Call of Duty: WWII | Review Thread

[Deleted member 1777]

Yes but tight is the key, reviewers arent standard gamers, they spend their lives running through games in the most sustainable way to make their copy and to stay sane. Factors why COD campaigns review well:

1/ short and sharp, to the relatively untrained eye (ie: COD casual), they are all lavishly and expensively produced slick shooting galleries.
2/ they know what side their bread is buttered, dont anger the big pubs.
3/ brevity, they appreciate the game doing exactly what it should, in the exact amount of time.
4/ easy to say "fans of COD will appreciate it", alleviating them of any required journalism.
5/ they work, they use esablished mechanics and an engine that works.
6/ outlets dont want to publish a review that insults their readership into going elsewhere, and there are millions of COD fans. Why anger them with a harsh review, better to lightly criticise small aspects within an overall glowing write up, and keep that ad revenue up (plus clicking to order it from amazon, like EG often do).

tldr COD will never review badly ever, its too important to put out a bad one. Even Ghosts got good reviews at the time because no one dare criticise beyond "the formula is a bit stale but fans will enjoy it", and that campaign was horrible.

Click to shrink...

I legit enjoyed the Ghosts campaign to be honest. I thought it was hilarious. Then again I generally have a good time with campaigns anyway, even BLOPS3 which is probably the worst campaign in recent years I thought was ok.

 

[WINGSFAN242]

Yes but tight is the key, reviewers arent standard gamers, they spend their lives running through games in the most sustainable way to make their copy and to stay sane. Factors why COD campaigns review well:

1/ short and sharp, to the relatively untrained eye (ie: COD casual), they are all lavishly and expensively produced slick shooting galleries.
2/ they know what side their bread is buttered, dont anger the big pubs.
3/ brevity, they appreciate the game doing exactly what it should, in the exact amount of time.
4/ easy to say "fans of COD will appreciate it", alleviating them of any required journalism.
5/ they work, they use esablished mechanics and an engine that works.
6/ outlets dont want to publish a review that insults their readership into going elsewhere, and there are millions of COD fans. Why anger them with a harsh review, better to lightly criticise small aspects within an overall glowing write up, and keep that ad revenue up (plus clicking to order it from amazon, like EG often do).

tldr COD will never review badly ever, its too important to put out a bad one. Even Ghosts got good reviews at the time because no one dare criticise beyond "the formula is a bit stale but fans will enjoy it", and that campaign was horrible.

Click to shrink...

I think this statement is really short sighted...there's never really been a "bad" Call of Duty. Maybe some aren't as good as the others, but should a reviewer score a game lower just because it's Call of Duty? If it mechanically works, looks good, and the story is serviceable action movie fanfare, then that's what people expect from Call of Duty. Infinite Warfare tried something different and people really enjoyed the campaign for the most part, or at least that's what I read quite a lot of. World War II is pretty good, actually. It's classic Call of Duty which is what people have been asking for for a while now.

No, it doesn't have a ground breaking story, but it's also not bad either. It's a pretty run of the mill World War II story with some really cool moments.

You can't just review a game badly because "it's Call of Duty". If it's a good game, which Call of Duty tends to be, regardless of your opinions on the series, then it deserves those scores. It's not "too important" to put out a bad review of the game...it just doesn't deserve those bad reviews. You really want Call of Duty to change? Just look at what happened with Assassin's Creed and the poor sales of Syndicate and what came from that with Origins. As long as the formula works for Call of Duty, it's not going to change aside from some minor innovations...and Activision has tried to innovate and fans of the series, not those of us that post on forums, don't respond in kind most of the time. B

 

[angel]

I legit enjoyed the Ghosts campaign to be honest. I thought it was hilarious. Then again I generally have a good time with campaigns anyway, even BLOPS3 which is probably the worst campaign in recent years I thought was ok.

Click to shrink...

I legit loved ghost multi, the later map packs were amazing.

 

[~Fake]

Singleplayer looks solid to me.