![]() ![]() And the also-typical “hold this location until help arrives” moments where you’re just meant to survive wave after wave of attacks. There are the standard COD set-pieces, including scenes where you have to shoot down planes, pilot planes, drive trucks, man the machine gun on the back of trucks, and so on. But it’s such a great addition, and this aspect of WWII has never made it into a COD game.īut it is a typical COD game in many ways. Yes, there’s a bit of history-bending with the characters that ties this to the character you usually play, plus your teammate. ![]() Overally, the game play is nicely diverse, and includes some firsts for Call of Duty, including a truly fun stealth level in which you-as a woman in the French resistance disguised as a German secretary-infiltrate a Nazi stronghold in Paris. But I could imagine wasting a lot of time on harder skill levels trying to find the health and ammo I need. I only played through on the normal skill level, so this wasn’t particularly onerous. military in WWII, your teammates each have some role to play: One supplies health kits, one has ammo, and so on. Instead, in a bid to emphasize the “we’re in it together” thing that was very much the case for the U.S. One big difference between this game and its predecessors is that you don’t just heal when hurt. soldiers heading into battle on the backs of tanks discuss the good things that Germany has given to the world, the story is mostly tight, with great characters, great dialog and voice acting, and tight, taut action. (That said, multiplayer is sure to get a bit stale over these games, unless the game desginers can come up with some truly thrilling maps.)Īnyway, aside from some truly terrible 2017-era “everyone’s a winner” dialog-including a groan-inducing and inconceivable moment where the U.S. This story line also answers an open question that I had about the impact of Call of Duty returning to World War II, at least for the single-player campaign: Given how played-out this war is, so to speak, how could it possibly sustain the three game arc that you know Activision is eager to achieve? As was the case with earlier COD titles, sequels to this game could spread out to cover the Soviet Union and the Pacific theater, respectively, making for a nice trilogy. It’s far less disjointed than the constantly-shifting viewpoint in Battlefield 1, which is, perhaps, one of the few legitimate gripes about that game. ![]() For a student of history, that seems unfair-the Soviet Union played a far bigger role in that victory than the U.S., and suffered far more greatly-but it serves a solid narrative purpose: The game game mostly focuses on a single team-a band of brothers, if you will-making its way from Normandy to Germany, with a nice side-trip to Paris. The story is the familiar U.S.-centric view of World War II, and it opens and closes with, and consists entirely of, our country’s involvement in the European theater. At the time, I was probably about 70 or 75 percent done with that part of the game, and it was so fun that I actually spent that entire weekend finishing-and live tweeting-it. I first wrote about the Call of Duty: WWII single-player campaign about two and a half weeks ago. But Call of Duty: WWII is the most enjoyable COD in years. As a throwback to the game series’ early days, it shouldn’t work so well. Call of Duty: WWII is a welcome surprise, with a solid single player campaign, diverse multiplayer modes, and a new take on Zombies. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |