It’s not too long since the Call of Duty series returned to World War II. As late as 2017 came Call of Duty: WWII, a game that focused on American entry into Europe and the fighting on the Western Front. Like colleague Mikkjel Lønning, who was not very enthusiastic about the game, I think WWII ended up as a weak feature in the series. Now Vanguard is here, a game with a title that is so diffuse that it could have been the title of almost anything. Even more important is whether our return to the world’s most devastating war offers exciting stories, epic war scenes and of course fun shooting. The answer is both yes and no.
This is stylish.
Andreas Bjørnbekk / Gamer.no
A world at war
Call of Duty: Vanguard moves away from the philosophy of telling a holistic story that follows the same person from start to finish. Instead, we now get a bunch of four; a group of “misfits” who are on the same team, but who do not necessarily want to work together. We have the brilliant Arthur Kingsley from Great Britain, the sniper woman on revenge Polina Petrova, and two others who lack proper personality traits.
The idea is actually good, because by giving us people with different backgrounds who have served in different campaigns, Vanguard is also presented with a somewhat comprehensive picture of the war. “Nogen lunde” works in high gear here, but still.
We get to fight in France as Kinsley, in Stalingrad as Petrova, in North Africa as Australian Lucas Riggs and in the Pacific as the American Wade Jackson. It’s an ambitious project developer Sledgehammer Games is trying out here, and I’ll admit I digged more of these sequences. Especially Russian Petrovas part gave more flavor. Sledgehammer proves that – as Treyarch did last year – that they really can when they want to. In the calmer sequences, we get to see Stalingrad before the destruction of the city, and experience the moments during and after the German invasion. This is powerful and at times explosive, and easy to live in. At the same time, it was incredibly cool to play pilot like Wade Jackson, because here we become part of some really spectacular scenes in the air when American warplanes meet Japanese.
Fyyyyy south so cool!
Andreas Bjørnbekk / Gamer.no
In addition, Vanguard has really focused on the cinematic – about an hour and a half is dedicated to film sequences, and about half of these are full-fledged CGI sequences between missions. We even get to see Dominic Monaghan (Muntiadok Brennibukk from The Lord of the Rings) in the role of Nazi interrogator!
Sensitive! Hobbitun went to hell.
Andreas Bjørnbekk / Gamer.no
Unfortunately, the Call of Duty formula itself puts a stop to this becoming a truly memorable and unique gaming experience. Because even though I had fun with the campaign, it did not last much longer than seven hours (including movie sequences), and for the most part you do the same thing through all the hours. Sledgehammer has tried to give the different agents different special abilities, but these are tame and uncreative, such as when Lucas Riggs gets a few more grenades or when Petrova’s small knife can distract enemy snipers – but only in certain sequences. And even though I loved the feeling of being on a plane, the flight controls were hopelessly tough, and fighting the Japanese on the ground was not much more fun because Wade Jackson could focus extra well on the enemies.
War in North Africa. Could have had more depth.
Andreas Bjørnbekk / Gamer.no
The Call of Duty campaigns are so sabotaged inside the hemp that these games are squeezed out every hard year, and that they are usually not allowed, or do not want to, make anything that leaves a mark. This is an extra shame when it is clear that Sledgehammer manages to create beautiful cities, great sequences and wonderful visual effects – they can even deliver a (relatively) star-studded character gallery that delivers great voice acting, some intense boss fights and even a relatively fun narrative. What they not powers is to offer something that lasts, something that lives on, and something that brings the series and genre forward.
A good multiplayer, meeeeeen…
Call of Duty: Vanguard’s multiplayer part is Call of Duty as you know it. The fights are quick, the shooting ruthless and addictive, and the boards relatively small. The time it takes to get rid of the enemies is as short as that, and the modes you like from before can also be found here. In addition, we have some new ones, including Patrol, where two teams have to fight for a control point that moves, and “Champion Hill”, where teams fight against each other in a kind of mini-Warzone mode. I myself am a big supporter of “Domination” and the new “Patrol” mode, as the teams here have to work together on points that give the matches a certain structure.
Shoot like hell!
Andreas Bjørnbekk / Gamer.no
The Call of Duty formula is thus almost as good – or frustrating – as ever, depending on how you look at it. Still, I’m a little disappointed with the boards. Here, there are few courses that stand out with spectacular backgrounds or playgrounds, which I think is strange when the campaign does such a good job with especially the modeling of Stalingrad. I remember how epic it was to fight for the ruins of the Riksdag in Call of Duty: World at War, or the cool boards from Modern Warfare – both the first and second edition.
Vanguard has almost no memorable maps, and at least none that show me anything of either real or experienced scale. But perhaps the worst sin is how distanced the multiplayer is from the campaign and the story in general. Here we have no allies against Axis powers, Britons against Nazis, Americans against Japanese, or Soviets against fascists. We have no gray uniforms against green, no innovative ways of showing the course of the war or campaigns. We have not received any actual historical battles that unfold that we are allowed to take part in against others. Instead, we get “My Team” and “Enemy Team”, where all the characters look like a bunch of extras who fell in and fell right out of the costume warehouse and had no idea which movie they should be in. We get “Berlin” – not outside the Riksdag, but outside and in a random building complex with some war vehicles here and there. We do not get Stalingrad between Germans and Soviets, but “Red Star” between “My Team” and “Enemy Team”, where Stalingrad is reduced to a building with some leeway around. Sure, Vanguard has a lot of boards, but none I’ll remember in a few years.
This was digg to see.
Andreas Bjørnbekk / Gamer.no
The small folds, the quick shooting and the laundering of everything historical make the Call of Duty: Vanguards multiplayer seem more like a 24-hour experience than something created to create an experience worthy of World War II. Even though Battlefield V from 2018 started relatively easily and had shortcomings, it was at least dedicated to massive historical battles and a sense of war. The Pacific expansion in particular reproduced the war in a spectacular way. Nothing in Vanguard’s multiplayer can be compared to what Battlefield’s World War II ended up achieving.
I’m not saying that Call of Duty must be Battlefield to be good – not at all, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. But Battlefield has at least realized something about the story that Call of Duty does not have – that the memories that last, that the feeling of being in the heat of battle comes from all the small aspects that are brought together into something bigger. Authentic uniforms and teams belonging to actual countries, historical battles and recognizable areas – all this is necessary when one wants to recreate World War II. Call of Duty: Vanguard’s multiplayer is more reminiscent of a game that uses war for its own gain without appreciating any of what actually happened. Call it “historical appropriation.” And that’s a shame.
This is about killing zombies. Big zombies. And little zombies, too!
Activision
Zombie-snork
New Call of Duty also means new zombie mode, and if you’ve played zombie mode before, you’ve actually played this one too. In all, you play with three other partners against a bunch of Nazi zombies who come to kill you in cramped areas. You earn resources that you can exchange for better weapons or other abilities, and you fight from board to board to advance against increasingly difficult and deadly zombies.
It can definitely be fun to fight the zombies with friends, and there are some tough effects and boards to be found. At the same time, there is little that really stands out. The original zombie mode in World at War appeared scary and down to earth, while we now get a bunch of effects and magic that make everything much more cartoon-like and remove the scary feeling we have had before. Furthermore, there is little to do. Zombie mode is mostly about shooting and making money from the zombies, and much less about exploring, closing windows or openings the zombies can get through. Now this more fantastic approach is something the mode has done more and more of, but Vanguard is taking the cake. If you love “Zombies” you can probably find some fun moments, but for everyone else there is not much to see here.
Conclusion
Call of Duty: Vanguard is a very mixed package. The campaign is exemplary at times; Stalingrad is a highlight, but the other campaign sequences are relatively tame. The middle sequences are cinematic, at times funny and clearly meant to appear as high-budget (something they do), but the Nazis are portrayed more as naughty cartoon characters than actual war criminals, and something that can easily flow into the supernatural zombie mode.
The multiplayer offers speed and excitement, and is addictive when all is said and done. The weapons feel good in the hand, the sounds are in place and the effects are good, but everything around – the maps, the teams, the uniforms, the very feeling of playing a World War II game is completely gone. War is used as a selling point rather than something to experience or something to be respected, which makes the game lose its sense of authenticity. It feels a bit like Fortnite was coming out with a World War II package – okay, we might use an MP40 and M1 Garand, but Fortnite would have made the war completely absurd and removed all real depth and seriousness. We end up with a Call of Duty with 1940s “skin” instead of a Call of Duty dedicated to the war for its own sake.
With the zombie mode in tow, we get a game that makes the war unrecognizable. The campaign is the only historical bright spot, although here too I would like to see something more revolutionary, more signs of growth, something that could take the Call of Duty series further and away from a formula that is now 14 years old. The formula works somewhat better when the setting is more modern and smaller in scale, because there it feels more natural to use special agents in narrow areas – World War II, on the other hand, is best known for massive battles between great powers, something completely different from what we get here . Even the title is diffuse, and although “WWII” may have been a bit too literal and American, Vanguard is as sterile as it gets – and this may reflect the name of the game in the end quite well.
–
Related posts: