While Activision and Sledgehammer Games have revealed Call of Duty: WWII officially just last week, it was mostly confirming the shooter’s setting, and that actor Josh Duhamel (Transfomers, Las Vegas) would be starring in it.
However, even if the reveal trailer was all we got, we do know quite a few details about the multiplayer — enough for us to be hyped for it, even. In this week’s Top 5 Tuesday video, we list down five Call of Duty: WWII multiplayer features we’re already hyped for. And bear in mind, we don’t even know all the specific details just yet!
What do you think of our top five for this week? Are you excited to try this year’s Call of Duty’s multiplayer? If so, why?
Call of Duty: WWII will make its way out this November 3 on the PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC.
Enjoyed this video? Don’t forget to subscribe to the PlayStation LifeStyle YouTube channel for your weekly dose of top five videos, as well as for other original content.
Essential Reading:
- Top 5 Games Telltale Should Make and Why
- Versus – PS4 Pro vs. Project Scorpio Specs Showdown
- What Next for Activision’s Call of Duty Series?
Now Loading...CoD WWII
-
Now Loading...Is Call of Duty: WWII a Good or Bad Idea?
-
Zarmena Khan
I know everyone's initial reaction is to point towards Battlefield 1. Mine was, too. But come to think of it, CoD goes through a 3-year development cycle so unless someone was popping into DICE's office to peak at their work, I don't think they'd have known what EA was up to until their reveal. Sounds like Activision had the setting in mind for quite some time now after their recent futuristic outings. One thing that does strike me is someone mentioning "WW2 or WWII" could stand for "World at War 2/II." I mean, it's all just a guess and speculation but pretty interesting if true.
-
Michael Briers
As everyone has already mentioned, I think it's a bit naive to think that Call of Duty is simply following in the footsteps of DICE and Battlefield 1 by returning to a period setting. After Modern Warfare, Advanced Warfare and now Infinite Warfare -- not to mention the far-future setting of Black Ops 3 -- Sledgehammer and Activision's alleged decision to settle on World War II as the setting for Call of Duty 2017 may prove to be the best way to course-correct the series. At least, that's the glass-half-full estimation, anyway.
-
Alex Co
Personally, I'd rather Sledgehammer tackles the modern or "now" era since they haven't been given a chance to do so, but hey, at least it's not something futuristic, right?
People who know me already know that I play a lot of online multiplayer. I play a lot of Call of Duty and happy with that decision. However, I'm in the camp that feels the whole sci-fi thing is a bit overdone. If Activision can have three separate timelines (modern, future and past), spread across their multiple Call of Duty studios, then it's a win-win, no?
I welcome this WWII theme with open arms, but just hope it's fun first and foremost.
-
Chandler Wood
It's long been thought that the Call of Duty franchise needs to lay off the futuristic warfare, as from an external perspective, these seem like tired tropes (actually having played the campaigns is another story altogether), however, if you look at the excess of classic warfare Call of Duty was doing early on in it's life, people were demanding they move away from it at that time too.
Gaming goes in waves. At this point, futuristic shooters are getting as played out as massive high-fantasy RPGs were five years ago. It was inevitable that they shift gears eventually and take Call of Duty back to the classic wars, and I don't think this has anything to do with Battlefield 1. I'm assuming that the next Call of Duty was being iterated long before anyone knew that BF1 would be taking on the history angle, and it just now happens to look like they're riffing on that.
I'm excited to see what they do, as current gen tech could serve to do a lot of really cool things for classic Call of Duty, and it will be interesting to see what kind of perspective they take on one of the most horrific and monumental eras in recent history. -
Stephen Bitto
Call of Duty returning to its World War II roots (if true) has nothing to do with Battlefield 1. Fanboys will jump to that conclusion but those with even a slight understanding of the Call of Duty development cycle will know that the decision was made well before Battlefield 1's reveal in May 2016 (although it did leak early). Let's also not forget that EA sent Titanfall 2 to die just to injure Infinite Warfare before we cast Activision in a negative light for, again, simply returning to their roots.
My fear for this idea is that people love to hate the United States these days. If the game focuses mainly on the United States' military forces, you can bet that critics will not embrace it entirely. I hope to get a diverse story that includes lesser known incursions against the Axis powers while also not understating the United States' great triumphs on multiple fronts to win the war. Hopefully, we get an official reveal soon. -
Cameron Teague
I am ok with the move backwards simply because I don't really care for their futuristic setting.
-
Mack Ashworth
Though I loved the exo-suits introduced in Advanced Warfare, became addicted to Black Ops 3's multiplayer, and was blown away by Infinite Warfare's single-player, their consecutive releases have made me tired and ready for something different. Bring on CoD: WWII!
-
Tyler Treese
I don't think going back to World War 2 is a bad move, as I believe there should be major differences between the three different Call of Duty teams. That said, I'm a bit disappointed that Sledgehammer is the developer that they chose to go backwards with. After all, they were the ones who took Call of Duty forward with the excellent Advanced Warfare, and now that futuristic theme has been played out by disappointing entries by Treyarch and Infinity Ward. It's too bad that the one developer who I'd like to see tackle the future won't get to do it again, but I believe they'll be able to do something noteworthy with World War 2. So, hopefully this leads to three distinct Call of Duty games every three years, and not just a bunch of WW2 games.
-
Martin Patiño
Going back to WWII seems to be the obvious choice for the series at this point given that there's nowhere else to go after they already went to space. It has nothing to do with Battlefield 1 or Battlefield in general but more that the series needs a revival and going back to the era which made the series famous seems to be the right choice not only to recapture tired and jaded fans but to also bring in new ones and introduce them to what made the series great.
