-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Call of Duty: WWII | Review Thread
- Thread starter Kalentan
- Start date
IIRC even though IW sold ~50% less than BO3, it was still the best selling game of the year (in the U.K. at least).
I won't be touching multiplayer (beta made sure of that), and I'd wager the number of people who'd only be interested in the campaign is higher for WW2 than for previous CODs.
As someone who likes Ghosts, I'm still baffled at how well it reviewed.
But it seems in line with the length of the previous games centered on WWII. I even remember playing through the very first one on PC and getting through it in just over 4 hours and feeling pretty satisfied with what it had to offer. And that was years before the word "zombies" was mentioned in a game.
Didn't say "better and better". It'll top the NPDs just like always.
If I wasn't set on getting Battlefront II in a few weeks, I'd be all over this today. As it is, reviews are positive enough that I'll buy for sure at some point, but I'll be waiting for a post-Christmas sale.
Those reviews are pretty much coming from small children who think low TTK (time to kill) means it's a twitch shooter and have never played an actual TS in their lives. Twitch shooters are extremely fast, high accuracy FPS's like Quake, Unreal Tournament, etc. CoD is not a twitch shooter by any means. It's a fast FPS with low TTK and terrible spawn points.
I think more of the creative aspect of the series. With good sales and scores there is really no monetary incentive to change, but it would be interesting to see what they would come up with if they just started from scratch and tried to re- conceptualize the series.
Dammit, I'm going to have to get this game soon aren't I?
Wasn't expecting this much good feedback.
Wasn't expecting this much good feedback.
This isn't making any sense no matter how many times I read it.
They get scored well because they generally have a great cinematic campaign with a robust multiplayer suite. They are packed with content and it's generally good.
I didn't play the beta but I havnt had this much fun with cod since Mw2.
I don't think what I'm saying is that complex to be honest. This game is primarily a multiplayer game - that is the largest part of the game and the part most people care about. Despite that, most reviews and reviewers clearly focus on the single player content. They do not put the time into the multiplayer to do a decent job of assessing its quality, something made eminently clear if you read the reviews, and something made eminently clear by the reviews coming out before the game even properly releases.
Every review I've read so far is the same when it comes to talking about multiplayer, they are more like a press release drilling through the features, completely devoid of analysis, than they are an actual review of what is there.
Last edited:
Holy shit, John Walker likes a Call of Duty game??!! That's a first.
So the really really tl;dr version of this is that review scores used to work a lot like school grades--that is, for a game to get a 'passing' grade, it needed to get around 75% of everything it attempted right. If you look at a lot of old 10-point systems in magazines, IGN, stuff like that, it was all pretty common. It wasn't "the middle of the scale is average" because a student who gets 50% of things right on a test would be a complete failure. The idea was that the game got most things right vs most things wrong.
And, to be honest, this is a better review system than "5 is average" because... it's the difference between what the game attempts (here's how it scored on gameplay/narrative/sound design/etc) and where the game relates to other games ("5 is average"). What a game does, judged on its own merits, is way better than "how does this game relate to other games?" I've been fortunate enough to review games for a couple major publications now, like IGN and PC Gamer, and I definitely prefer rating a game based on what it does as opposed to how it relates to other games.
Over time, we've seen reviews shift dramatically towards a "5 is average" thing, or scores disappear altogether (Eurogamer, Kotaku). This means that review scores are going down, but the games aren't worse. The criteria has just changed. However, publishers use this as a way to determine who does or doesn't get bonuses. New Vegas would score in the mid-70s this gen, not 84. The way people review games has shifted.
So like... it's bad for developers--and as a result, gamers who want to buy good games--to have this shift occur, because publishers are able to use this as leverage against dev bonuses, which can outright kill studios.
There's no good argument for "5 is average" other than "idiots who think the middle of the chart should be average."
It's better for reviews and devs/gamers if 75 is average (the real average game last gen was closer to like 85 tbqh).
Last time someone shared official data with me, Black Ops 3 was the best-selling video game of the entire generation, and Ghosts was the second best-selling game of the generation. I believe Grand Theft Auto V has eclipsed it (last-gen games pretty much guarantee it did), and obviously League and Crossfire have both made more money. Destiny 2 will likely eclipse it, and Destiny almost certainly made more money in its lifetime than Blops 3 did. PUBG is getting up there, but it's got a ways to go; I'm not even sure if it outsold Dragon Age: Inquisition (which was another one up there).
So the really really tl;dr version of this is that review scores used to work a lot like school grades--that is, for a game to get a 'passing' grade, it needed to get around 75% of everything it attempted right. If you look at a lot of old 10-point systems in magazines, IGN, stuff like that, it was all pretty common. It wasn't "the middle of the scale is average" because a student who gets 50% of things right on a test would be a complete failure. The idea was that the game got most things right vs most things wrong.
And, to be honest, this is a better review system than "5 is average" because... it's the difference between what the game attempts (here's how it scored on gameplay/narrative/sound design/etc) and where the game relates to other games ("5 is average"). What a game does, judged on its own merits, is way better than "how does this game relate to other games?" I've been fortunate enough to review games for a couple major publications now, like IGN and PC Gamer, and I definitely prefer rating a game based on what it does as opposed to how it relates to other games.
Over time, we've seen reviews shift dramatically towards a "5 is average" thing, or scores disappear altogether (Eurogamer, Kotaku). This means that review scores are going down, but the games aren't worse. The criteria has just changed. However, publishers use this as a way to determine who does or doesn't get bonuses. New Vegas would score in the mid-70s this gen, not 84. The way people review games has shifted.
So like... it's bad for developers--and as a result, gamers who want to buy good games--to have this shift occur, because publishers are able to use this as leverage against dev bonuses, which can outright kill studios.
There's no good argument for "5 is average" other than "idiots who think the middle of the chart should be average."
It's better for reviews and devs/gamers if 75 is average (the real average game last gen was closer to like 85 tbqh).
Last time someone shared official data with me, Black Ops 3 was the best-selling video game of the entire generation, and Ghosts was the second best-selling game of the generation. I believe Grand Theft Auto V has eclipsed it (last-gen games pretty much guarantee it did), and obviously League and Crossfire have both made more money. Destiny 2 will likely eclipse it, and Destiny almost certainly made more money in its lifetime than Blops 3 did. PUBG is getting up there, but it's got a ways to go; I'm not even sure if it outsold Dragon Age: Inquisition (which was another one up there).
I don't disagree, but what makes throwing down 60 bucks on COD difficult is the lack of free post-launch content.
Despite the micro-transactions, which I'm sure will bring them in millions, they're still charging almost the same price as the damn game for a few map packs. There's no excuse there.
I haven't liked a cod since blops 1. But I am loving this game. The maps are good. It allows for both camping or run and gun like previous cod. Sub machine guns are still go to weapon though. The grease gun is really good.
I was in beta so i knew what to expect. The graphics are ok in 4K with HDR. The controls in my opinion feel a lil off and all the levels seem claustrophobic. I know the devs had time but it feels rushed.
Overall id give it a 7.0 tops maybe a 6.5 in terms of mp component.
Overall id give it a 7.0 tops maybe a 6.5 in terms of mp component.
Having watched the GB QL, I can safely say that this is the most by the numbers COD entry yet. Jeff quite rightly described it as a game that outside of graphics would easily be mistaken for a CoD 2 remaster.
From my perspective, that campaign looked ridiculously bland. Like, incredibly so, given Sledgehammer's pedigree.
From my perspective, that campaign looked ridiculously bland. Like, incredibly so, given Sledgehammer's pedigree.
Seems like this is doing pretty well. I always tell myself I won't buy these games, but I broke down for BLOPS III. Didn't love the campaign but spend a couple dozen hours on the multiplayer before getting bored. Almost tempted to get this after reading the RPS review, but I'll wait until it's $20 in a couple years.
Yeah...after watching the Giantbomb quick look, I'm definitely considering this rental territory.
CoD aims to have low requirements in terms of visuals. It's part of how it is such a widespread game, it can even run on lower end computers. So, the game will never look as good as Battlefield or something like that. The visuals, I feel, aren't their main focus.
Length in games is one of most overrated issues in my eyes. I bet it's mainly a worry for people who rush through games in 2 sittings. Some people finish Samus Returns and BOTW like the weekend they release and I'm thinking to myself WTF.
Length hardly ever concerns me with games as I take my time through every game I play. I really don't get people binging games.
Plus if a game is good then it can be replayed and length isn't even an issue.
I always look at the "average time to finish a game" and add at least double to what everyone else is saying. More game for me.
On the flipside, I leave many games unfinished, so I guess there's that.
I saw some videos of the game, reminds me of a throwback to several years ago. Not necessary a bad thing cause I'm done with wall running.
Hey everyone. How is the Omaha beach landing level, is it on par with Medal of honor Allied Assaults? That was amazing back then!
The real issue with this would seem to be people forget that we don't really have an "average" to begin with. If you did some kind of massive review effort of every game released, you could probably get a nice, clean distribution. But the truth of course is that the vast majority of games released in a year go unreviewed or under-reviewed, and the only games with high levels of reviewing are larger titles that are in a financial position where the chance of them being actually "average" is slim.
Giant Bomb -
https://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/call-of-duty-wwii-review/1900-775/
What I expected after their quick look. Hope sales are doing well. Really loved AW. It made me a
Sledgehammer fan.
3/5
What I expected after their quick look. Hope sales are doing well. Really loved AW. It made me a
Sledgehammer fan.
The campaign was pretty horrible. Looked gorgeous but horribly written and boring to play.
Of course, nobody buys CoD for the campaign.
I don't disagree with you on any of this, and when writing reviews, I find myself gravitating toward "7 average." On the other hand, I can see where others come from in wanting 5 to mean average.
This is well-tread territory at this point, but if a review scale goes from 1-10, and 7 is considered "minimum passing grade," well, what's the purpose of 1-6 if anything below 7 is considered garbage? Sure, there is a difference between sham games like Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing and, I don't know, Jumper, but there comes a point where it's hard to see the worth in pointing out a 1 from a 3 if they're both complete trash on a ten-point scale. Which I suppose is why I much prefer more concise scales like 1-5. They're easier to read and don't have the nebulous problem of trying to tell if a 6 is "piss poor trash" or "barely functional enough to be fun."
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.
I'm rank 30 in MP and at this point I have to say that this is the most I've enjoyed COD multiplayer since BLOPS1. The return to standard gun vs gun combat and the lack of grenade spam have made this a real return to basics for the series, which is what I was hoping for. Quick-scopers are more prominent unfortunately, but they're not prolific enough to hamper my enjoyment. Most of them suck anyway.
If Sledgehammer could just fix the damn net code it would be even better.
If Sledgehammer could just fix the damn net code it would be even better.
Jeff seemed to really enjoy it when the series embraced the Titanfall-esque movement system, so it's not surprising that he finds WWII to be a bit boring by comparison.
Giant Bomb's score doesn't surprise me. That being said, I, like many others, am going to be skipping out this year. I thoroughly enjoyed IW and wish we could have gotten a sequel...
A shame. He gave the same score last year to Infinite Warfare but had good things to say about the campaign in that review. I don't care for multiplayer anymore and was hoping that the campaign would be as good as last year's. Since it's not, I'm just going to skip this year.
Don't even read that review because the campaign is amazing if you care about reviews you are doing it wrong, test it somewhere and judge something for yourself, this game is NOT a 3/5, that rating 0-5 is terrible anyway, never cared about Giant Bomb either.
It's the best multiplayer since Black Ops for sure but let's not pretend is perfect, needs some tweaks and fixs.