Call of Duty: WWII

 PlayStation 4
User Score
5.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 2065 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 718 out of 2065
  2. Mixed: 482 out of 2065
  3. Negative: 865 out of 2065
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. TheQuietGamer
    Nov 24, 2018
    7
    Call of Duty goes back to its World War 2 roots. A return to form that will be welcomed by anyone tired of wall running and jet packs. This back-to-basics approach is comfortable as an old shoe, but the new additions are hit-or-miss and the lack of risks taken won't do anything to win back those who found the series to have gotten stale some time ago.

    The campaign: Sledgehammer Games    Call of Duty goes back to its World War 2 roots. A return to form that will be welcomed by anyone tired of wall running and jet packs. This back-to-basics approach is comfortable as an old shoe, but the new additions are hit-or-miss and the lack of risks taken won't do anything to win back those who found the series to have gotten stale some time ago.

    The campaign:
    Sledgehammer Games shows once again that they're almost as good at telling stories as the team at Treyarch. With the exception of the protagonist (whose voice actor has some trouble maintaining his southern accent), I actually cared about the characters. I wasn't a big fan of the gameplay changes though. The removal of recharging health for a limited bar that you need to keep an eye on is at odds with the chaotic nature of the action where bullets come at you from every direction. The new squad system where your AI teammates can resupply you with ammo and first aid kits is interesting, but not fleshed out enough to have any real impact. While I was invested in the story actually playing through it wasn't something I enjoyed all that much.

    Zombies:
    I think WWII actually has one of the best iterations of the fan favorite cooperative mode. The new tone and setting are really creepy giving it a distinct vibe. All of the abilities, power-ups, and single use skills will be easier for newcomers to wrap their heads around than they were in Black Ops 3. While this change may not sit well with some, I love the addition of regularly updated goals for the sense of direction they give. Of course playing with randoms isn't ideal. Especially if you or they don't have a mic. This is still a mode that is at its strongest with friends.

    Multiplayer:
    The biggest portion of the package and the thing that's kept this franchise alive. It's where you'll feel the effects of the return to boots-on-the-ground style gameplay the most. With the removal of all the movement systems introduced over the years as the series pushed further and further into the future this really does feel like playing old school CoD. The new War mode can be quite a bit of fun with each map offering different objectives for teams to complete in order to win the match. It adds some nice variety, but can be a little unbalanced at times with certain objectives giving one side a clear advantage over the other. The Hub is kind of an odd addition. Giving you a place to interact with other players. It has its amusements, but for the most part I never used it.

    The loot box system is understandably controversial as it has led to the inclusion of microtransactions. They are totally frivolous though as all they offer are cosmetic options. They're given out at random and you can earn them by completing "contracts" that require you to complete certain challenges. You can even get specific things you want with the easy to amass in-game currency by going to the Hub. So you'll never feel pressured to spend any money on them. Personally, I kind of like them as they mean I don't have to hit some crazy goal just to get a stupid charm or skin for my guns.

    Newcomers and longtime fans alike are going to face a bit of a learning curve when it comes to navigating WWII's confusing mess of menus. I don't know why Sledgehammer decided to ditch the sleak, easy to figure out layout of previous CoD titles, but it wasn't a smart move. Its the kind of thing that helped put Medal of Honor: Warfighter in a very early grave and has kept me from ever sticking with a Battlefield game for too long. I also encountered a startling amount of disconnects from matches. The stability is quite questionable given the meaty update sizes.

    Technical:
    Patch sizes are something Sledgehammer really needs to work on. I've been able to get every update put out for all of both Treyarch's and Infinity Ward's entries in the series over the years without ever having to worry about whether or not I had enough space for them. Here though I had to clear out a nice chunk of memory to make room. This was in issue for Advanced Warfare as well and I abandoned that game because of it.

    Conclusion:
    If you've wanted to see the series return to a more grounded style of play that's free of laser beams and robots then this is the CoD for you. Sledgehammer has tried to add some defining changes to the mix with varying degrees of success. Overall though this is another solid addition to the franchise and a sign that perhaps we haven't seen everything this conflict has to offer.

    7.9/10    … Expand
  2. Gaz
    Nov 12, 2020
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm going to be as fair and balanced as I possibly can with this game. It's completely average in just about every way. Honestly, this is the video game equivalent of a failing student getting a C- minus and the teachers all say how good he is. The bar was set so low that it looks good by comparison.

    The campaign was something I found enjoyable, but suffers from archaic design choices. It felt like I was playing Call of Duty 2 or 3, and while I enjoyed some of the nostalgia and simplicity of it all, I was constantly reminding myself that this was a 2017 release that cost millions of dollars to make and promised a return to form while pushing boundaries, and the game failed to deliver in that regard. Worse still, where the game goes over-the-top with it are the most immersion-breaking parts of the story. There's seriously a scene where you sneak into a Nazi camp with suppressed SMG's ( the stealth sequences are terrible, by the way) and later in that same level, you chase a train and flip your vehicle sideways in front of it and end up grinding against the train before it eventually derails and you fly out of your jeep. A lot of the game doesn't feel like WWII and instead feels like a weird pseudo-WWII. Honestly, the only way I got through it and found myself having fun was by acting like it was Inglorious Basterds The Game. Seriously guys, take this campaign with a grain of salt and try to treat it like a war movie and just enjoy the ride because if you're looking for a realistic or immersive experience, you won't find it here. It's a good campaign, but only if you appreciate it with the right mindset. If you're like me and you loved World at War, this game's campaign won't be dethroning it.

    Multiplayer made me keep reminding myself that, once again, this was a multi-million dollar franchise because the multiplayer is about as basic as it gets. You get all the modes that come in traditional CoD fare with a few additions like the War mode which really just boils down to, "Defenders camp and attackers shove their bodies into objectives and ruin their K/D." But the maps are basic, bland, and uninspired and the weapon selection is mostly acceptable at best. Again, this multiplayer is easily 10x better than Infinite Warfare's, but that's barely saying anything. I truly felt like I was playing a lesser shooter made by a smaller developer instead of a powerhouse franchise. It's pitiful, actually.

    The zombies, however, is something I enjoy for the most part. It's familiar enough to draw me in, yet different enough to feel unique. The map is huge, the zombies have different movement patterns than the other CoD games, there's different zombie types, and catalogued objectives that guide you on a path. I feel like this game gives you the tools to last longer and it feels like the devs want you to survive and see it through if you can figure out what you're doing. There's a story there, and it peaks your interest.

    But one of the areas this game stumbles in is the accuracy department. Suppressed weapons, manually reloading M1 Garands, red dot sights, incendiary bullets, and NO FREAKING SWASTIKAS in multiplayer really hold this game back. Because Nazi zombies with a bunch of iron crosses draped on everything doesn't look anywhere near as sinister as it should. In fact, just to mock the absurdity of this game's political correctness, my multiplayer soldier is a black woman who's calling card is Normandy beach with a gay pride flag raised on it. Seriously. These are things Sledgehammer put in their game about WWII, folks. And speaking of things put in the game, the microtransactions and the season pass are back and just as prevalent as ever, and given the fact that Activision recently patented methods to shove them down our throats even more, it seems that they're going to be content to alienate their fans and bleed whoever's left dry until the cash cow can't be milked any further.

    At the end of the day, Call of Duty WWII is strictly average in every way. It's by no means a terrible game, but it never comes close to greatness, either. This will be a game relegated to the dead center of every CoD ranking list, and that's where it belongs. If you need to wash the taste of Infinite Warfare out of your mouth and want that CoD experience you can't get elsewhere, this game is for you. As for me, this is a game I'd buy on sale for about 20 bucks because that's all I feel it's worth. But if you're looking for historical shooters, Battlefield 1 is a much better game and there are plenty of other first-person shooters on the market that outclass this one. Like I said, it's a C- grade from a failing student. It's good compared to its last few outings alone, and that's not saying much.    … Expand
  3. PictoPirate
    Jul 27, 2020
    7
    Call of Duty: WWII is exactly what you'd expect from a Call of Duty game. Big production values, bombastic set-pieces and all the shooty shooting you can stomach.

    The combat is as good as ever, the weapons feel meaty and satisfying and there is a decent amount of variety in weapons to keep things interesting. The graphics are good, as you'd expect from a CoD game. The story is decent    Call of Duty: WWII is exactly what you'd expect from a Call of Duty game. Big production values, bombastic set-pieces and all the shooty shooting you can stomach.

    The combat is as good as ever, the weapons feel meaty and satisfying and there is a decent amount of variety in weapons to keep things interesting. The graphics are good, as you'd expect from a CoD game.

    The story is decent and brilliantly acted, if a little one dimensional and lacking in any really interesting twists and turns. So, yeah... it's a call of Duty game where you get to shoot Nazis. Nothing groundbreaking but a fun romp while it lasts.

    *I don't care about multiplayer so I can't tell you if that is any good or not.    … Expand
  4. iKen
    Sep 1, 2020
    7
    Played on PS4 Pro.
    Gameplay: GOOD
    Graphic: GREAT
    Story: GOOD
    Music/Sound : GOOD
    Dialogue/Voice Acting: GREAT
  5. gdmatt
    Dec 22, 2017
    7
    The best CoD since Black Ops 2, however given the quality of recent titles, that's not much to brag about. A solid entry that adds nothing of any value to a tried and tired series.
  6. p1menta
    Jul 5, 2018
    7
    same old same old, not bad, but it's still not really fine. the story is cliche and boring and stupid, and the brazillian portuguese voices are terrible, i wish i could at least play this **** in english. i dont ever play the multiplayers
  7. sgy0003
    Nov 5, 2017
    7
    Set in WWII, you think they would put more effort into the game since it's an actual part of the history and not some sci-fi future shooter ****

    Well, although the campaign is much better than the last three entries (BO3, AW, and IW). There are mix of tank section, aviation battle, espionage, and stealth. However, tank and aviation battle especially sucks, because even though they are    Set in WWII, you think they would put more effort into the game since it's an actual part of the history and not some sci-fi future shooter ****

    Well, although the campaign is much better than the last three entries (BO3, AW, and IW). There are mix of tank section, aviation battle, espionage, and stealth. However, tank and aviation battle especially sucks, because even though they are fun it only lasts about 15-20 min as part of a mission, and NOT as a whole mission. Espionage while entertaining, it's easy enough for anyone with basic stealth instincts can plow through. And Stealth.....oh my god, it sucks. There is so much stealth in this game. You'd think that would be nice taking a break from full frontal combat, but these stealth sections are annoyingly paced. I was expecting a brother-in-arms type of bonding with my npc comrades, but that never happened.

    Multiplayer is also a lot better, but still kinda the same. We finally don't have jet-packs and futuristic abilities, so the gameplay is much more grounded (literally). It's still only fun when you are the one kicking asses, but you'll still be plagued with cheap shots, 6-year olds who apparently did your mother, and **** who are better than you. Oh and lootboxes, while unnecessary, shows the greedy corperate **** side of Activision in a full force.

    If you are looking to get COD, WWII is the game I'd recommend(sorta). The game looks great, campaign has its moments, and multiplayer as always needs some serious balancing.    … Expand
  8. martyisruling
    Nov 11, 2017
    7
    The Game as a whole is good, but not Great. It looks and plays amazing. The Campaign is great, but it's short. That's pretty much the theme with this COD. The new War mode is pretty solid. The problem is there are few maps all around in multiplayer in general. Unless you want to pay $50 for the season pass. So, before you buy this game you have to ask yourself, is $60 too much to pay forThe Game as a whole is good, but not Great. It looks and plays amazing. The Campaign is great, but it's short. That's pretty much the theme with this COD. The new War mode is pretty solid. The problem is there are few maps all around in multiplayer in general. Unless you want to pay $50 for the season pass. So, before you buy this game you have to ask yourself, is $60 too much to pay for half a game? Is the full game worth $100? Next year there will be another COD, and players will migrate over. Buyer beware.… Expand
  9. psylife
    Nov 15, 2017
    7
    A well-paced piece of Zionist propaganda. Despite being cheesy, cliche, and misleading in its depiction of the events, it still manages to delight thanks to solid and varied game-play mechanics and an expertly designed single player campaign.
  10. Voodoo123
    Oct 15, 2019
    7
    +Exceptional visual quality/animations
    +Great cast
    +Excellent level design -Predictable set pieces -Extremely linear experience There was alot of big talk from the devs leading up to the release suggesting a reinvention of the COD game design, sadly this was not the case just more of the same in a new skin - that isnt a flaw as the formula is still successful here, just    +Exceptional visual quality/animations
    +Great cast
    +Excellent level design
    -Predictable set pieces
    -Extremely linear experience

    There was alot of big talk from the devs leading up to the release suggesting a reinvention of the COD game design, sadly this was not the case just more of the same in a new skin - that isnt a flaw as the formula is still successful here, just disappointing that more couldn't be done to push the franchise forwards given the IMO extremely entertaining (but poorly received) infinite warfare. COD WW2 is a great but not ground breaking game (review as based on SP not MP).    … Expand
  11. Paragon89
    Mar 5, 2018
    7
    Bit of a tough one to review.

    I haven't played COD since BOP2- so cant really judge on the evolution on the next-gen platforms. But based on what I've heard its been a pretty crap Era. Start with the Good. + Visuals Looks grest especially in the campaign. Havent played any of the next-gen era titles but it seems really good. I was happy with that. + Zombies is still good,    Bit of a tough one to review.

    I haven't played COD since BOP2- so cant really judge on the evolution on the next-gen platforms. But based on what I've heard its been a pretty crap Era.

    Start with the Good.
    + Visuals Looks grest especially in the campaign. Havent played any of the next-gen era titles but it seems really good. I was happy with that.

    + Zombies is still good, different but at least its not same old and they actually evolved it. But hasn't become some bloated expanded mess and have managed to keep it feeling fairly simple and ground the classic maps. They have objectives now but are entirely optional. and is better than BOP2 Zombies anyway.

    + More customisation - plenty of customisation if your into that like your character, weapon skins etc

    + War and Headquarters, adds new multiplayer depth. added value and things to do. Tries to bring a story to the multiplayer.

    + Solid Multiplayer experience, not really a plus, but if your used to what they do year in year out, and are happy with that then you know your going to get a solid pick up and play multiplayer experience to fill in your hours when your bored.

    + While I haven't played AW/BOP3/IW so I don't know if they have these features. I really like the addition of Divisions and the new way of doing Perks to create unique combinations.

    Negatives
    - My biggest gripe with COD has always been the respawn system in multiplayer progressively getting worse with each instalment coupled with the average size of maps getting smaller means I often find I have enemies closer to me than allies and usually behind me. There's no logical direction to run in when you spawn. Which with WWII is still broken it seems.

    - Loot crates, that was a obvious one to get on the list. While it doesn't really bother me for COD as its a game where you grab any gun and kill people. I don't really see the need to pay for anything for the core experience. its all mainly cosmetic. and any guns don't really hamper you.

    -value for money , there is less maps at launch and have paid the same price, fair enough there's WAR mode but doesn't really justify it as I imagine its not something the core player base will get involved with. Same with map packs, less for your money.

    Now the personal things that stand out for me

    While COD gains superficial changes each year often depending on who's developing. Some Key features are missing or changed that I miss.

    for example I loved the Support and Specialist Play styles of MF3 it was a great way to help Assist/Support and lone wolves playstyles build a different set of killstreaks/perks and bring changes to the game. While this game kinda has it with divisions and the new Perk system Its something I miss.

    Killstreaks - I know its WW2 so its rooted and limited in technology etc, but Attack Dogs is missing!? I know we have paratroopers but come on! give us more streaks! - there seems to be a general lack of streaks(different streaks as well) to be fair I cant really think of any beyond the dogs that is missing, maybe drop a AI controlled tank on the battlefield that enemy team has to blow up....

    - Rooted is bad in a way - off the back of the last point, while its nice to be simple and go back to the roots, I cant help but feel they have stripped a lot meat from its bones. and while there is a solid core experience it lacks the added value to help with longevity. I feel ive grown tired on this COD instalment a lo faster than I have the others.

    Overall I've given it a 7. Its Classic COD and I love it for that and can pass many hours playing it. its solid and you cant go wrong. however it hasn't evolved as a franchise and doesn't have the added value to make it worth the price. Id give it a 9 if they would fix the respawn system.

    Whats Next? Call of Duty: Chronicle's - a time travelling adventure that features Easters eggs and cameos from all games. and Resets the whole timeline. and the Multiplayer maps is just remastered versions of the top 20 maps of all time.    … Expand
  12. wigclyne
    Nov 22, 2017
    7
    It is great to have boots on the ground again and WW2 is better than Infinite Warfare but the game as whole is a let down. Online connections at launch has been terrible but this has improved but you do not share the barracks anymore . There seems to be few maps but the addition of War mode is a welcome one.

    Story mode is average and a little short but there is a decent amount of    It is great to have boots on the ground again and WW2 is better than Infinite Warfare but the game as whole is a let down. Online connections at launch has been terrible but this has improved but you do not share the barracks anymore . There seems to be few maps but the addition of War mode is a welcome one.

    Story mode is average and a little short but there is a decent amount of scenarios and does have a few great moments.

    Online, microtransactions and it seems a little light on content have let this down. More of WW2 should have been added, it was a world war after all.    … Expand
  13. Termin8ter
    Nov 7, 2017
    7
    Another year, another Call of Duty game. First off, the engine still needs to be rebuilt completely or shot on the spot, ok? Still using the Quake engine from 99? Really? The art team did a good job though. The gameplay still feels the same as it did ten years ago in Call of Duty 4, despite the massive change in setting. The campaign is quite good, quite lengthy as well. Better thanAnother year, another Call of Duty game. First off, the engine still needs to be rebuilt completely or shot on the spot, ok? Still using the Quake engine from 99? Really? The art team did a good job though. The gameplay still feels the same as it did ten years ago in Call of Duty 4, despite the massive change in setting. The campaign is quite good, quite lengthy as well. Better than Infinite Borefare and BO3's overly complicated plot. It's just a slimmed down, grounded war experience, and that I like. The multiplayer is mostly a very samey Call of Duty multiplayer experience that we have gotten since Modern Warfare, aside from the great new War mode, which is a fantastic addition. But it unfortunately doesn't quite save the multiplayer mode. Zombies. Sledgehammer's last crack at Zombies in AW only proved that only Treyarch could nail it correctly, so I was hoping they could save face here. I like how the mode feels like it's own beast and not a clone of BO3 zombies. The tone is very serious and mature, and that ascends the overly humorous tone of IW's zombies, which is great too. The gunplay itself is quite good, and I liked how the team opted for a proper campaign with horde sections, rather than repeating Treyarch's zombies mode. To be honest, the zombies is probably the best part of World War II. This game is definitely better than Destiny 2, and takes some strong strides in the right direction, but It doesn't earn a purchase at full price. I wouldn't get it for more than 15$.… Expand
  14. PrimalBanana
    Nov 3, 2017
    7
    Another year and another Call of Duty game. This time they've ditched the jetpacks and what not and gone back to their roots. CoD WW2 unsurprisingly takes place during WW2. Trailers shown before release had me actually looking forward to the campaign. In fairness its not terrible but its not exactly engrossing or exciting. We get to play through a story that we've played a thousand timesAnother year and another Call of Duty game. This time they've ditched the jetpacks and what not and gone back to their roots. CoD WW2 unsurprisingly takes place during WW2. Trailers shown before release had me actually looking forward to the campaign. In fairness its not terrible but its not exactly engrossing or exciting. We get to play through a story that we've played a thousand times before. Im struggling to really connect with the chatacters too. Mainly because squad mates are bloody useless in a fire fight leaving it up to me to do everything. The AI is as dim as ever and the dialogue is just a clichè fest. Like i said its not terrible but its certainly not worthy of anything over a 6 or 7 out of 10. The MP is as you'd expect. Solid and tight and raining loot crates. Activision go to extreme legths to try to convince you to part with your cash, its kind of embarassing to be honest. There's even a daily mission to watch 3 people open loot crates in the social space. Gunplay is good, sounds are good and the level design is overall pretty decent. Graphically Call of Duty continues to show its age and as i've said in the past its desperate for a new engine. Certainly a better Call of Duty than we've had in the last few years but its nothing special so dont expect too much except your normal Call of Duty experience.… Expand
  15. PeterAlexander
    Sep 11, 2018
    7
    Call of Duty WWII has an amazing campaign, but it isn't enough to save it from being one of the weaker entries in the series. The online play is disengaging and tarnished by easily forgettable maps and the zombies mode is incredibly lacklustre in comparison to the main Black Ops series entries.
  16. geo333
    Jun 25, 2022
    7
    This game would have gotten a better score by me if it was not for the glitches in the campaign some of them just are soo bad considering I played this game 5 years later after its release, it should have been fixed aside from it, the campaign is fantastic and the multiplayer great as well, if you like ww2 stuff this is a gem, great game.
  17. kylocosplay
    Jul 29, 2020
    7
    Le he puesto un 7 porque la campaña me pareció espectacular, el nivel de gráficos está a nivel del the last of us 2 y las interpretaciones son muy buenas, la campaña te lleva a batallas muy importantes de la SGM como el desembarco de Normandía, la jugabilidad innova como curar mediante botiquines que te lo dan los compañeros o por el mapa, actos heroicos ya sean arrastrar a un soldadoLe he puesto un 7 porque la campaña me pareció espectacular, el nivel de gráficos está a nivel del the last of us 2 y las interpretaciones son muy buenas, la campaña te lleva a batallas muy importantes de la SGM como el desembarco de Normandía, la jugabilidad innova como curar mediante botiquines que te lo dan los compañeros o por el mapa, actos heroicos ya sean arrastrar a un soldado herido para llevarlo a cubierto o salvarlo de un aprieto. Los zombis no están nada mal y el multijugador está muy bien hecho con una lobby donde coger misiones, abrir paquetes de ayuda, duelos 1 vs 1...
    Conclusión, a mi me ha encantado y gracias a PSPlus que lo regalaron lo he podido jugar, el único defecto que tiene el juego es que en mi PS4 PRO los ventiladores se ponen al máximo que incluso a veces me salía el mensaje de sobrecalentamiento, por lo demás todo está muy bien.    … Expand
  18. SleepNot
    Mar 7, 2021
    7
    Call of duty WW2 is a good game. It’s good action without drama and soul :) Good to kill but not very interesting
  19. johnnypxc
    Jan 17, 2018
    7
    Id rate it a 7.8/10 if there were decimals allowed here. Id say it is pretty solid in terms of returning to the classic boots on the ground combat. Its ages better than the last couple cods. The only things I really disliked about it were that id rate the zombies a 6/10 because it has changed too much from the golden day waw-bops 2 era and is far too fast paced, "if it aint broke dont fixId rate it a 7.8/10 if there were decimals allowed here. Id say it is pretty solid in terms of returning to the classic boots on the ground combat. Its ages better than the last couple cods. The only things I really disliked about it were that id rate the zombies a 6/10 because it has changed too much from the golden day waw-bops 2 era and is far too fast paced, "if it aint broke dont fix it", and of course the loot boxes which are hilariously bad, (you always get pistol grips that you cant even see on your gun).… Expand
  20. luckydutch
    Nov 4, 2017
    7
    I don't really get all the hate for this. It's not groundbreakingly innovative but the campaign is interesting and the multiplayer is just classic CoD multiplayer. The microtransactions are FAR less toxic and invasive than the RNG P2W rubbish in the upcoming Battlefront 2. Based on my current experience, I reckon I will unlock every gun within 30-40 hours of online play which is prettyI don't really get all the hate for this. It's not groundbreakingly innovative but the campaign is interesting and the multiplayer is just classic CoD multiplayer. The microtransactions are FAR less toxic and invasive than the RNG P2W rubbish in the upcoming Battlefront 2. Based on my current experience, I reckon I will unlock every gun within 30-40 hours of online play which is pretty reasonable.

    If you like CoD, you'll like this. If you don't like CoD, why are you buying it in the first place?    … Expand
  21. Ubermonkey88
    Nov 6, 2017
    7
    I've seen a lot of varying reviews of COD WW2 but a lot seem to be bashing by fanboys of another franchise or completely biased praise by COD fanboys, so hopefully I can give a bit more of a balanced view.

    I've played most CODs (some for a long time, some VERY briefly) since the very original on PC all those years, and although the return to WW2 does suggest a lack of new ideas etc,    I've seen a lot of varying reviews of COD WW2 but a lot seem to be bashing by fanboys of another franchise or completely biased praise by COD fanboys, so hopefully I can give a bit more of a balanced view.

    I've played most CODs (some for a long time, some VERY briefly) since the very original on PC all those years, and although the return to WW2 does suggest a lack of new ideas etc, it's one of the better recent releases, especially following last year's abysmal Infinite Warfare. The return to WW2 obviously means no jetpacks, double-jumps or futuristic tech that distracted from the actual gunplay, which for now, is a welcome change. There are plenty of issues too, which I will mention below, along with the positives -

    Pros

    - The single player campaign is fun, which is something that can't be said for the past few iterations of COD. It does visit settings and places that have been done in every other WW2 game but it does it with a level of polish that isn't seen in many others. Objectives are varied, so although it is the familiar campaign, it does help mix things up a bit. The introduction of squad mates who provide you with supplies/health packs/support is a nice addition that keeps you on your toes.

    - The multiplayer benefits greatly from the lack of futuristic nonsense (drones, robots, nanobots etc) and is a much more focused experience for it. Because of the WW2 setting, the developers are more restricted in types of weaponry available and the game benefits from it, meaning it''s a bit more balanced and not quite as chaotic as before. It also introduced Headquarters, which is a social hub, not unlike The Tower in Destiny/Destiny 2. It's initially overwhelming but once you get used to it, it's good to be able to run about in and check with vendors while waiting for a game to start.

    - Graphically the campaign looks great. Textures are nice, it's very polished and it all runs very smoothly.

    Cons

    - Graphically, the multiplayer doesn't look great (which is nothing new in COD) especially now that the devs have had a few years with the PS4 (and XBone) kits, which is disappointing. It looks like it could easily be from the last generation of consoles, but I suppose graphics aren't everything.

    - Considering that it's gone back to WW2, it's no surprise there isn't an awful lot of innovation, and nothing that hasn't been seen in other WW2/COD/BF games.

    - The biggest issue at the moment is the servers - at times the online is unplayable due to errors, extremely slow matchmaking (which has been confirmed to be an issue with the servers as opposed to my connection) and completely empty Headquarters hubs. It's completely possible that if you do manage to connect to the online services that you could be sitting in a lobby waiting for a game for 15 minutes - it's that slow. It is assumed that this issue will be fixed with a patch or update very very soon, but it's still shocking that for a game as big and popular as COD that this is such a problem.

    Other points

    - Zombies - it has zombies mode as usual. I don't care, and never have cared for Zombies but if it's something you like, it's there and is pretty much the same as previous Zombies modes in previous games, so if you liked them then yay! If not, it likely won't change your mind.

    Overall, COD WW2 is an enjoyable enough game with a few issues holding it back, none more so than the servers which will hopefully be fixed soon. Definitely worth playing through and having a go on multiplayer - if you loved older CODs (such as 2, 3, Modern Warfare and World at War), then you'll feel right at home. If you don't like COD though, I don't think this will change your mind.    … Expand
  22. thaesino
    Nov 6, 2017
    7
    (Disclaimer: I will not comment on microstransactions, nor take that into account when reviewing this game, as it is our fault, the gamers, that these publishers have gotten away with such things. Placing a bad rating on the Developers' hard work due to the greed of the Publishers and the ignorance of the Players, would not do justice to any of the many AAA titles riddled with(Disclaimer: I will not comment on microstransactions, nor take that into account when reviewing this game, as it is our fault, the gamers, that these publishers have gotten away with such things. Placing a bad rating on the Developers' hard work due to the greed of the Publishers and the ignorance of the Players, would not do justice to any of the many AAA titles riddled with microtransactions or DLC. If you want them out, STOP PAYING FOR THEM. YOU ARE THE ONES PAYING FOR THEM TO BE THERE.)

    Let me make this short and break it down into three sections: Call of Duty: WW2, the game; Call of Duty: WW2, the Comparisons; and, Call of Duty: WW2, the Community.

    --- The Game: This is a game which can be easily scored anywhere between 5 and 8, depending on your mood, on your common sense, on your intelligence, or on your need to defend your purchase of this game, or to attack it in order to defend your purchase of another game (i.e. BF1, Destiny 2). The Campaign is good, albeit short. The MP is exactly like the Beta, plus the usual millions of microtransaction options which just keep getting cleverer and cleverer.

    --- The Comparisons: This game is not BF1. It has great visuals and good voice acting/writing. However, because it is not BF1, it also moves faster, which is great. BECAUSE it moves faster, it does not need to look as good. No one buys a game like this in order to stare at puddles in the mud, that's what games like Horizon: Zero Dawn are for. People compare for various reasons, not the least of which is, they simply don't know what they want anymore... and it is not our fault. Publishers and Critics and even YouTubers swing us left and right (bet they have fun doing it) for the sake of a sale, or for the sake of a sponsorship. In the end, so many people ended up buying Infinite Warfare BECAUSE of MW:RE... so it didn't matter. Activision won. Yay! And so did DICE/EA, because they also bought BF1. And so did Blizzard (Activision's merge), because they also bought Overwatch. And there go more than $180.

    The Community: I'll lay it flat. Go anywhere. Whether here on Meta, or YouTube, or the Activision community, or just on the mics on PS4 and you'll reach the same conclusion I have reached: Call of Duty has been hijacked by children, and this is here to stay. Children, because, well, that is what children do, are not the best at playing well, although if you don't take the game too seriously, you'll be fine, since they are pretty good at just having plain fun in ridiculous ways, without worrying about dying or having their teammates killed, etc etc, and heck... since when did we get so serious about games?

    Enjoy this game if you bought/buy it. That's all I can say. I couldn't enjoy it, but notice my score. My personal experience doesn't change what I see to be a solid COD experience, like in the past with MW and MW2.    … Expand
  23. Berrlett
    May 9, 2018
    7
    Good thing I bought it heavily discounted, going through the campaign its surely no match for BF1 but still enjoyable, the D day landing on French beach was created with saving private Ryan in vision, brutal and unforgiving what follows afterwards is average. Have yet to try the on-line features but if you're here for advice thinking to buy it mine will be yes, at a big discount (somethingGood thing I bought it heavily discounted, going through the campaign its surely no match for BF1 but still enjoyable, the D day landing on French beach was created with saving private Ryan in vision, brutal and unforgiving what follows afterwards is average. Have yet to try the on-line features but if you're here for advice thinking to buy it mine will be yes, at a big discount (something like 50% off)… Expand
  24. Calitoris
    Nov 11, 2017
    7
    People hating the game just because it comes out every year. It's a polished game, runs smooth, but it's just the same good game new skin. It's obviously not a bad game, just a repeating well oiled machine. Single player is short but it's not what everyone plays COD for.
  25. Leandro5an
    Jun 20, 2020
    7
    Hace años que no jugaba un Call of Duty. Me gustó la campaña pero nunca tanto para ponerle una nota verde. En el online no sé para qué pone en franco tiradores si los mapas son super chicos (pequeños).
  26. BSchwarz95
    Nov 14, 2018
    7
    True CoD will always have three pillars to the game: campaign, zombies, and multiplayer. The campaign was okay, the zombies was great, and the multiplayer was an absolute blast. I haven't played a Call of Duty game since MW3, until WWII. I jumped into the multiplayer and loved every second of it. There weren't many maps at the start but that meant that players could completely master theirTrue CoD will always have three pillars to the game: campaign, zombies, and multiplayer. The campaign was okay, the zombies was great, and the multiplayer was an absolute blast. I haven't played a Call of Duty game since MW3, until WWII. I jumped into the multiplayer and loved every second of it. There weren't many maps at the start but that meant that players could completely master their technique and strategy in order to bend the combat to their will. My favorite game mode was easily Hardcore Dom and after reaching master prestige, I still can't get enough of that game mode. The zombies mode felt fresh, too. The easter eggs, mechanics, and story were exciting to spend time with and although it's exactly what you'd expect the zombies mode to be like, I still thoroughly enjoyed it as somebody who never felt interested in playing it at all. And, the campaign. Meh. It was "fine." The story, gameplay, level design, characters, all acceptable with no real emotion or excitement at all. All in all, a lot of fun but the lack of true creative genius makes this a hard recommendation. This is more of a guilty pleasure than anything else.… Expand
  27. kyper007
    Nov 25, 2017
    7
    Играл в call of duty еще с ее начала.Купил магазине так как игра была по скринам на коробке очень похожа на Медаль за отвагу и не прогадал. Новая кола это возвращение к этим самым истокам,довольно удачное.
  28. SeptemberFly
    Nov 7, 2017
    7
    Call of Duty World War 2 is, well... It's a Call of Duty game. I haven't played a call of duty game since black ops 2, so it's been a good bit since I've played one of these games so this review is coming from someone with an outside perspective. Playing this game after a long break from the series, it still feels very much the same as when I stopped playing the series. The changes inCall of Duty World War 2 is, well... It's a Call of Duty game. I haven't played a call of duty game since black ops 2, so it's been a good bit since I've played one of these games so this review is coming from someone with an outside perspective. Playing this game after a long break from the series, it still feels very much the same as when I stopped playing the series. The changes in multiplayer feel very minor, as the experience felt about the same to me as it has always been. The only changes to multiplayer that I really noticed is that there's a hub area in multiplayer that you're in before going into a match and that transitioning to new matches feels a lot more seamless than it used to. However, the changes that were made are probably feel a lot more important to a hardcore call of duty fan than it was to me. The zombies mode in the game is very fun to play with friends. I didn't play too much of it, but the time I had with it was fun and I was surprised that they actually made a campaign out of it. The strongest part of Call of Duty WW2 to me was the main campaign. It feels like the Call of Duty campaigns fly under the radar, which I've always felt is unfortunate. Strange as it may sound, I think that the Call of Duty campaigns can be compared to the Marvel films. They feel like pretty standard cookie cutter stories that always play it pretty safe, but the experience is usually a good time and has characters you can feel attached to. Call of Duty WW2 uses this format as well, and it's probably one of the best campaigns in the entire series. It gives off a Saving Private Ryan kind of vibe, and includes many characters that you actually become attached to and care about what happens to them. The main protagonist Robert "Red" Daniels is one of the more interesting characters, who has a good backstory and his chemistry with the rest of the cast helps make the story remain engaging. Overall, Call of Duty WW2 feels like the same Call of Duty that we've always known it to be. The multiplayer feels the same as it did when I played it many years ago, as does almost every other area. If you are a Call of Duty fan who plays the game every year, you won't need my recommendation because Call of Duty fans will buy the game no matter what. As for other outsiders to the series like myself, I'd recommend either renting the game or waiting for the price to drop just to play the campaign or zombie mode, but I wouldn't pay full price for it.… Expand
  29. JeremyDoesGames
    Nov 5, 2017
    7
    1. Don't get ANY of the negative reviews

    2. Why is a 7 considered mixed? To me it means really good; 5 is mixed for me and under that is negative Anyway, onto the review. "Call of Duty: WWII" is the best "Call of Duty" game since "Black Ops 2" a mere 5 years ago. The gameplay feels fresh, the campaign has an excellent story (and it's the games' biggest strongpoint), and the    1. Don't get ANY of the negative reviews

    2. Why is a 7 considered mixed? To me it means really good; 5 is mixed for me and under that is negative

    Anyway, onto the review.

    "Call of Duty: WWII" is the best "Call of Duty" game since "Black Ops 2" a mere 5 years ago. The gameplay feels fresh, the campaign has an excellent story (and it's the games' biggest strongpoint), and the characters are really great. The multiplayer is nothing new, but it is fun. It's not a GREAT game, but I really enjoyed play "Call of Duty: WWII" (especially for the campaign), and I'm excited to play it some more. A pretty solid entry to this series that hasn't had a good game in years.    … Expand
  30. lufuxe
    Nov 8, 2017
    7
    Graphics: from the last parts there is a step forward, but if you peer into the textures, everything is bad ..
    Physics: bad, so is the physics of weapons .. they simply do not have ..
    Plot: I liked it
    That's why 7 points
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

82
#82 Best PS4 Game of 2017
9
#9 Most Discussed PS4 Game of 2017
9
#9 Most Shared PS4 Game of 2017

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
79

Generally favorable reviews - based on 83 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 62 out of 83
  2. Mixed: 21 out of 83
  3. Negative: 0 out of 83
  1. CD-Action
    Jan 10, 2018
    70
    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]
  2. The Digital Fix
    Dec 22, 2017
    70
    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.
    Read full review
  3. Playstation Official Magazine UK
    Dec 15, 2017
    90
    Revitalised and exemplary FPS gaming. Multiplayer trims back to the essentials, campaign shows sensitivity and Zombies...well it's a new excuse to play CoD Zombies. [Christmas 2017, p.77]
See all critic reviews »