Fans of shooters have long been accustomed to the fact that Call of Duty has turned into a conveyor franchise no worse than FIFA, which every year, strictly on schedule, drops on the heads of fans (and haters) another part of the multiplayer battles with a screwed-on single player campaign and, more recently, a zombie mode … Sometimes, as in the case of Modern Warfare, it turns out just gorgeous, sometimes – you yourself understand. And although the development is already not easy, and in the coronavirus, the difficulty of creating something cool is exactly doubled, the studio still needs to wrap it all up and send it on a direct flight to Verdansk, without undermining the fifth point of gamers with an abundance of bugs. Was it successful this time? It depends on how you look.
First Person Hollywood Blockbuster
For the first time in a long time, the storyline in Call of Duty I liked – yes, it is still overflowing with cranberries, and the scriptwriters, working on Russian characters, for some reason stubbornly refuse to use Russian-speaking consultants, but this time the overall picture looks much more pleasant. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the writers for the first time in many years really worked hard – they found vivid real characters of the Second World War, remaking them for game conventions, came up with very unexpected plot twists and wrote a lot of beautiful cut-scenes (not on the engine, however, but what can you do).
The plot is based on characters, from which a special forces unit was formed with one single purpose – to finish off the Nazis. They, villains with swastikas on their flags, are betting on Project Phoenix – the last hope for ruling the whole world after Hitler’s death in 1945, and our multinational team needs to smash this project to smithereens. However, everything is not going quite according to plan, so the special squad is captured, where, during interrogations, we will be sent to military exploits around the world in flashbacks and memories. Written cunningly and unusual, the final battle with a change of heroes and camera spans looks very cool, but honestly, I expected a little more from the ending.
But there are no complaints about the characters (if you do not take into account the small pranks of the scriptwriters) – they are very tough guys, you empathize with them, you believe in them and hope in them. I especially liked the part of the story with Polina – the abrupt transition from everyday life to the horror of war was shown simply gorgeous, and the character itself was copied from Lyudmila Pavlichenko. This is a woman sniper who eliminated 309 fascists during World War II – we are given the opportunity to repeat some of these exploits. And the scene with a blockage and two grenades in the hands of her brother deserves special praise.
And there are no questions about the production, effects, saturation and emotions – the storyline is somewhat reminiscent of a blockbuster, where everything is verified, thought out and clearly according to the script. Yes, I was noticeably burned that at the most important moment they took control of me and the main villain, it turns out that it was not me who killed, but the character in the cut-scene, but the developers are moving in the right direction – they just have to hire normal historians, translators and culturologists, slightly tighten the degree of stress on the ending and that’s it, it will be possible to release a single-player campaign not only for show. In all honesty, they declare that the plot is already better than in many years, but not ideal, of course.
According to old drawings
The multiplayer of the new Call of Duty kind of hints that your expectations are your problems. Activision understands that they already have an ideal formula for success with an optimal TTK, dense, but not very, maps and a weapon pumping proven over the years – of course, no one began to change anything in this formula. And for me personally, this is not even a minus, but a plus, since I am accustomed to the rules of the game and enjoy the process, but I also understand that someone wanted something new from the new part, but there is practically none of it. After all, of the important innovations, one can single out the “Patrol” mode, 10 modules in weapons and setting up the action on the battlefield.
“Patrol” is built on the already common mode of “Capture point”, only now the location for the capture is moving. It is no longer enough to simply capture the pivot points, throw mines at everything and sit in the corner, killing those who want to seize the initiative – you need to move as a team, think ahead, know the map well, and so on. I really like this mode, but, of course, sometimes it looks more like a meat grinder than a shooter. All other modes remained intact, but they were decorated with new and not very maps – there are no complaints about them, except that my beloved Nuketown is missing in Vanguard.
Another important innovation that will spoil the mood of all Warzone fans is the number of available modules on weapons. We were afraid, and it happened – if earlier you could hang 5 modules on a weapon in multiplayer, now there are ten available modules. It is no longer necessary to choose whether to put a handle or a stock instead of a collimator, you can throw anything and everything indiscriminately. And if in Vanguard itself this does not seem particularly noticeable, then in Warzone it is a problem – there weapons from MW and Cold War are left with five modules, and new barrels will go for ten attachments. Naturally, this is a huge blow to the meta, but, apparently, this is the cunning idea of the publisher.
Somewhere I’ve already seen it
One of the most important changes in multiplayer is the work on the operatives – now it’s not just a skin with voice acting, but full-fledged characters with their favorite weapons (for killing them they give additional experience) and a separate progress.
To increase the level of an operator, you need to complete quests in the spirit of kill 500 enemies, and with an increase in this very level, we are given stances, finishing moves, and at the last stage – a skin (usually quite terrible). Why is all this necessary? The fact is that now at the end of the round, before the demonstration of the best kill streak, we will be shown the player’s character in his chosen stance.
Similar elements exist in other multiplayer games, albeit not in shooters, but this is not the point. The fact is that with this pumping of operatives and a new demo screen of the best killer, the developers will motivate you to complete quests, download levels, buy new skins, and so on – after all, the appearance of the character did not decide anything before, but now you can boast.
What kind of gasoline is in the water?
I am sure that people who play zombie mode are divided into two categories: those who for some reason play in co-op with friends in Call of Duty, when there are hundreds of projects more suitable for this purpose in the world, and those who wants to knock out a nice camouflage for the weapon. Understanding the first category is somehow problematic for me, because with all the developers’ aspiration, the zombie mode is quite simple in terms of the plot, and the gameplay, as in the plot, is reduced to shooting enemies. How can you play this and have fun – I don’t understand, sorry, but I tried, honestly. But for the second category, I have bad news.
In Cold War, in zombie mode, it was possible to knock out perhaps the most beautiful Master-camo in the game – “Dark Ether”. The camouflage is insanely beautiful, almost no one has it in Warzone, and in multiplayer it occurs once every hundred rounds. But at Vanguard, for some reason, the developers decided to make the last camouflage … very strange. It’s just some kind of green texture that shimmers on the weapon in a manner similar to dropping gasoline into a puddle. There is nothing beautiful, all the fans are drinking valerian and waiting for Activision to say that this is a joke. But this is not a joke, and without a beautiful camouflage, the zombie mode looks somehow not very attractive.
Weak spots
I have exactly three serious complaints about the new Call of Duty game. The first – with a fairly good storyline, the ending of the storyline turned out to be too straightforward and simple-minded. I’m sure it could have been done three times better without much difficulty by adding some kind of unusual escape plan. The second – in multiplayer, the developers have implemented just awful spawn mechanics. About a third of my deaths occurred when I appeared in front of the enemy’s muzzle, which, of course, is not very pleasant. The final drawback is that after the stylish modern MW 19 cannons, we ended up with machine guns from the Second World War, so they also have terrible camouflages.
From a technical point of view, the game did not disappoint – it does not crash, there are no frame drops, except that the characters’ hair is drawn somehow badly, but these are trifles.
Review
I can’t say that I’m thrilled with the storyline or the zombie mode – Sledgehammer Games tried, but it turned out pretty good rather than amazing. But let’s be honest – who even buys Call of Duty in order to enjoy the drama of a single player campaign or playing with friends in co-op? I doubt even 5% of the audience buy an Activision creation for this. You need to understand that the franchise has long focused on multiplayer, and here there are no questions about the release – the weapon is cool, even if it loses to MW 19, the cards are gorgeous, there are plenty of modes and there are enough innovations so that you don’t get bored.
✅ Benefits:
- cool maps in multiplayer;
- Patrol mode;
- 10 modules in the weapon;
- a very decent storyline;
- operatives are no longer faceless skins;
- no noticeable bugs or crashes.
❌Disadvantages:
- the ending of the storyline;
- camouflages were painted by a man with no taste;
- spawning in multiplayer spoils the nerves.
Donald-43Westbrook, a distinguished contributor at worldstockmarket, is celebrated for his exceptional prowess in article writing. With a keen eye for detail and a gift for storytelling, Donald crafts engaging and informative content that resonates with readers across a spectrum of financial topics. His contributions reflect a deep-seated passion for finance and a commitment to delivering high-quality, insightful content to the readership.
