Talk:Call of Duty: WWII

Name (WWII versus World War II)
Almost every single mention of the game, the name is simply WWII, so this is certainly the common name right now. Even the official page always says WWII, except in one case on the pre-order page, which is presumable a slip up on their part. The front page contains the same text as the pre-order page, but says WWII instead. -- ferret (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, stores have the product explicitly listed as "Call of Duty: WWII", with no mention of the name as "Call of Duty: World War II". Trademark notices explicitly mention "WWII" as well, but not "World War II". -- ferret (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Nazi Zombies
Have the zombies in the game been confirmed as National Socialists? Or is it the usual stuff, where they reanimate Wehrmacht soldiers and call them Nazis so that it's easier for the Player Character to shoot dead bodies, presumably thereby killing the dead once more.

This is an important distinction.116.68.84.177 (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"First World War II game to depict the Holocaust?"
This is simply not true- Wolfenstein: A New Order depicts a Nazi concentration/death camp, to name only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespyguy (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wolfenstein: A New Order reminds Auschwitz by name and displays another fictional concentration and death camp (the one you mention). 79.182.108.206 (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The quote is about Call of Duty games specifically. Not all games. -- ferret (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Clean Wehrmacht
I've rejigged the text and made the point that the IP user was making, about Schofield appeared to repeat the Clean Wehrmacht myth. Have linked to the article as it handles the subject much better than the multiplayer section of a video game ever can. - X201 (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Better now, thanks. 116.68.84.177 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

They do realize "Clean Wermacht" is a myth? In my country a lot of civilian killings in 41 was conducted by ordinary soldiers, not SS. They should better say "we wanted to enable German side because its demanded and popular and might bring in some right wing players". Panzer General and even Vulcan on spectrum were able to do that.

178.220.189.1 (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Multiplayer
Player count? Game mode? Cross platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:AF69:C800:CDBB:4150:C77F:AF83 (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What about it? Need a source for player count (Almost never covered), game modes are already covered, and its not cross platform (So we don't mention it) -- ferret (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Why are Steam reviews not mentioned?
As of right now, the aggregate user score on Steam is 56/100. Should it be not mentioned? It's probably the most relevant review place.--Adûnâi (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See the last bullet of WP:VG/GL. -- ferret (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree the 3,000 negative reviews deserve a mention but as per wikipedia rules no. The steam curators seem mostly as unreliable as users too. Toten (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no point in mentioning the number of positive/negative reviews since games on Steam are frequently subjected to review bombing. -  ChamithN   (talk)  00:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Soundtracks
Could someone add soundtracks to article? As here. -SunSoldiers (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:VGSCOPE #15. -- ferret (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Historical accuracy
I don't own the game. Perhaps it's pretty obvious how historically accurate it is to those who played it. Perhaps there are no sources on it. Still, a game in such a historical setting deserves a short appraisal of it's historical accuracy imho.  PizzaMan  ♨♨♨  10:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, besides the obvious "needs a reliable source", there would also need to be some claim from the developer that it was intended to be accurate. -- ferret (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There was, but there was also the repeating of the Clean Wehrmacht myth by them as well which casts doubt on it. - X201 (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have a reference on that, it would definitely be worth incorporating. And that would also put some perspective on the historical awareness of the producer.  PizzaMan  ♨♨♨  12:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Here you go, Glen Schofield, co-founder and co-studio head at Sledgehammer said the following in an interview with Polgon: ''“The big distinction that Germans still make today is that between the German military and the Nazis,” says Schofield. “We made sure we made that distinction in the game, that the Germans were doing their duty ...”'' (Link here). They used the Clean Wehrmacht myth as a design choice. - X201 (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a bit too much of original research I'm afraid≥. Do you have a reference that analyses the publisher's stance? Preferably using the term clean Wehrmacht.  PizzaMan  ♨♨♨  15:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request on Feb 22 2018
1.2: Multiplayer. In this section of the article, the game's various divisions are described, and there is a lackluster description on the "Expeditionary" class that I'd like to rewrite and fix. Could anyone please change the "Shotguns used by players in this division have incendiary rounds that burn enemies to death" to "This division is especially helpful for flanking and devastating enemy frontlines in an aggressive approach; use of this class allows players to use incendiary shells in shotguns that trade off damage for a frightening burn effect that deals damage over time upon impact. Players can also carry both tactical and lethal explosives that, in this class, can be restored, allowing for a consistent output of damage in a match"? I wish to change this because I don't see many players use it correctly; editing this article won't make a great impact, but it'll surely bring it some justice and give readers more insight to the in-game feature. This "incendiary shotgun class" has a lot of negative connotations to it, and maybe that's why this description was so weak. Of all the divisions offered, I play this one the most, and what I described it as is very true. ''In short, the division's description does not feature enough insight to give players an idea of what the division is about and what it's used for. Adding this information can shed some light on the actual importance and utility of this class that many novice and even advanced players are unaware of. Please replace the current description for my suggestion in bolded text, which is polished, concise, and insightful--just like the descriptions for the other divisions.'' Thank you! DasOddie (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per WP:NOTHOWTO. Wikipedia is not a gameplay guide. The Call of Duty:WW2 wikia is a better location for this information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018
The article content fails to establish that "1st, 2018" is correct and instead should be "1, 2018" 2605:E000:9143:7000:151:E360:10C:D026 (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Weird way of putting it, but done. -- ferret (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Weird" is never a justification for doing or not doing what is correct. Your attitude has been noted.2605:E000:9143:7000:151:E360:10C:D026 (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Praising characters
@Wikibenboy94 You wrote: "As has been advised, if you want to contest changes to an article, please do so on its talk page and, if it's directed at a specific user, leave a message for the person from there"

I usually suggested changes on the users' talkpages, like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Veverve&diff=prev&oldid=972660298

It's the first time I'm told to do otherwise. I am doing this, however, and I hope I am doing this correctly.

You write, that as one review writes about "well-crafted personalities", and the other about "well characterized" protagonists, you suggest: "and write "Similarly, EGM praised the characters as "well characterized..."." Yes, similarly is good. So if we put EGM after GameSpot, do we put Game Informer after EGM, or maybe after IGN? This would reduce lack of connection between the reviews we sum up: GameSpot praises personalities, as well as visuals and sound design, similarly EGM praises protagonists, then what EGM writes about gameplay (lack of regenerating health, squad support). Then IGN praises campaign as having more human perspective, also praises characters, but they note conflicting tone of some missions in the campaign, as well as some frustrating missions, then Game Informer says the campaign was a drawback.

I think it would be more interesting than just reporting what each reviewer wrote. If you agree, I am meticulously doing it this way.

As far as "conflicting tone" is concerned, I feel it should be explained in the article, what the conflicting tone was. MichalZim (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * For pings to work you need to sign your post after the ping and not before. I've moved EGMNow to after GameSpot as discussed. Organising reviews by grouping together similar opinions on different aspects of the game is always preferred (see WP:VG/REC), but in this case because Call of Duty: WWII's Reception doesn't fit this criteria as reviews are just being summarised and there's no individual paragraphs focusing on story, gameplay, etc., the entire section would need to be re-written. I notice also you've just referred to the reviews in the second paragraph but not the third as well? Regarding your other comments, I've mentioned that IGN felt the action sequences were the cause for the conflicting tone, because to reiterate there's really no need to go into specific detail when it can just be summarised briefly, especially if the length of the comment may stick out in the section compared to other reviewer's opinions. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. However, I feel the narrative would be better with IGN's Miranda Sanchez before Daniel Tack from Game Informer.

She says the campaign is more human, and the Zombies is the standout mode, he seems to continue the thought by saying that the campaign is the only drawback...

Still, Miranda Sanchez explains at length that some scenes conflict with serious tone of the game, the article suggests that she just doesn't like silliness of some scenes. MichalZim (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've moved the two reviews around per your suggestion. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it's better now. MichalZim (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)