War. War Sometimes Changes.

War. War Sometimes Changes.
To sign up for our daily newsletter covering the latest news, features and reviews, head HERE. For a running feed of all our stories, follow us on Twitter HERE. Or you can bookmark the Kotaku Australia homepage to visit whenever you need a news fix.

2002’s Medal of Honor and 2017’s Call of Duty: WW2 have very similar intros (a nice touch, given CoD‘s lineage). So similar that they’re a handy example of just how far video game visuals have come in the last 15 years.

The 2017 shot here isn’t from a pre-rendered cutscene, it’s from the in-engine intro sequence.

Both involve the same scenario – a first-person invasion of the beaches of Normandy – and both are blockbuster AAA shooters. Both begin on landing craft approaching the coast, both involve your craft and teammates getting shot to hell, both involve the use of bangalores to clear wire then both involve mopping up the remaining German forces holed up inside bunkers.

Because of this, a lot of shots are similar. At least, their framing is. I mean, we all know that graphics get better over time, that’s what graphics do, but I still thought it was interesting to lay some shots of the two games side-by-side, both to see how close they are to each other but also just how many more polygons are braving that machine gun fire this time around.


    • Well that was when there was a hint of originality about it. War may sometimes change but call of duty never does…

      • It’s weird you say that because MOH was already an homage to Saving Private Ryan. So “originality” might be a bit of stretch!

        • Oh I meant in terms of trying to create a solid bit of gameplay combined with narrative rather than just being the usual cutscenes between levels kind of thing.

          In a way, you could call saving private ryan an homage to ww2…

    • I think it’s true that an unfortunate side effect of incredible modern graphics is that we no longer have to use or imaginations.

      • This. I remember a Hideo Kojima interview around 2000 where he explained he specifically made the character in MGS not have eyes, because it forced the player imagine for themselves what they looked like.

        I’ve often wondered why I prefer the older games. For me, PlayStation 1 graphics have an appeal that is irrational: I know they’re primitive but I enjoy them much more. When the Dreamcast emerged years later I remember being in disbelief about what 3 million polygons a second looked like. These days, something seems lost…

        I’d love if Kotaku would consider writing an article on this subject: why crap graphics are better.

  • Better “graphics”, but I wonder how better it truly is. We haven’t come far in terms of actual depth of the illusion, baked lighting, lack of volume effects. It’s all smoke and mirrors, small slices of environments with hard-coded settings, keeping you on the simple path because if you stray off you might bump into the invisible walls and the even poorer hit boxes.

  • Played this over the weekend mixing single player and multiplayer, and I have to say it’s a blast from the past it’s not game changing but the single player is great fun(must be on hardest difficulty) no more hiding till your life returns, pretty good ai, great sound and the multi player is so much fun now it’s no longer a wall running super jumping robot shitfest. Don’t knock it till you try it!

  • Despite how horrible this franchise has become on the whole, I actually really enjoyed CODWW2 so far. The SP is really engaging and I would even put it up against the latest BF.

  • I watched a video of the mission and to be honest, it didn’t really look that amazing.

    Here’s hoping EA does this mission with the next Battlefield… It’ll be so much more awesome. Frostbite ftw!

Show more comments

Comments are closed.

Log in to comment on this story!