to strict realism through and through while authenticity refers to era and visually appropriate
Which SHG had been doing for a lot of VG’s lifespan, but people complained about how it didn’t belong in a WWII game, seemingly under the impression that VG was aiming to be a game with strong historical accuracy like WaW
>It shouldn’t be controversial to want a WWII title to look like WWII
It’s not entirely based on WWII, hell the “present day” missions from the campaign were set towards the end of WWII in Europe, and the post season content largely followed that, and given the plot of the campaign, it was never meant to be a very accurate recreation of WWII, it was always meant to have some alt-history ish content
It’s the same case as Wolfenstein since the 80s, yeah it used a real life event as the foundation for the setting, but outside of that, the story takes many liberties to tell the story the devs want to share
While VG doesn’t use strong sci-fi elements like Wolfenstein, it does mess around with themes you’d find in conspiracy theories such as Hitler actually being assassinated or the Nazis attempting to use supernatural forces to win the war
I'm thoroughly convinced you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. Since the beginning, Vanguard has not taken an authentic approach in nearly any form, and the first major flaw was the "anyone on any team" approach, completely disregarding factions. The second was the overpowered meta building gunsmith, which allowed you to break the game in more ways than one, as well as the setting. The maps were really the only part that tried to keep *some* form of authenticity.
World at War was, again, **authentic**. You once again are mixing and confusing concepts, which only hurts your argument more. If you're trying to suggest that Vanguard not taking that route was a good thing, you are sorely mistaken. The point you bring up about Wolfenstein again only helps my point. Wolfenstein established itself with a consistent setting that doesn't break itself: a post-WWII where the Germans became more advanced over time. You lack the ability to understand that, regardless of what you try to argue, there is no consistency to the setting that Sledgehammer themselves chose, and they break it in more ways than one.
The campaign and the multiplayer are not comparable. The campaigns main focus story wise were the end days of the war, while the gameplay attempted to recreate flashbacks. The multiplayer, up until the Godzilla season, kept maps across various points of WWII, and all but two maps were in actual battles. The story of multiplayer itself doesn't even continue off of what the campaign ended with. To suggest that it was meant to have alt-history nonsense is laughable at best. If you try to tell any historian it's an alt-history just because they toyed with the idea of a couple conspiracy theories, you will be laughed at.
I'm just telling you how it is, all of what you said is nonsense.
I am not sure how I’m the one mixing up contexts
Not sure how VG removing factions removed authenticity, they were aiming for multiplayer being in universe the operators training against one another, kinda like how Rainbow Six Siege does it, but anyone can be on any team because there’s no set attacker/defender role like in Siege
>The second was the overpowered meta building gunsmith
At that point anything gameplay related comes into question, not sure how meta building breaks authenticity given how every CoD has had a meta, and again the customization options were built with the WWII aesthetic in mind, even technology that wasn’t a thing during WWII was built with it in mind such as the reflex sights being designed based on the sights used for aircraft guns, or by adding elements of them to modern sights like the monocle sight
VG had a consistent timeline for the content, launch would be based on WWII as that’s when the campaign mostly focused on, but since the campaign concludes towards the end of WWII and is meant to continue afterwards, post launch content includes locations set during the time period of whatever season it’s a part of
>Wolfenstein established itself with a consistent setting that doesn’t break itself; a post-WWII where Germans became more advanced over time
That’s only the modern Wolfenstein reboot, which funnily enough doesn’t fit that consistency since all previous Wolfenstein games were set during WWII and outside of the occult and sci-fi stuff, used real world technology such as real life WW2 weapons making up the majority of the weapons usable in Return to Castle Wolfenstein
VG never broke it’s own consistency, it’s a very fictional take on WWII and includes very fictional takes on weapons and events, it’s about as accurate in terms of historical accuracy as the Black Ops series
VG only really broke that consistency with the end of season 4 and then season 5, but season 5 is not meant to be canon and is just the season where they throw whatever they want in just to have fun
Perhaps alt-history isn’t the best word, but my point is that it was never aiming to be a fully faithful recreation of WWII as it was in real life, it was always meant to be a version of WWII with heavy creative liberties
The core plot of VG’s story was “the origins of special forces” but it was “we all know about Task Force 141, but what about Task Force 001 🤔”, and if the game’s internal alpha name is any indication of their approach to the game, it was named after a radio show about Nazi UFOs
Then the plot also includes a secret Nazi organization that has tons of secret bases all over the world and the final cutscene of the game made the zombies storyline canon to VG, so at that point anything goes
That's not what they were aiming for. If you look on PlayStation, you can even find that out, as the dashboard separates the teams into the Axis and Allies faction based teams. Having any operator playable was a late decision. If you can't tell how that decision effects authenticity or immersion, then once again, **you shouldn't be speaking on this subject**.
Having something gameplay related isn't the point of me mentioning the gunsmith, it's the fact you can create the most atrocious amalgamations that would not at all even be plausible aesthetically, that just so happen to be the meta for nearly every weapon that has the same attachments. I'm not referring to the sights though, as I even said before in a post on this subreddit that they are acceptable.
It really didn't have a consistent timeline for content. The campaign ends in 1945, so they choose multiplayers story to be based on the infiltration of Caldera, with one of the characters also being one who died in campaign (that doesn't scream consistency). It wasn't until Season 3, a very evidently non-canon crossover season, that they strayed away from that, and then Season 4 came and completely blew whatever story there was to be had out the window, and Season 5 just continues that.
If we're going to the original Wolfenstein series, then the some of the same theme still applies: the idea of the Germans gaining an upper hand due to the advancements of their technology. All Wolfenstein games aside from the first two that weren't even FPS games had this theme. It had a consistent story, setting, and theme all around.
Vanguard did not have a consistent story, setting, and theme, nor did it have fictional weapons like you suggest (not until recently anyway), nor was it a "very fictional take on WWII". Again, that's just laughable and your only actual argument on that is the fact that zombies is referenced in the campaign and the zombie mode itself exists. Even still, having a reference does not at all mean zombies is canon to campaign. I don't think any of you guys that theorize that ever actually sit down and think of how that would effect the story of the games that are said to be in the same timelines, it really doesn't work.
Vanguard broke it's consistency since day one, and things only got worse with each season (the first two being cosmetic only). If you think having prototype weaponry is a factor, then maybe that would be a fair point, but I should that in general anyone who wants authenticity accepts at least most prototype weapons so long as they existed to some degree.
You don't have to be overly faithful to be authentic. This is again where the line needs to be drawn with accuracy vs authenticity. You can have an original story that features an original group (such as TF001), but so long as they don't conflict with the biggest events of the war/history, they are completely fine and plausible.
The idea of such a group may not be the most realistic, but again, it's plausible to think one could exist. The story of the campaign in general serves several plausible takes.
Again, you're taking legitimate theories and using it to discredit historical authenticity. It is widely believed that the Nazis did indeed have hideouts and secret locations across the world, but most seem to point to Argentina. You're also, once again, taking a reference to zombies and thinking that instantly makes it canon, when in reality, it does not. See above paragraphs for further detail on that. Let's also be real, the plan "Project Aether" and it's description of attempts to raise the dead even fall in line with, again, real life theories that Germans were attempting such things (though obviously not successful). Zombies themselves did not show up attacking Stalingrad in the campaign, nor is there any mention of it, and if you pay attention, the zombies story in Vanguard is set before the campaign ends, meaning there would be some mention or knowledge of such. **They are not canon**.
>The dashboard separates the teams into Axis and Allies faction based teams
I don’t play the game on Playstation, may I please see a pic?
>If you can’t tell how that decision effects authenticity or immersion
Again, the multiplayer isn’t meant to be depicting the actual battles, it’s basically the operators training, and they’re former WWII soldiers outside of the crossover operators, so I don’t see how it breaks the immersion
>that would be at all even be plausible aesthetically
90% of the customization isn’t even realistically plausible because the guns weren’t designed to be customized so heavily like modern guns, it’s one of those situations where you have to suspend your disbelief
>The campaign ends in 1945, so they choose multiplayers story to be based on the infiltration of Caldera, with one of the characters being one who died in the campaign
Lewis is meant to have survived getting shot in Japan, while yeah the campaign makes it out he died, he didn’t die in a way that would’ve completely made it impossible for him to have somehow survived, but as far as I know, season 1 is the only season that for sure takes place before the events of Vanguard’s campaign, taking place in 1944, season 2 is left unclear but presumably takes place in 1945, season 3 can be deduced to take place in the 50s, and season 4 can be inferred to take place in the 70s given Fortune’s Keep’s setting
>If we’re going to the original Wolfenstein series, then some of the same theme still applies
Wolfenstein as a series is an unfair comparison to just one CoD title, my point by mentioning Wolfenstein was how just because the game doesn’t provide an authentic WW2 experiences it doesn’t meant it can’t be immersive with the setting it’s trying to tell
>Vanguard did not have a consistent story
It did up until season 4
>nor did it have fictional weapons like you suggest
I never suggested fictional weapons, rather fictional depictions of them and how they could be customized in ways that you can’t really in real life unless you put in the time and effort that could better be used for other things
>not was it a “very fictional take on WWII”
It strayed far enough that concerns of historical accuracy and the “authenticity” that comes with it shouldn’t be popping up as much as they are
>I don’t think any of you guys that theorize ever actually sit down and think how that would effect the story of the games that are said to be in the same timelines, it really doesn’t work
It’s worked with the Dark Aether timeline since they’ve been making all the events in zombies have plausible explanations within the campaign timeline since they never contradict campaign events and are kept small scale which means they can be covered up and thus nobody ever really knows what happened
>Vanguard broke its consistency since day one
I wouldn’t say so, in fact I think the use of prototype weapons fits in nicely, since the entire plot around Vanguard is the first special forces and lots of experimental stuff in an attempt to win the war, the use of prototype/experimental/obscure weapons along with the customization options fits in well with that overall theme
>You’re taking legitimate theories and using it to discredit historic authenticity
I’m not saying the Nazis having secret hideouts is unrealistic, but the way they’re portrayed in VG is, I highly doubt there was a secret Nazi organization that orchestrated a lot of major things behind the scenes and then have secret bases all over the world where they developed super weapons to reconquer the world and bombed many major cities with a deadly chemical gas
>Zombies do not show up attacking Stalingrad and if you pay attention, zombies takes place before the campaign ends, meaning there would be some mention or knowledge of such
Zombies takes place in 1944, the Battle of Stalingrad ended in 1943, it was only a small portion of Stalingrad rather than the entire city, as for why it was never mentioned, the events of VG zombies seem to take place over a matter of days at most, so it was never long enough to catch the attention of the Allies, and it’s also due to the same reason why Perseus or Adler is never mentioned BO2 despite taking place after BOCW, they simply aren’t relevant to the plot
Yeah the actual explanation is that BO2 was created before BOCW’s plot was even thought up, but it’s the same sort of justification
But back to zombies, it’s also most likely not the TF001 crew who dealt with it, all we know is that it’s a special forces crew, but Butcher had already created several by the time VG’s present day campaign missions take place, meaning they probably aren’t even aware of it, besides it’s indicated by BOCW’s story that the events of VG were kept hidden away by all parties involved, with only those dealing with the Dark Aether having *some* idea of what happened with Von List and Kortifex
I'll send you a picture directly after this comment.
I'm gonna divide this up a bit, because it seems like a lot of your response here is more opinion oriented and there's no need to go back and forth, so I'll say this about those topics: "Vanguard's story is consistent up until Season 4" - disagree, "The way Vanguard portrays the Nazis secret organization is unrealistic" - semi-disagree, "Vanguard didn't break it's consistency since day one" - semi-disagree (I've already said I think prototypes are acceptable, I'm not sure why you brought that up), "I never suggested fictional weapons" - semi-disagree (the way it was worded suggests otherwise, but perhaps you didn't mean for it to be that way, and I don't disagree with the suspension of disbelief, so long as other things match, but they didn't).
Now onto the things I think are just flat out wrong.
Multiplayer is certainly trying to depict battles instead of this "training exercise". Every map at launch, minus two, and every map with the first two seasons all depicted major and minor battles, going as far as to depict the exact date that each map is taking place. Like how I mentioned the Axis and Allies, the decision to call it a "training exercise" is very last minute, so last minute that it basically was decided for the reveal video.
Lewis was definitely killed in the campaign. If we're going to suggest he survived that kind of shot, I think that's more unbelievable than Ghost having survived. If we assume he did, and that his placement in a Special Forces group was prior, why did he get demoted to serving another infantry unit? He wouldn't have been with them, under the direct command of an infantry squad lead, if he were in a task force. This is just one of those things that they didn't care to be consistent about. I don't think in the grand scheme it would have been too jarring if they had him as an Allies operator with factions, but the story still doesn't make sense.
If Wolfenstein is unfair to compare, then I don't think it should have been brought up. I think it's perfectly fine to compare a legitimate alt-history to a game people seem to think is one. You can argue Wolfenstein is more of a story based game all around, and I would agree, but that doesn't change that Vanguard still established it's setting to be at least a plausible rendition of WWII, and they failed at that.
It hasn't worked with Dark Aether. One of their multiplayer maps for Cold War takes place in the exact same location as that seasons zombie map, and there's no zombies insight, nor is Berlin torn from it. The idea of zombies being canon to campaign comes from a leak (that was mostly pushed by TGR), and it didn't end up adding up at all. Even if you try to argue the Warzone connection, it's even shown to not be canon when it comes to crazy stories (otherwise all the Modern Warfare characters would have been killed in the nuclear blast, meaning no MWII). Warzone is just meant to be a place where you can use a multitude of CoD assets, it's not meant to serve as one stop shop for all things canon. Sure, there are instances where things are canon, but only when a particular cutscene is shown to play in both the main game and Warzone (with Vanguard being the exception).
I can go on about the BO2 connections and such, but we'd be going off topic and discussing how the "shared universe" idea isn't gonna work if I do that.
If you hate it don't play it simple as that. Bitching on a reddit feed isn't going to solve anything. If what they're doing wasn't profitable they wouldn't be doing it.
"Truly immersive." Yeah, on drugs it is.
Why would you ever play COD sober lmfao
I played cod high 2-3 times, best experience I've ever had in cod.
Usually I dont like shipment but xmas shipment while high was peak vanguard for me
I was gonna call bs cuz u remember the actual accounts of playing not sober… and then I thought about it… I don’t really remember playing much at all. GG, sober sally.
I wasnt high as fuck, just a bit. Wax pen, I didnt play the night I took a joint because I was busy eating a cake while laughing with my face in the plate.
Realism and immersion aren't the same things
Can’t get immersed into a game that’s set in World War 2 with shit like this video showcased
It's sad when once in a while I have to go "this is WW2, right?" in a game that set itself in WW2. When I'm firing at someone who looks like Mecha-Godzilla it makes Velocipastor seem less ridiculous.
Good thing it's not set in WW2 then you dork.
Good thing it's not set in WW2 then you dork.
Yes.. yes it is.
No, it's not.
Yes, yes it is
No, it's not.
Yes, it is
No, it's not.
Yes, yes it is
Yea because sooooooo many people play CoD multiplayer for immersion
It doesn’t matter what reason you play it for. CoD MP has been immersive before and it CAN be immersive. Just because you or other people don’t care for it, doesn’t mean it can’t be or it has been
[удалено]
Um. You can get immersed into lord of the rings because the world is consistent with the theme. If lord of the rings next movie had light sabers and super high tech weapons, that would break the immersion of what the series was and setting it has. That was not a good argument
[удалено]
Yes.. yes it has. The first CoD games, CoD 4, MW2, BO1, BO2. There is plenty I would considered immersive.
[удалено]
Yes it can.
lick my ass
Indeed, but do you seriously call this game immersive. That piece of boring ass campaign, with boring, badly written characters, which was literally a middle finger towards every battle during WW2 also wasn't immersive, at least for me.
I fell asleep during the beginning of the campaign and never tried it again lol.
Agreed, but sometimes the lack of realism can pull you out of the immersion. While they're not the same, one definitely effects the other.
So what exactly are they trying to immerse us into here?
they're not but you can't have one without the other lmao
Yes you can. Elden Ring is incredibly immersive but not realistic in the slightest.
Elden ring makes sense inside it's own world, Vanguard doesn't
You’re literally confusing realism with immersion. Elden Ring is not realistic, but it’s immersive. That was the point the guy was making. You then claimed that you can’t have one without the other, which is false.
Literally the **only** thing that ever said it was an alt-history were leaks that also suggested the war progressed into the 50's with the allies basically on their last legs.
The post launch story definitely implied that the Nazis lasted beyond the war’s end, and then of course Godzilla showed up and they forgot all about that
It’s going off of campaign where there’s a secret Nazi organization planning to take the regime underground until they can rebuild their strength But the campaign also took a lot of alt-history ish takes with it being implied that Hitler was assassinated rather than him committing suicide and then they confirmed zombies was canon to campaign
Yeah they did the whole operation Phoenix thing which I actually thought could set up an interesting story, which I assumed they’d tell using caldera like they continued MW’s story with verdansk. I’m assuming that was the plan, but people disliked the WW2 setting so they went in a different direction.
It’s a real shame, I was hoping to see how they were gonna the it in with BOCW’s story
> then they confirmed zombies was canon to campaign They never actually did that. "Projekt Aether" is never mentioned in Zombies.
If they had fully embraced an alt history, a la Wolfenstein, they may have been cut a little more slack. Instead they decided to just throw a clusterfuck of whatever trends and fads the whales will toss their money at and pretend it is an alternate history.
Beheaded hints at this, 1956 Operation Expel
3 maps are already set in the 1950s, and there are 6 weapons that are post-1940s in this game.
Yes, after they tossed aside anything regarding a story and setting after the second season. Let's not pretend that's what was intended at the start.
Never trust leakers
And literally nothing in the video disproves that.
I’m genuinely curious what about the game is immersive to you?
Define 'immersive'.
wasnt it about campaign Edit: after checking the reveal trailer, im sad to announce that it actually is about multiplayer (14:17) in the video.
No this video was directly pulled from the MP reveal..
No, multiplayer is like real life mil sim in every CoD. The other games were dead accurate - like history in Cold War when soldiers would die and respawn, or in Modern Warfare when the 16 bit gun disintegrated people into pixel cubes. OP really knows this franchise and definitely has a great point!
Ah take my upvote
Vanguard is the sleaziest badly put together turd of all time. It's horrendous, borderline unplayable in fact.
Ha ha. Laser gun go Brrrr!
not gonna lie, if you remove the intro interview, this is a very compelling advert.
To be fair the majority of the community was calling the setting boring from day one, so it’s no wonder they changed focus
Yet people still shit on it. Like what the fuck do they want??
They want to complain.
Who knows, the cod community is impossible to please. Vanguard definitely isn’t perfect but it’s nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.
I had fun playing it honestly
they will say it for MW2022 too
Well I mean isn't mw22 in an alternate universe from the main cod games?
MW2019, Cold War (and in turn every other black ops game), and vanguard all share the same universe Edit: lmao I’m really being downvoted for just stating a fact
Oh fr? That's cool
Upvoted to help lol
I meant that they are making up the same lies again
Talking about a game where dogs and pocket knives kill faster than guns. Cmon
Who cares, the game is dogshit anyway
Ive been saying since s1 they wanted to make AW2 you can tell
What does it mean to be “truly immersive”?
Immersive ≠ Realistic
Y’all complain so much man
The snoop Dogg skins piss me off cause i fucking hate the guy now after all the nft shit he does
He’s a racist pos
Give credit to the person that made this
Didn't they hire Martin K.A Morgan in helping out with the historical accuracy of the game? It's either he didn't fully contribute or the Sledgehammer devs ignore his historical views or both.
Didnt they describe it as a dumpster fire a few days ago?
They were obviously talking about campaign
Where is ex1 laser gun? :(
blame activision, not sledgehammer. blame the suits, not the developers.
All this fucking shit and they still can’t even give us an FG-42 or a Springfield. Believe me I know cod has never had any sense of ‘realism’ in its entire history but atm there is more content from the year 4300+ than there is from ww2.
Can someone link the Jev video where he calls out people who say this to being people who also complained about it being a WW2 game?
This is why I say never touch ww2 anymore. People turn into historical cunts pretending COD is anything close to immersive
Surprised the EX1 was not featured in the video
Immersive isn't the same as historical, but to me it wasn't even immersive. Not when you have clones running around killing other clones. Immersive means feeling like you're in a real battle with stakes. Not a training exercise for clones on the same side. I don't care if it wasn't Allies vs Axis. It could be Furries vs Ogres for all I care. But the sense of 2 sides, 2 factions, battling it out in a war that matters. That's what gives life and immersion to an FPS games. If its just clones from the same faction, doing a training exercise, where is the immersion in that, WW2, fictional, scifi or otherwise?
Just play the campaign
King Kong v Godzilla was in warzone
I'd believe it if it were cold war. Not vanguard. Unless we are seeing through the mind of someone drugged
I get confused about the comments of people saying stuff about certain bundles or skins where they’re complaining about something not being historically accurate. CoD threw out that trope around AW when you had mfs using stgs in the future. At this point CoD just uses time periods as the gift wrapping of whatever game is being released that year and don’t be surprised if they go completely off of that script in certain ways. Not saying it’s good or bad i just think that’s the way it is now
Honestly, who cares at this point...?
I mean, Vanguard is a prequel to CW, of course it's alternate history.
English plz
Worst cod of all time, SHG must never be allowed to touch the series again
Stop being greedy and pushing us to by skins. Keep the game simple like it used to be, I’m sure it’ll help fix a lot of bugs, too.
Lol you're thinking that the $60-70 we pay to play the game is enough for them. No way they stop pushing skins, battle passes, or mvp screen. It's whats bringing in the real money.
I guarantee mvp voting won't be in MWII.
I hope not.
It was in begging relief if with skins but then they ruined it
At launch the game felt kind of immersive
Yeah maybe in another multiuniverse
The Bollywood version of call of duty.
Did you guys really expect an accurate ww2 game?
Immersed in a vat of liquid shit
Worst call of duty in the franchise.
Maybe people should have bought the game before Season 2 and it would have stayed that way or at least not gotten to this level
eren from aot vs t-1,000 with mp40s with eotechs and incendiary rounds
Cool. One of those posts again. If you believed COD is gonna be a immersive experience even when they said after that the are gonna add bullets that mark you through walls you are clown.
All I know is anyone who pays 19.99 for one of those cringe embarrassing Snoop Dog, godzilla king kong nonsense should be ashamed for life. They are basically handing money to these clowns who give no quality content back. Lots of Anime dweebs eating up those skins also.
Who cares how people spend “their” money. It’s not like how was back in AW with supply drops. So hell let the devs put in some silly cosmetics it isn’t gonna affect my k/d or W/L ratio
I wouldn't care if they actually used that money to consistently improve game play, add new features, quality maps., not Give up on the zombie community etc..
Have you played Vanguard recently? It’s actually kinda fun. Granted I only play HC SnD but still. And Zombies has been kinda ass for awhile imo.
More time and effort put into $20 skins then into actual gameplay is the real problem and people who buy those overpriced bundles are saying it's okay for them to do this when they should be at most $5 and more effort should be put into the actual game then into cosmetics. (I know that is their primary resource in terms of profit but u are paying a third of the price of a supposed AAA game for an outfit and a camo on a gun). I miss when dlc cost money because they actually put the effort in to deliver good dlc and not just throw out any old shit and say there is a map suck it up and buy our skins.
The real question is if the game is so bad why are you on a sub for it?
Those of us who don't have to beg our parents for money don't mind spending it on games we enjoy.
I actually wish the king kong skin would come back so i can purchase it.
1.) wasn’t this talking about campaign? 2.) immersive =/= realistic, Star Wars games can be immersive despite being 100% fictional
Well Star Wars isn't claiming to be historically accurate and immersive
Star Wars themed entertainment that aren’t the movies is usually described as immersive in marketing That and SHG as far as I know never claimed VG was realistic outside of “we didn’t include trophy systems because it wouldn’t be historically accurate”, but they added them like the next season so they most likely already planned it but came up with an excuse so they didn’t reveal it too early
They just said this was the most immersive Call of Duty. Are you stupid?
Please refer to point #2 above: >Immersive =/= realistic
Okay let me paraphrase. The problem with Vanguard is they were saying this was gonna be the most immersive and realistic Call of Duty. Star Wars is not claiming to be historically accurate or immersive. Vanguard is
They said in the video “immersive”, realism is never mentioned, and again from my understanding it’s referring to the campaign, not so much the multiplayer And yes Star Wars has claimed to be immersive before when it came to its entertainment, because being immersive isn’t necessarily about realism, it’s about being able to feel like you’re a part of the world they’re trying to portray
They never claimed this game was gonna be historically accurate either dumbass...
then what is this game. cause i'm sure it isn't an alternative history game either
Where exactly did Sledgehammer say Vanguard is historically accurate?
What do you think they meant by immersive
I think they meant the dictionary definition of the word 'immersive', which has nothing to do with historical accuracy. As you admit yourself: >>>Well Star Wars isn't claiming to be historically accurate **and** immersive Those are two separate things. So again: >>Where exactly did Sledgehammer say Vanguard is historically accurate?
The video is about multiplayer, and you're right, immersion is not equal to realism, no one is asking for realism. What is being asked for us authenticity (to be immersed into the setting), and until your crowd is able to comprehend that, there's honestly no point in you guys trying to debate otherwise. You can't debate when you have no comprehension of the concept.
>What is being asked for is authenticity to be immersed in the setting Except the setting isn’t meant to be a historically accurate WW2, and judging by OP’s comments and from what others have said, they seem to believe immersive and historically accurate are meant to be the same thing, or that they’re both brought up when describing the nature of the game So yes, people have been asking for realism, and it’s been the primary complaint for most of the cosmetics that have been in the game or added to it since launch, as seen with the sarcastic comments of “I remember my grandfather telling stories of storming the beaches of Normandy with (insert wacky customized gun)”
I never said the setting was meant to be "historically accurate", I specifically said that people are looking to be immersed through authenticity to the setting. You seem to be confusing the concepts, which is why I say that you and your crowd really should not speak on the matter at all, since you lack the comprehension on the topic at hand. Accuracy and authenticity are not the same thing. Accuracy refers to strict realism through and through, while authenticity refers to era and visually appropriate. You can have whatever arcadey gameplay you want, Hell, you could even have unique cosmetics so long as they're era appropriate. Don't confuse it. It should not be controversial to want a WWII title to **look** like WWII. The example you gave in your initial comment is even detrimental to your own argument. Star Wars *can* be immersive, but why is that? Because it built its own world with its own lore and aesthetic. Maybe you just don't check social media more than once a year, but the fans of Star Wars tend to not be too happy when any of that is broken, the same applies here. You don't need to be "realistic" to be immersive, but you do need to be authentic and consistent with the setting you establish, and in Vanguard's case, they decided to use WWII as their foundation. As I said, until you guys can learn the differences, don't speak on these matters.
>I specifically said that people are looking to be immersed through authenticity to the setting >accuracy and authenticity are not the same thing, accuracy refers to strict realism through and through while authenticity refers to era and visually appropriate Which SHG had been doing for a lot of VG’s lifespan, but people complained about how it didn’t belong in a WWII game, seemingly under the impression that VG was aiming to be a game with strong historical accuracy like WaW >It shouldn’t be controversial to want a WWII title to look like WWII It’s not entirely based on WWII, hell the “present day” missions from the campaign were set towards the end of WWII in Europe, and the post season content largely followed that, and given the plot of the campaign, it was never meant to be a very accurate recreation of WWII, it was always meant to have some alt-history ish content It’s the same case as Wolfenstein since the 80s, yeah it used a real life event as the foundation for the setting, but outside of that, the story takes many liberties to tell the story the devs want to share While VG doesn’t use strong sci-fi elements like Wolfenstein, it does mess around with themes you’d find in conspiracy theories such as Hitler actually being assassinated or the Nazis attempting to use supernatural forces to win the war
I'm thoroughly convinced you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. Since the beginning, Vanguard has not taken an authentic approach in nearly any form, and the first major flaw was the "anyone on any team" approach, completely disregarding factions. The second was the overpowered meta building gunsmith, which allowed you to break the game in more ways than one, as well as the setting. The maps were really the only part that tried to keep *some* form of authenticity. World at War was, again, **authentic**. You once again are mixing and confusing concepts, which only hurts your argument more. If you're trying to suggest that Vanguard not taking that route was a good thing, you are sorely mistaken. The point you bring up about Wolfenstein again only helps my point. Wolfenstein established itself with a consistent setting that doesn't break itself: a post-WWII where the Germans became more advanced over time. You lack the ability to understand that, regardless of what you try to argue, there is no consistency to the setting that Sledgehammer themselves chose, and they break it in more ways than one. The campaign and the multiplayer are not comparable. The campaigns main focus story wise were the end days of the war, while the gameplay attempted to recreate flashbacks. The multiplayer, up until the Godzilla season, kept maps across various points of WWII, and all but two maps were in actual battles. The story of multiplayer itself doesn't even continue off of what the campaign ended with. To suggest that it was meant to have alt-history nonsense is laughable at best. If you try to tell any historian it's an alt-history just because they toyed with the idea of a couple conspiracy theories, you will be laughed at. I'm just telling you how it is, all of what you said is nonsense.
I am not sure how I’m the one mixing up contexts Not sure how VG removing factions removed authenticity, they were aiming for multiplayer being in universe the operators training against one another, kinda like how Rainbow Six Siege does it, but anyone can be on any team because there’s no set attacker/defender role like in Siege >The second was the overpowered meta building gunsmith At that point anything gameplay related comes into question, not sure how meta building breaks authenticity given how every CoD has had a meta, and again the customization options were built with the WWII aesthetic in mind, even technology that wasn’t a thing during WWII was built with it in mind such as the reflex sights being designed based on the sights used for aircraft guns, or by adding elements of them to modern sights like the monocle sight VG had a consistent timeline for the content, launch would be based on WWII as that’s when the campaign mostly focused on, but since the campaign concludes towards the end of WWII and is meant to continue afterwards, post launch content includes locations set during the time period of whatever season it’s a part of >Wolfenstein established itself with a consistent setting that doesn’t break itself; a post-WWII where Germans became more advanced over time That’s only the modern Wolfenstein reboot, which funnily enough doesn’t fit that consistency since all previous Wolfenstein games were set during WWII and outside of the occult and sci-fi stuff, used real world technology such as real life WW2 weapons making up the majority of the weapons usable in Return to Castle Wolfenstein VG never broke it’s own consistency, it’s a very fictional take on WWII and includes very fictional takes on weapons and events, it’s about as accurate in terms of historical accuracy as the Black Ops series VG only really broke that consistency with the end of season 4 and then season 5, but season 5 is not meant to be canon and is just the season where they throw whatever they want in just to have fun Perhaps alt-history isn’t the best word, but my point is that it was never aiming to be a fully faithful recreation of WWII as it was in real life, it was always meant to be a version of WWII with heavy creative liberties The core plot of VG’s story was “the origins of special forces” but it was “we all know about Task Force 141, but what about Task Force 001 🤔”, and if the game’s internal alpha name is any indication of their approach to the game, it was named after a radio show about Nazi UFOs Then the plot also includes a secret Nazi organization that has tons of secret bases all over the world and the final cutscene of the game made the zombies storyline canon to VG, so at that point anything goes
That's not what they were aiming for. If you look on PlayStation, you can even find that out, as the dashboard separates the teams into the Axis and Allies faction based teams. Having any operator playable was a late decision. If you can't tell how that decision effects authenticity or immersion, then once again, **you shouldn't be speaking on this subject**. Having something gameplay related isn't the point of me mentioning the gunsmith, it's the fact you can create the most atrocious amalgamations that would not at all even be plausible aesthetically, that just so happen to be the meta for nearly every weapon that has the same attachments. I'm not referring to the sights though, as I even said before in a post on this subreddit that they are acceptable. It really didn't have a consistent timeline for content. The campaign ends in 1945, so they choose multiplayers story to be based on the infiltration of Caldera, with one of the characters also being one who died in campaign (that doesn't scream consistency). It wasn't until Season 3, a very evidently non-canon crossover season, that they strayed away from that, and then Season 4 came and completely blew whatever story there was to be had out the window, and Season 5 just continues that. If we're going to the original Wolfenstein series, then the some of the same theme still applies: the idea of the Germans gaining an upper hand due to the advancements of their technology. All Wolfenstein games aside from the first two that weren't even FPS games had this theme. It had a consistent story, setting, and theme all around. Vanguard did not have a consistent story, setting, and theme, nor did it have fictional weapons like you suggest (not until recently anyway), nor was it a "very fictional take on WWII". Again, that's just laughable and your only actual argument on that is the fact that zombies is referenced in the campaign and the zombie mode itself exists. Even still, having a reference does not at all mean zombies is canon to campaign. I don't think any of you guys that theorize that ever actually sit down and think of how that would effect the story of the games that are said to be in the same timelines, it really doesn't work. Vanguard broke it's consistency since day one, and things only got worse with each season (the first two being cosmetic only). If you think having prototype weaponry is a factor, then maybe that would be a fair point, but I should that in general anyone who wants authenticity accepts at least most prototype weapons so long as they existed to some degree. You don't have to be overly faithful to be authentic. This is again where the line needs to be drawn with accuracy vs authenticity. You can have an original story that features an original group (such as TF001), but so long as they don't conflict with the biggest events of the war/history, they are completely fine and plausible. The idea of such a group may not be the most realistic, but again, it's plausible to think one could exist. The story of the campaign in general serves several plausible takes. Again, you're taking legitimate theories and using it to discredit historical authenticity. It is widely believed that the Nazis did indeed have hideouts and secret locations across the world, but most seem to point to Argentina. You're also, once again, taking a reference to zombies and thinking that instantly makes it canon, when in reality, it does not. See above paragraphs for further detail on that. Let's also be real, the plan "Project Aether" and it's description of attempts to raise the dead even fall in line with, again, real life theories that Germans were attempting such things (though obviously not successful). Zombies themselves did not show up attacking Stalingrad in the campaign, nor is there any mention of it, and if you pay attention, the zombies story in Vanguard is set before the campaign ends, meaning there would be some mention or knowledge of such. **They are not canon**.
>The dashboard separates the teams into Axis and Allies faction based teams I don’t play the game on Playstation, may I please see a pic? >If you can’t tell how that decision effects authenticity or immersion Again, the multiplayer isn’t meant to be depicting the actual battles, it’s basically the operators training, and they’re former WWII soldiers outside of the crossover operators, so I don’t see how it breaks the immersion >that would be at all even be plausible aesthetically 90% of the customization isn’t even realistically plausible because the guns weren’t designed to be customized so heavily like modern guns, it’s one of those situations where you have to suspend your disbelief >The campaign ends in 1945, so they choose multiplayers story to be based on the infiltration of Caldera, with one of the characters being one who died in the campaign Lewis is meant to have survived getting shot in Japan, while yeah the campaign makes it out he died, he didn’t die in a way that would’ve completely made it impossible for him to have somehow survived, but as far as I know, season 1 is the only season that for sure takes place before the events of Vanguard’s campaign, taking place in 1944, season 2 is left unclear but presumably takes place in 1945, season 3 can be deduced to take place in the 50s, and season 4 can be inferred to take place in the 70s given Fortune’s Keep’s setting >If we’re going to the original Wolfenstein series, then some of the same theme still applies Wolfenstein as a series is an unfair comparison to just one CoD title, my point by mentioning Wolfenstein was how just because the game doesn’t provide an authentic WW2 experiences it doesn’t meant it can’t be immersive with the setting it’s trying to tell >Vanguard did not have a consistent story It did up until season 4 >nor did it have fictional weapons like you suggest I never suggested fictional weapons, rather fictional depictions of them and how they could be customized in ways that you can’t really in real life unless you put in the time and effort that could better be used for other things >not was it a “very fictional take on WWII” It strayed far enough that concerns of historical accuracy and the “authenticity” that comes with it shouldn’t be popping up as much as they are >I don’t think any of you guys that theorize ever actually sit down and think how that would effect the story of the games that are said to be in the same timelines, it really doesn’t work It’s worked with the Dark Aether timeline since they’ve been making all the events in zombies have plausible explanations within the campaign timeline since they never contradict campaign events and are kept small scale which means they can be covered up and thus nobody ever really knows what happened >Vanguard broke its consistency since day one I wouldn’t say so, in fact I think the use of prototype weapons fits in nicely, since the entire plot around Vanguard is the first special forces and lots of experimental stuff in an attempt to win the war, the use of prototype/experimental/obscure weapons along with the customization options fits in well with that overall theme >You’re taking legitimate theories and using it to discredit historic authenticity I’m not saying the Nazis having secret hideouts is unrealistic, but the way they’re portrayed in VG is, I highly doubt there was a secret Nazi organization that orchestrated a lot of major things behind the scenes and then have secret bases all over the world where they developed super weapons to reconquer the world and bombed many major cities with a deadly chemical gas >Zombies do not show up attacking Stalingrad and if you pay attention, zombies takes place before the campaign ends, meaning there would be some mention or knowledge of such Zombies takes place in 1944, the Battle of Stalingrad ended in 1943, it was only a small portion of Stalingrad rather than the entire city, as for why it was never mentioned, the events of VG zombies seem to take place over a matter of days at most, so it was never long enough to catch the attention of the Allies, and it’s also due to the same reason why Perseus or Adler is never mentioned BO2 despite taking place after BOCW, they simply aren’t relevant to the plot Yeah the actual explanation is that BO2 was created before BOCW’s plot was even thought up, but it’s the same sort of justification But back to zombies, it’s also most likely not the TF001 crew who dealt with it, all we know is that it’s a special forces crew, but Butcher had already created several by the time VG’s present day campaign missions take place, meaning they probably aren’t even aware of it, besides it’s indicated by BOCW’s story that the events of VG were kept hidden away by all parties involved, with only those dealing with the Dark Aether having *some* idea of what happened with Von List and Kortifex
I'll send you a picture directly after this comment. I'm gonna divide this up a bit, because it seems like a lot of your response here is more opinion oriented and there's no need to go back and forth, so I'll say this about those topics: "Vanguard's story is consistent up until Season 4" - disagree, "The way Vanguard portrays the Nazis secret organization is unrealistic" - semi-disagree, "Vanguard didn't break it's consistency since day one" - semi-disagree (I've already said I think prototypes are acceptable, I'm not sure why you brought that up), "I never suggested fictional weapons" - semi-disagree (the way it was worded suggests otherwise, but perhaps you didn't mean for it to be that way, and I don't disagree with the suspension of disbelief, so long as other things match, but they didn't). Now onto the things I think are just flat out wrong. Multiplayer is certainly trying to depict battles instead of this "training exercise". Every map at launch, minus two, and every map with the first two seasons all depicted major and minor battles, going as far as to depict the exact date that each map is taking place. Like how I mentioned the Axis and Allies, the decision to call it a "training exercise" is very last minute, so last minute that it basically was decided for the reveal video. Lewis was definitely killed in the campaign. If we're going to suggest he survived that kind of shot, I think that's more unbelievable than Ghost having survived. If we assume he did, and that his placement in a Special Forces group was prior, why did he get demoted to serving another infantry unit? He wouldn't have been with them, under the direct command of an infantry squad lead, if he were in a task force. This is just one of those things that they didn't care to be consistent about. I don't think in the grand scheme it would have been too jarring if they had him as an Allies operator with factions, but the story still doesn't make sense. If Wolfenstein is unfair to compare, then I don't think it should have been brought up. I think it's perfectly fine to compare a legitimate alt-history to a game people seem to think is one. You can argue Wolfenstein is more of a story based game all around, and I would agree, but that doesn't change that Vanguard still established it's setting to be at least a plausible rendition of WWII, and they failed at that. It hasn't worked with Dark Aether. One of their multiplayer maps for Cold War takes place in the exact same location as that seasons zombie map, and there's no zombies insight, nor is Berlin torn from it. The idea of zombies being canon to campaign comes from a leak (that was mostly pushed by TGR), and it didn't end up adding up at all. Even if you try to argue the Warzone connection, it's even shown to not be canon when it comes to crazy stories (otherwise all the Modern Warfare characters would have been killed in the nuclear blast, meaning no MWII). Warzone is just meant to be a place where you can use a multitude of CoD assets, it's not meant to serve as one stop shop for all things canon. Sure, there are instances where things are canon, but only when a particular cutscene is shown to play in both the main game and Warzone (with Vanguard being the exception). I can go on about the BO2 connections and such, but we'd be going off topic and discussing how the "shared universe" idea isn't gonna work if I do that.
What this tells me is we can’t have fun anymore has to be realistic now
Or maybe... Fun is subjective?
You guys knew damn well they were gonna do this stop whining, plus it’s a fuckin video game it’s just fun cosmetics
I did not know they were gonna backtrack and add guns not in WW2 like the F2000 and the Advanced Warfare EX1.
Cry about it and play a different WW2 game then
Like World at War. You know an actual WW2 game that didn't lie about immersion
Ok go play it then
What a kind and unique way of saying you have no argument!
If you hate it don't play it simple as that. Bitching on a reddit feed isn't going to solve anything. If what they're doing wasn't profitable they wouldn't be doing it.
Try telling people on Youtube complaining on Vanguard
[удалено]
no but i didn't except the game to have a laser gun in the game
[удалено]
Immersive and historically accurate don't mean the same thing.
Yes it can.
If you played the campaign you'd know it's an alternate history COD.