Campaign for Call of Duty set in World War II.
Campaign for Call of Duty set in World War II.
I’ve just started my first hour of the newest CoD game. I’ve always enjoyed campaigns outside World at War 1, mainly because of the tedious tank missions and the lackluster storytelling in Advanced Warfare and Ghosts. I haven’t played CoD for its multiplayer mode since CS:GO took over. Recently, I’ve developed a fondness for Titanfall 2’s campaign, but I decided to try CoD WW2 instead.
I was quite apprehensive at first—especially since I deeply disliked the single-player campaign in Battlefield 1. The missions felt uninteresting and repetitive, with the metal armor that made you invincible or the Australian character who wanted to explore the ship before getting stuck on “mission failed you left the battlefield.” Even for a story-driven title, it felt too restrictive and rushed. I didn’t connect much with WW2 either, except for the opening cinematic and the fast-paced action. The D-Day sequence wasn’t bad; it had plenty of action and varied objectives that kept things engaging. I enjoyed the weapons, graphics, and smooth performance, which gave me a solid gaming experience.
Everything seemed fine at first, but things took a turn during the takeover of bunker 5. A brutal Quick Time Event popped up, forcing me to repeatedly press keys—first F, then C, then F again. After several attempts, I finally figured it out, but by then it was too late. I ended up dying multiple times, mostly because I kept pressing the wrong keys. Eventually, I managed to complete the sequence and could play again.
I’m surprised how quickly it got intense, especially on hard difficulty where enemies were tougher and the frustration mounted. I saved and quit for now.
I wonder why such mechanics—like those frustrating QTE moments—still exist in triple-A titles from 2017 to 2018. It’s strange how we keep relying on them despite knowing they can break immersion.
I notice this about Battlefield that it often had tougher campaigns, making even short sessions frustrating. But Call of Duty kept things fun, with solid stories and characters in Black Ops 1 and Modern Warfare. The older titles are really beloved classics. I’m okay with the more straightforward gameplay if it’s entertaining, though I’m disappointed when they introduce awkward quick-time events.
I completely understand, but I’d like to highlight how outdated those titles are. Now I need to check some sources because I’m intrigued. To be honest, my satisfaction with CoD campaigns peaked around Black Ops 1 in 2010—about ten years back. It’s time to move on from CoD and explore a different series that captures attention again. (That isn’t battlefield)
I believe this applies to both the BF1 campaign and CoD WW2. It's not the best effort in the series, yet claiming they didn't put any work into it isn't accurate. It was crafted well, but the narrative has been repeated many times... Still entertaining. If you're a long-time BF fan, I'm finding CoD WW2 more engaging right now—just like with SP and MP.
They recorded them on the Eastern Front and returned them. The SVT-40 likely initiated the Gewehr-41/43 development. Whether it's deemed 'good' depends on personal standards and expectations. Viewing this as a Call of Duty set in WWII, the narrative was mainly about defeating the Nazis. If I were aiming for a story-driven experience, I'd choose an RPG.
They struggle with storytelling because the current narrative feels minimal and depends heavily on past details to drive the plot. For titles like System Shock and FEAR, players must search for clues within the gameplay to uncover the backstory. If those elements weren’t visible, the present experience would feel flat. Removing the history would make the actual gameplay less engaging.