Written by Seto [ExG],
Call of Duty WWII was a game announced or, for a better word, alluded to in 2014. When it was officially announced, it became a huge discussion in the gaming world. This was the first Call of Duty that stayed “boots on ground” since 2012, and the first to revisit World War II since World at War in 2008! This game was a considerable departure from Activision's games of the past few years. These recent games featured jetpacks, space battles, laser weapons, and way more advance futuristic battles. Call of Duty WWII sold more units individually than COD Infinite Warfare, Ghosts, and Advanced Warfare. This may be an indication of the franchise’s revival. The futuristic route the games started to take were not well received, so a return to a more classic storyline could be exactly what Call of Duty needed.
Aside from the monetary achievements, this game excels in gameplay, with a compelling campaign, amazing online play, and great graphics. During the beta, the game received a lot of backlash for looking similar to Battlefield 1. Loving both games, I will admit it shares similarities with Battlefield, but it takes place during World War II, and Call of Duty has been doing World War II since 2003! I feel WWII has better graphics, an easier to follow storyline, a more compelling storyline, and overall a better multiplayer and campaign.
Activision goes back to their roots in the WWII campaign. In previous games, they featured a well-told story following one or two main characters, having an objective, and immersing you into the game, both physically and emotionally. Fortunately, this is something WWII brings back. I feel the more recent games took away the feeling of immersion by going into the future. With that change, I feel making events that haven't happened or have no chance of happening right now. For me, that is how the feeling of immersion is achieved. It is dependent on if the events could happen or have happened in the past - with real places, not places in space or other planets. In the opening mission for example, going through the beaches of Normandy in Operation Overload, I was fully immersed in the game! Immersion was something that the more recent Call of Duty games couldn’t do. I personally can’t finish a game unless it immerses me, and I finished WWII in one day without realizing it. Every step I took through 1942 France made me feel as if I was there. I even cried a little when we suffered the loss of a platoon member. For the sake of spoilers, I will not release who, but it was effectively emotional. The online experience, as infuriating as it can be, is also amazing. The HQ they added was a great touch. You can easily add people to your party, 1v1 people, even go to a shooting range! Sadly they took out gun game, my personal favourite game mode, but they added a new game mode called War. War was an amazing touch. Two teams go at it, one with an objective on offense and one on defence - a huge team death match! It is truly a great addition to the Call of Duty franchise, and I hope it stays.
On the other end of the spectrum, some aspects of WWII could very well break the series. Like I said earlier, the backlash it received for the similarities it shares with Battlefield 1 was tremendous, and sometimes going back to the roots is not always a great thing. I feel in this case, Call of Duty going back to its roots was a great thing. Why? The first and older games sold better and were over all better than the more recent games such as Infinite Warfare. Call of Duty started in WWII back in 2003, and stayed that way for quite a long time. They again revisited WWII back in 2008 with Call of Duty World at War, which in my own opinion, is still the best Call of Duty. They have visited WWII so much, that gamers could start to get sick of it. Also the similarities it shares with Battlefield 1 were big and noticeable, such as bayonet charging. Gamers also may not like the change in healing in the campaign. The long time Call of Duty players may recognize the healing from the original Call of Duties, but the newer generation only remembers, being shot and healed back up, not physically hunting for health packs and using them. Now Activision must respond to the newer generation, because that’s who’s buying their games. So if the newer generation doesn’t accept of any of the changes Activision made, well then they are going to lose a lot of customers. All that being said, there is always an alternative. In the end though, it is up to us as gamers to decide if it broke the series, but for me, it revived Call of Duty. Please tell me in the comments, did it make or break the series for you?