Call of Duty: WWII

I really wanted CoD’s return to World War II to be something more than a solid game – but it’s not. I couldn’t shake the feeling that I’ve already seen all this, that the developers (or perhaps the publisher) chose to create something as safe as possible. There’s just one campaign mission that surprised me with its scale, the rest is just a disappointing “best of Call of Duty”. The multiplayer is as good as usual, but it was infused with unnecessary systems resembling mobile titles, e.g spending in-game currency on pointless tasks of the “kill 100 enemies” variety. Missions that make you watch other players open their loot boxes are the pinnacle of absurdity. [13/2017, p.64]

A solid return to its roots, Call of Duty WWII reminds us what made us all fall in love Call of Duty in the first place. It ticks all the boxes which is both a blessing and a curse. Good fun and worth your time but offers nothing exceptional.

If you don’t play many shooters and haven’t seen what the genre has been up to in the last few years, its additions might seem fresh enough. If you’re the type to buy FPS games often, you won’t find much new or impressive here.

Call of Duty: WW2 is for the most part exactly what you expect it to be. Sledgehammer Games has made a solid entry in an annualised series that rarely disappoints, which treats its subject matter surprisingly well. Its few surprises are to be found mostly in the campaign between the moments of cheap spectacle, when it successfully recaptures exactly why World War 2 shooters were so popular and prevalent over a decade ago. The multiplayer is the simplest definition of an online shooter, with few thrills, but it's essentially exactly what fans have been asking for.

Call of Duty: WWII is a step back into the grounded realism the series has been sorely missing for years. While its single-player campaign isn’t anything to write home about, the new additions seen in multiplayer and the return of Nazi Zombies make for a package well worth playing.

Touching base with your origins is necessary to not lose touch with your audience, and that’s exactly what Call of Duty: WWII does without simply regressing. It gets to the core of its key modes and seizes on their intrinsic appeal with some neat, little twists thrown in. However, its campaign and zombies modes (while solid) feel unusually safe, whereas the multiplayer suffers from lacklustre map design and technical issues. You could say this Call of Duty is a sign of hopeful action to ground the series once more, but doesn’t go beyond its iconic namesake to deliver something truly special.

I'm pleased with Call of Duty WW2, but the rough launch and average campaign marred what could have been an unparalleled addition to the Call of Duty franchise. As good as multiplayer is, I have to dock points for missing features and instability.

Call of Duty: WWII is a satisfying experience. It is also easily one of the best-looking and feature-packed iterations of the franchise to date. But the cracks are definitely showing, with years of repetition getting ever-harder to disguise. The game will please a huge contingent of its dedicated fanbase, but its reliance on the status quo might be wearying for others.

There’s a distinct sense that changing the formula is just too risky for such a major property, which leaves Call of Duty in an enjoyable but unremarkable rut. We’ve been here. We’ve done all of this. Changing the time period so dramatically only helps to highlight how little has changed since the franchise’s total reimagining with Call of Duty 4. For those who enjoy the series, it’s nice to have a predictable source of entertainment each year. But for people looking for the next generation of shooters, Call of Duty simply isn’t offering it anymore.

The best Call Of Duty for several years, but it still owes too much to the past – and the campaign’s attempts at a more serious tone are only half successful.

Call of Duty WW2 is in the middle of an identity crisis, but by going back to its roots it has created slower and more tactical gameplay that is much more fun to play than the wall running and double jumping from the last few installments.

With a terribly below mediocre campaign, an average zombies mode, and an excellent multiplayer option, Call of Duty: WWII manages to hit all the marks. But not in the way that it should. I had high hopes, and was surprised that the real gem I found was not the one I was originally hoping to. It’s not great, it’s not good, it’s okay.

Creatively empty and functionally adequate, so long as this series keeps on making money there'll never be a reason for it to be anything other than what it is... Thoroughly formulaic. [Issue#194, p.72]

After a decade, Call of Duty still unable to give players anything new.

The shooting is solid, the graphics are fine, the sound design and musical score are acceptable if uninspired, and yet the game is significantly less than the sum of its parts.

Call of Duty's return to World War II looks great, but feels flat and uninspired from start to finish.

It doesn’t want you to play so much as it wants you to play along.

Such rough edges, and there are many more, suggest that while CoD: WWII may look the part, this is actually a game rushed to hit release – there are at least two areas in HQ with placeholder vendors saying ‘coming soon’.

There’s a lot of well-produced content packed inside Call of Duty WWII’s bunker, but very little of it is exciting, engaging, or original. The World War II setting papers the cracks, but constant mixed messaging about that historical conflict reveals the game for a gimmick.