Call of Duty… Every year, fans look forward to either loving or hating a new drop in the long running franchise. Over the last few years, CoD has lost a lot of longtime fans, but we can’t deny that it does manage to garner new fans. Just not enough to make up for the loss of OG Gamers. It seems evident that Infinite Warfare contributed to a major number of players, but does WWII make enough of a difference to get lost fans back to give it another try?
Some fans seem to be lost forever. They have been let down, one too many times. I respect those Gamers, feelings. There is also a decent amount of lost players, that have taken a chance on the new WWII drop. For a lot of them, the game is pretty good, but not without a lot of problems that plague it.
I suppose there is no surprise there. A Call of Duty title that has problems. While it's fine that there are bugs to iron out, I find there are no real excuses for most of them. Three year cycles to build a game that many debate, uses the same code for at least part of the final product. Either way, I can’t deny that I have been playing the game a lot.
I have mixed feelings at times. The issue with P2P servers vs. dedicated servers, really bothers me. Years of experience making the same game and the dedicated servers are so bad, they had take them offline and have us Player to Player connections. I have found that the dedicated servers are better than P2P, even in their current state. I guess the servers can’t be repaired while active, so it's simply something I have to accept. Hopefully when the servers are online fulltime, it will have been worth it.
One thing that I notice about WWII, is that Multiplayer game play feels like that of Advanced Warfare. Tossing out the exo suit abilities, the movement feels identical. I’m not complaining, but I never felt like AW had perfected movement at all. I always felt like the movement was slightly off and gameplay somewhat stutters. It's difficult to explain, but WWII has the same feel in these regards. Black Ops III managed to offer smooth movement transitions and I just can't fathom why Sledgehammer falls shorts here, but that's my humble opinion. Sorry for nitpicking.
The campaign is actually really good. The CoD campaigns usually are, but I really enjoyed this one. The graphics and cinematics are appealing and look great in 4K HDR. Audio is crisp and the acting is on par. I could care less about Josh Dumehall, or whatever his name is, starring in the game, but he did a good job in his roll. I’m no historian, but from what I understand, the campaign is pretty accurate as far as American history goes. MP is obviously not accurate, nor should it be. If it were, it would likely take away from the experience.
Zombies is a lot of fun. There is a large number of players that buy the game strictly for the Zombies game mode. My experience in zombies so far has been good and bad. The bad being my playing lol. My first experience in zombies lasted 27 seconds and I’m still not sure what happened. I stayed in one place too long at the start and the next thing I know, there are zombies jumping from overhead and took me out quickly. I smartened up after that and joined a team to help me through. I guess I’m just not cut out to solo it.
I am still finding my place in WWII warfare. I have grown fond of some of the weapons, but I don’t think I have found my go to gun yet. I like to move around the map and be able to handle close to medium range battles, but I just can’t find that happy medium. I do pretty well in medium range gunfights, but no matter what I use, I can’t seem to hold my own in close range battles half the time. I see people different SMG’s and I just can’t seem to find one that works for me. Maybe I just need change my attachments, I don’t know. I’ll find my weapons with time, but if you have any tips on this particular subject, I’m all ears.
While I can’t say that WWII has brought CoD back to its glory days, I do think it's a step in the right direction. With the next release in the franchise likely being Black Ops IV, I think playing in the WWII era will help me appreciate spending time in a futuristic setting rather than playing 4 futuristic titles in a row. Honestly, this is where I think it all goes wrong. CoD titles should continue to change setting every year to help things stay somewhat fresh. I didn’t mind playing two futuristic titles in a row (AW, BO3), but by the time IW dropped, I was pretty sick of the jumping around and IW didn’t do a great job in the end.
I give Sledgehammers World War II title, a 7 out of 10. Because of the shotty movement and the long list of issues that I didn’t even bother to mention here, it loses 2 points. If they can give us decent servers and fix some of the bugs, it could be an easy 9 out of 10. The potential is there, but I can’t score it any higher. I honestly like this game a lot, but I would even go as low as a 6 out of 10, but I give I think 7 is a fair opinion.
What do rate WWII at? Would you recommend it to players that have given up on the franchise, or would you tell them to hold until we see some solid improvements? At least supply drips only offer additional XP with the weapons, rather than weapons with physical advantages. That could always change though. Am I right?