Mens shoot mens in fresh Call of Duty: WWII trailer

We’ve already had some Nazi shooting with Wolfenstein 2 this E3, so why not shoot some more? Sony have shown off some more Call of Duty: WWII [official site] footage. This time it’s what multiplayer will look like (er, once all the names hovering above your friends and enemies are stripped away and it’s recorded from many other cinematic angles, that is) along with all the accompanying sounds of war – M1 Garand pings, shotgun cher-chicks and flamethrower fffsssshhhhhhhhssss’s. Yup, it’s CoD. War! Bullet belts! Grenade pins! I am duty bound to show you this footage because I am on the night shift! Pow pow! Etc!

I’m not on board the hype amphibious-vessel for this Call of Duty – based on previous outing’s I’m skeptical the campaign will handle the subject matter well. But I also recognise that most people are into the series for its chaotic multiplayer gunfights and skill-based murdering. And that’s fine – this does seem to stick to that explodey formula by the looks of it so far.

If you’re one of the militant faithful, it’s due out November 3. And we’ve got a previous trailer here, if your eyes haven’t been shot out by this one.


  1. renzollama says:

    I’m really enjoying this ‘mens shooting / shooting mens’ title theme of late, please continue

  2. Flavorfish says:

    Why are there women on the allied frontline in the trailer?

    When a game calls itself authentic and immersive and then needlessly pushes ahistorical elements ingame purely to serve a political agenda or a marketing goal it takes me out of the game.

    I can’t think of any justification for it… what does politically motivated historical revisionism achieve?

    • Smion says:

      It makes the game more fun.

    • Troubletcat says:

      Does it call itself authentic? Even if it does, it’s not like it’s the first time games have used marketing buzzwords with little relation to the product itself… The first couple of CoDs you could argue tried to be but the series left any genuine attempt to be grounded in reality behind long, long ago.

      I think the fact that ‘more women than were present in real history’ bothers you in a dumb arcade game is pretty telling and should maybe be cause for some introspection.

      • Flavorfish says:

        What is pretty telling? That my immersion is hampered by politically or commercially opportunistic historical revisionism? I don’t have a problem with playing as a woman in games, I have a problem with political or commercial opportunism when it comes at the cost of design principles . This cod branded itself a return to its roots, and so ‘authenticity’ and immersion are presumably targets they are gunning for. I would also object to having an openly gay black sidekick in a game about the European Dark Ages, but it’s not that I’m racist and homophobic.

        How are we going to have a dialogue about these kinds of things if people are afraid of having labels like ‘misogynist’ thrown at them at the drop of a hat.

        • Dewal says:

          Developers add more and more girls in their games because they understand that more and more player want them (because sometimes they are girls, because sometime they just want variety,… or any other reason you want, we don’t really have to care why people want girls in their games).

          And be it in games or movies, when the producers understand that large part of their public also want to be represented (whether they are women or black or whatever), they don’t really care about authenticity, they just want to sell (and that’s fine, we want to want to buy).

          In the end it’s just about supply and demand, if your public wants something, you give it to them.

          So maybe you’re just a history geek and you really feel offended by any inaccuracies (but then I would think you wouldn’t even get close to COD). But for most people, everytime someone says “omg, they added women (or black or whatever) because of political agenda” they will look like fools on the defensive. Especially with these kind of games that were never really about realism but more about cinematic fun.

          And in the end, having a gay black sidekick would be a pretty interesting setting for a game in the dark ages. Would create a lot of drama if well exploited :p

      • ColonelFlanders says:

        That last paragraph was not only condescending, but it was also bollocks. It’s 100% clear that his point of view is nothing to do with any kind of misogynist intentions. I wish people would stop looking for political shit to get hung up on where it doesn’t even exist, it’s so fucking tiresome.

        WHAT?! You’re white but you’re wearing black socks?! That surely means you think that black people are barely good enough to be at your feet! RACIST!!

        • SanguineAngel says:

          It probably has to do with the fact that of all the wide range of clearly inauthentic design choices being made in this game – such as simply the entire tone – the one thing that he picked up on was the presence of women.

          More on topic, I just don’t think this game is even remotely aiming for authenticity, despite their words. If anything it’s probably more pulp than that, if not straight WW2 action movie

      • Troubletcat says:

        It’s amazing how many people apparently read the word ‘misogynist’ in my comment considering it’s not present…

        I’m not trying to accuse anyone of anything. All I’m saying is, if you see a game that is clearly extremely arcadey but the thing that stretches your suspension of disbelief a bridge too far is women, you might want to ask yourself why that is. It might be a sign of some subconscious bias or prejudice. That bias or prejudice is not necessarily that you hate women, and I wasn’t trying to say that it was.

        Another question would be why you assumed the devs were trying to make some political point or check a marketing tickbox other than “including as many options as we can for character customisation”. And why you’re immediately on the defensive when somebody points out that ‘hey the game’s not that realistic anyway so why does this one particular thing bother you.’

        Again. I am not saying anyone is a misogynist. But it’s worth asking why you feel this way.

      • ucfalumknight says:

        If you wanted women AND authenticity, then throw in the Red Army. If you had a pulse, you were fighting…

        • Sgt_Big_Bubbaloola says:

          Which apparently is exactly what they are doing as well as portraying the Maquis.

      • MrUnimport says:

        I don’t think COD is going for the dumb arcade game aesthetic, or it wouldn’t take such great pains to look gritty and realistic.

        I find it really unfortunate that there are only two sides to this debate, the one that is trying to keep black people and women out of the video game and the one that is trying to ignore the demographics of WW2 as it is known to have happened. I don’t feel comfortable aligning myself with either stance.

    • robodojo says:

      It is nonsensical from a historical standpoint, but in the context of character creation trends, it’s all about customization. I doubt this was consciously ideologically motivated. Also, Troubletcat: associating this with historical revisionism does not a misogynist make.

      • Flavorfish says:

        If it’s multiplayer customization then it makes sense to me, Is isn’t as if CoD multi strives for Red Orchestra authenticity and girls would be a fine addition to the avatar customization of CoD. If its single player than arbitrarily revising history for what seems to be political and commercial reasons can’t really be reconciled with the purported focus on authenticity.

    • Premium User Badge

      Dios says:

      Interesting that this is the bit of inaccuracy you happen to take issue with. Also, did you know that plenty of women served in combat roles in the Red Army? Incidentally, look at this Call of Duty 2 screenshot i found:

      link to

      Also, were there any womens to shoot in this trailer? I didn’t spot any.

      • Flavorfish says:

        Yes, the USSR had plenty of women in combat roles and I’m sure you’ll be shocked to know I have absolutely no issues with that being portrayed in game at all. Thank you for insinuating that I must be some misogynistic neckbeard before you actually took any time at all to understand my opinions.

        • DeadCanDance says:

          “Thank you for insinuating that I must be some misogynistic neckbeard before you actually took any time at all to understand my opinions.”
          Guess you helped him a lot by being a misogynistic neckbeard…

          • Flavorfish says:

            I’m a misogynistic neckbeard for disliking when opportunistic political statements supersede historical authenticity?

            Why is this lot so much more eager to toss labels at me rather than discuss and debate where I might be wrong?

          • Sgt_Big_Bubbaloola says:

            Ok Flavourfish, the main point you make comes off as misogynistic because that was how it was framed. If they are being revisionist with the SP portion of the game (Women in the Airborne dropping into Arnhem for an example I just pulled out my keister) then yes you would have a valid point.

            But right now we do not know that. This was the MP reveal. From what I have heard, the game possibly covers the Red Army and the Maquis where women would be represented.

            Maybe next time don’t automatically jump to the ‘bloody leftie snowflakes political agenda’ paranoia that it came off as.

      • Vandelay says:

        I genuinely had to watch the trailer again to see what was being waffled about. There is one moment when you hear a female voice say “cover me” at 1:24, presumably the “player.” Then there is an external shot of the character running, but if it wasn’t for the voice you just heard you probably wouldn’t realise it was a female.

        I do not see how you can come away from watching the trailer and think “gah!! How dare they put women in my Call of Duty!” unless you were studying every pixel for something to jump up and down about. As ever, those that get irate about such things and start accusing developers, publishers, film makers, writers, etc of an agenda, clearly have an agenda of their own.

        • DeadCanDance says:

          It’s all about fear. Of women. Of feminine things, thoughts and attitude. Whatever might tell a man he has a feminine side, an anima, is frowned upon, and it frankly is quite obvious in fucking call of duty where being a macho man is celebrated to the point of absurdity.
          It is quite sad because you will never be a complete human being, flavourfish. You will always be that lonely ass that is a living chick repellant.

    • fearandloathing says:

      Labeling fair criticisms like this misogynistic does not make you a feminist, only an irritating first-world p.c. liberal.

      • Sheng-ji says:

        Calling someone an irritating first world p.c. liberal because they called someone misogynistic when they didn’t call someone misogynasitic makes you an irritating first world bellend

        • ColonelFlanders says:

          Calling someone an irritating first world bellend when they called someone an irritating PC liberal makes you an amusing 21st century commenter.

      • benzoate says:

        It’s a multiplayer trailer. You know, the part where you get to dress your character up in silly err, I mean completely serious outfits. Where you decide the fate of the world in a 16 x 16 match-up (no idea what the max player count is these days?). Where you capture points by sitting around for a minute. Where you keep coming back to life match-after-match.

        So, yes, a completely serious and realistic simulation of WW2.

        Heaven forbid a woman might want to play as her own gender in this faithful simulation of the war. Again, this is the multiplayer portion of the game, just we’re clear here.

    • Joriath says:

      I think the ‘authentic and immersive’ argument disappeared with the umpteen instances of head-on charges into enemy positions and machine guns.

    • DeadCanDance says:

      You want historical immersion? Go read a book, child.

      • Premium User Badge

        Drib says:

        This is absurdly condescending. I can’t tell if you’re trying to say games can’t be historically immersive, that historical immersion is childish, that games are childish, that books are more immersive, or if you’re just being a dick.

      • Flavorfish says:

        Or I can just go play Red Orchestra or any other historical title that values my immersion into a time and place.

        • MrUnimport says:

          Red Orchestra (2 anyway) is as much of a meat grinder as any COD match. It just claims to be authentic because you die in one hit.

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      CoD might call itself “authentic and immersive”, but lets face it, that’s complete bollocks.
      If we’re going to have a bit of a-historical manshooting, why not have some ladyshooting too?

      Oh, and it also really winds up those fragile little gamergate twats, so it’s worth doing for that reason alone.

    • rokenroleg says:

      It is not authentic to have empty casings with non-punched primers at the beginning of the video.

      It is not authentic to have completely incorrect cyclic rates for the M3 Grease gun.

      It is not authentic to have incorrect bolt cycling audio on the Springfield fired near the end of the video.

      This isn’t authentic. They are incapable of portraying firearms and materiel correctly. This does not affect my enjoyment of the visuals, even though I know it is incorrect.

      If I can enjoy it despite having a much deeper knowledge of the inaccuracies, you can enjoy it with hearing a female voice. Cheers!

      • Flavorfish says:

        Entirely subjective, but to me, the forced inclusion of Woman in combat roles on the front line changes the nature of the war in a far more meaningful way then technical inaccuracies. Part of what makes WW2 interesting to revisit for better or worse is that it exists during a different cultural and social context than the modern day, and that the perspectives and roles that we seek to immerse ourselves into are rooted in that context.

        Not a big deal in a multi that has already given up on the concept of immersion; but I do think it would be to the detriment of the story and setting if it were carried into single player.

        • rokenroleg says:

          I suggest you read up on women’s roles in World War 2. I think it’s good of the developers to add in a nod to the sacrifices they made in the multiplayer portion of the game.

          Sixteen American female military personnel were killed by enemy fire in World War two. While they weren’t deployed to a front line in a combat capacity, they gave their lives to defend their country. There were many hundreds of women in specialized units who wanted to be right there next to the men, and trained in logistics, medical support, maintenance, piloting, and artillery & small arms fire. Let’s honor, not censor.

          • Premium User Badge

            Drib says:

            I get your point and largely agree with you.

            But don’t bring up statistics if they just weaken your argument. Sixteen American women died. Four hundred thousand American men died.

            I get that there were some incidental deaths and that women were in plenty of support positions, and that they should be honored for it. I’m not even against them being in the game.

            But do consider the scale you’re talking about when you bring up ludicrous things like 16 people in a sea of 400,000. It just weakens the point to try to make 16 sound like a large or even noticeable number, comparatively.

          • Flavorfish says:

            Wouldn’t the best way to honour that sacrifice then be to depict it as it was during the single player rather then implicitly demean the work those women did by ‘upgrading’ them into a combat role they didn’t actually perform?

    • Pizzzahut says:

      Haha. And you just know there’ll be ingame cutscenes of 5’6″ft women beating up ‘mysogonistic’ 6’4″ft male WW2 soldiers too.

      Pretentious Hollywood storylines aren’t enough for games any more, you’ve gotta jam nonsense political agendas in there too.

    • Ham Solo says:

      Same reason BF3 didn’t feature russians and french for a long time, they don’t give a shit about historical accuracy, no matter how big or small the issue is.
      I also fully believe this will be another “murrica did it all” kind of game.
      No, thanks.

  3. fearandloathing says:

    CoD2 remains the best multiplayer FPS experience for me, so I was a bit excited even though the series went shit after that. No surprises here though, seems like it will come with all late-CoD shenanigans like skills, unlockables, perks, guns with no recoil or damage etc. Seriously, CoD2’s vanilla combat was like hardcore+ mods of today’s. It was the perfect mix of realism and skill, not limiting like Red Orchestra nor full-retard arcade of newer CoDs.

  4. Premium User Badge

    FhnuZoag says:

    People do realise that the garand ping was actually inaudible in the din of combat, right?

    Ah, ~authenticity~.

    • MrUnimport says:

      Definitely one of the more odious myths.

    • maxcolby says:

      My experience in WW2 reenacting, I heard it quite often in the “din of combat”.

  5. Ben Damage says:

    If a COD is a COD in the wild, and no-one cares to find it, does it… I’ve already put more effort into this joke than necessary, bailed and then explained the obvious to fill the gap.

    COD is COD. So sayeth brother Activision.

    I won’t buy it. I already wasted money on BF1 like a FOOL. I should have known… I keep doing this.

  6. Mr.Bats says:

    Mensch shoot mensch*

  7. wodin says:

    Have to admit the shooters are looking amazing these days.

  8. morse says:

    So how do people guess the gameplay will compare to Battlefield 1? I have never played a COD game, and BF1 was my first in that franchise.

    • maxcolby says:

      In my experience they’rekind of different animals.
      COD has smaller maps, more geared toward right away action iwth constant trigger pulling.
      BF generally had much larger maps that allowed you to use more tactics.
      Granted I’venot played either in quite a while and generally only play RO:DH

  9. dethtoll says:

    Might be the first CoD I’ve bought in years. The WW2 theme is one I miss.

  10. benzoate says:

    This reminds me, is Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory still a playable thing?

  11. HZCH says:

    Am I the only one to feel those body animations make the players look like ice skaters models from NHL98??

    I really mean it, those models look like they are ice skating… Am I weird ? Do my eyes wrong me ? Is the world I thought I know actually A LIE ?

    • Gorncaptain says:

      Yeah, the animations look incredibly janky and weightless. Like the animation isn’t properly timed to the move speed. Can’t precisely put my finger on it, but it looks very off.

      Could be the awful, awful camera work giving that impression, but don’t think it’s entirely responsible.

      • MrUnimport says:

        The trouble is that adding realistic inertia to player movement makes the game feel clunky and unresponsive in first person view. Of course, no soldier in real life can strafe left and right in quick succession. It’s kind of an age old problem with first person shooters.