In 2003, former Medal of Honor developers released their first game as a new studio. Although it began development under the codename "MOH Killer," it would soon be known as Call of Duty.
Flash forward 14 years, and the Call of Duty franchise has become a video game juggernaut, selling over 250 million units in sales, from three separate studios, over the course of its lifetime. It's gone from World War II, to the Cold War, to the future, and back again.
Now Playing: Call Of Duty WW2 Fails To Earn Its Campaign's Setting - Reboot Episode 18
With its most recent release, Call of Duty comes back to its World War II roots. In the video above, Mike Mahardy examines the ways Call of Duty: WWII's campaign fails to earn that return, and the numerous ways it could have done better.
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.
This is where PC gaming and Steam really shines. I just played the Black Ops series and World At War. I have to say. It was pretty good. If you put ALL the main games together. Cod 1, united offensive (covers battle of Bastogne pretty well) COD 2. World at war. Modern Warfare series and the black ops series , plus Infinite warfare (if you really want futuristic COD) its well over 80+ hours of single player Cod content. Spanning over all the major parts of WW2 and COD 4 Covered a bit of Iraq/ Al Qaeda type stuff. I wish they kept going down that route a bit more. Covers the Pacific in World at war , pretty well. So put all the (MAIN) games together, you have some serious single player content. Spanning from Cod 1 , right through to Infinite Warfare, lol. If you have a decent PC. Loads of single player COD content, outside of this new WW2 game.
For me the main problem isn't the historic inaccuracies but it's the fact we've done the D-Day to Berlin dash a thousand times before in other games. There's really nothing new, these huge battles that could take up an entire game on their own are reduced to one or two missions, example CoD 3 covered the entire Normandy Breakout and the Falaise Gap, a campaign reduced to one mission in WWII's campaign. What I personally want is a different front: The Eastern Front (and I mean the entire thing not just Stalingrad and Berlin) the North Africa-Italian Front, The Resistance, and above all the Pacific (and I mean the entire thing Pearl Harbor to Tokyo not just two islands and call it a day), and if you're so keen on having us invade France can we maybe try it from the other end, i.e. the lesser known Operation: Dragoon the Invasion of Southern France and have us work northward and THEN go to Berlin.
I mean if I wanted Band of Brothers I'd watch the freaking movie or read the freaking book
Maybe it just nostalgia, but the original COD and the expansion United Offensive was one of the best WWII games to ever grace our presence. This new COD is just a turd of a game, super small maps, no historical accuracy, sub par to Battlefield 1 in every way possible. COD is just for the dude brahs, and brotien shakes of the world.
Yeah you said that on the other thread, but BF1 stinks, and was well overhyped. When was the last time Gamespot even mentioned that game, or IGN, or anyone? I'm not saying this is better, but the Campaign certainly is, by a long shot.
Well, this was the last article I'm reading on Gamespot. I initially came here of somewhat accurate indication of whether the game I'm interested is good or not. Over the years I grew sceptical of the big gap between critic review and user reviews. Now, it's clear that from the "9/10" review to this article, there is something utterly wrong with the site. Critical accuracy no longer exists here. The fact that you throw big numbers on top of crappy games is saddening. It's like seeing once a great actor now participating in poorly done movies.
Well, he's soley talking about the Campaign, not the MP aspect of the game. And although the Campaign for me should be a big part of the actual score of the game, i think most are probably more interested in the MP (sadly), and that's more likely where people are going to be interested in the score.
And so, if you're like me that buy games mainly for the SP aspect, you'd be interested in this article.
If not, the article should not at all be a factor in any decision making whatsoever.
@jagdedge124: Really; who buys CoD nowadays for the SP campaign anyway? They've consistently gutted the SP campaign to focus on MP since the first MW game and it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon either.
@BigFeef: to be fair, COD 4 and MW 2, HAD pretty decent campaigns. Actually Black Ops 1 and 2 are pretty epic in scope to. If you combine. COD 1,2 World at War, MW series, Black Ops series. You literally have well over of 50 hours of single player content foe Call Of Duty. Covering all of these games. Going from the Pacific , Normandy. Stalingrad. Bastogne is covered pretty well in United Offensive. I was surprised, how well done Bastogne was, in Cod United Offensive. If you own a PC, you can go to town with single player content, spanning all the games. The only setting they haven't really covered, accept briefly. Is Vietnam. Not sure why.
Right, i'm well in the minority lol. But you're right that's the point. Since when did COD enthusiasts give a wit about the Campaign lol. Don't they usually say they only only use it to check their settings? I guess they care now, and there the irony.
@jagdedge124: You're not alone; but yes, we are the minority. The last CoD game I bought was MW2; and the last CoD game I really played was MW3, which was rented. Since then I haven't had any desire to play any CoD game; but them going back to WW2 did pique my interest. Too bad going back to their 'roots' just meant throwing a WW2 skin on the same old tired formula that they've been pushing for the last 10 years.
Well, he's dwelling on something that plagues many games these days, with generic pale campaigns. I think what we used to see in the past, say with the old MOH games that thwarted us into WW2, were compelling situations, like taking out the "Railgun Greta'. Or a V2 rocket facility, and hearing all those eery german broadcasts in the background. and with a top of the line musical score.
It 'felt" like WW2.
But, that was Spielberg and Dreamworks Interactive, and so of course the stories back then would play like his movies, and were top of the line, that in fact got me into gaming at the ripe young age back then of...35.
I'm one that always thought COD wasn't that great as far is it's campaigns. It always seemed boring and generic. Finest Hour was my favorite COD, b/c it brought on the Soviets, the British and different weapons and story lines.
In this day and age of MP, Developers just don't spend as much time creating decent Campaigns, but they should, being obviously at least Gamespot, cares, and i think many more of us do than we'd like to admit.
However, BF1 was probably the worst BF Campaign i ever played, and i go back to Bad Company 1, and i didn't see Gamespot making a stink of that. It seemed like just a lazy waste of time what they put together, and this campaign beats that by a LONG shot, in every way.
So, not the most enthralling Campaign, but they did drasticallly improve the sounds of weapons, and graphic quality. BO 1 was probably the best COD campaign i ever played in the modern era, but as compared as the hey day of campaign based games of yesteryear, not even close.
But that's a problem again all through the industry these days, no sense picking on COD in this regard.
I think the reviewer is right on about nothing new, and it's how I feel about every FPS game nowadays. It has to be the most stale genre in gaming. I'm not that creative, so I don't know what, but the entire genre really needs to do something fresh.
Saw the video and it was a pretty good watch. Regardless of going against the current and also the review of this site, you justify your observations well, and this more grounded analysis is a nice change from spamming ads disguissed as features in a site that sometimes think it has lost it's way.
It's kinda hard to compare this with the review of this site, since that article takes the sum of the parts of the game and you only analyze the campaign, something that I'm sure everyone expected to be good, but usually just lacks surprises, even when they switch settings.
As a long time COD fan I say this.....The last few games in the COD universe have been flat crappy games.
But as for WW2 I like it, Its like this....... Its nice to have a new exotic food it tastes good its exciting you like truing something new and so on. However its really nice to go back to a nice simple hamburger with fries and a coke. Kind of like going home man.
WW2 brings me back home to the time I played COD2 for the first time. Heck I played Hours and Hours on it still play it to this day !!!
So I get it. Its a WW2 game that is back to basics but can't we have that with the great graphics and multiplayer ?
I guess I'm just a older gamer but WW2 hits a nice warm spot with me and I like it and will continue to like it for a long long time !
so you become critical after you release your "9"... its funny because a week after having the game, i started saying how the campaign falls flat on reviews etc and get blasted by "fans". then later on the real critics start to emerge...my guess is activision let journalists become critical well after they have made over 500mil
You may as well go ahead and delete your review if you're gonna put out articles like this. Because it's looks like Gamespot is jumping on the bandwagon purely based on fan feedback.
And yet in your review you were praising the campaign to the high heavens lol
Yeah yeah, different writers, but why heavily advertise both? Especially with this after the review with the immense backlash? I know we all joke about paid reviews but let's be real here, clearly there's something going on at that Activision reviewing event.
@xenomorphalien: Gamespot's reviews of Star Trek Discovery, the CBS online series, were, I thought, so thin, uncritical, and fawning, there must have been a reason. Then I looked at the bottom of the page and saw that Gamespot is owned by CBS online. Well, that explained it.
Several jaded commenters down below. Is it too much to ask that, if you're going to make accusations of paid reviews and scores, you provide some type of proof? ANY type of proof? Otherwise, it's just smoke being blow out your various orifices.
@Brakkyn: review of this game was made in an activision weekend event dedicated solely to the premiere of this game. You flame that, you're not coming next year.
@Thanatos2k: Jeff Gerstmann is proof of what? The independence of the editorial department from advertising/marketing deals? If anything, Jeff's firing is a mark in the "Not-paid reviews" column.
@Thanatos2k: Yes. He was fired for giving an honest, negative review, keeping the integrity of the editorial department and maintaining the wall separating it from advertising. Jeff has even said the people who did it — people who don't know how the relationship between editorial and advertising is supposed to be minimal if it exists at all — are no long there.
game was very good not great but very good and actually i think it captured the souls of the series very good. i dont know what these critics are talking about.
@xxdavidxcx87: Granted, hating call of duty by this point is what's popular but your response is just EPIC MY DUDE! GIT GUD XD hahaha!!! You down for some pubg after we get back from the bar after the game tonight? We could do a drunk stream! Hahahaha we're such awesome badasses!
This is the kind of person that plays call of duty, someone who unironically (it doesn't matter at this point) uses le git gud meme as a defense against those that might possibly dislike the cancer that shooters have become. Nah nah man just git gud git the season pass git the microtransactions git me out of here.
K Mike we know you didn't review this game but when the company you work for allows to post a clearly paid review its time to look for other options. The reason why I am saying this review is paid is because Miguel went to the review event especially since activision pays for hotel and all other expenses. But when Miguel gives a game a 9 which in this case it's clearly undeserved if not, it reflects poor judgement on future Miguel reviews and also affects GameSpot's image. Mike, You are way too good for this job you should really follow Danny's footsteps.
Join the conversation