auszoqa.blogg.se

Call of duty world at war review
Call of duty world at war review












call of duty world at war review call of duty world at war review

It's perhaps a declaration of interests, and a declaration of intent. Sledgehammer, they who co-developed Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 3 before taking the lead on Advance Warfare, are clearly tipping their hats to 1999's original Medal Of Honor, almost moment-for-moment replicating the game that originated both major franchises' astonishing opening. Opening with US soldiers at the Normandy beach landing is, I think, a little on the nose. I'm astonished to discover that, well, yes, it kind of has. On hearing the announcement I hoped that this series, so wayward and lost from its utterly wonderful origins, might perhaps be re-visiting not just the war in which its two great single-player games were set, but maybe - just maybe - the spirit, too. They were about spectacle - a six hour b-movie marathon of LOOK AT THIS! extravagance and bluster, with absolutely no interest in just letting the player play. By 2011 they had become so otherly, so laughably desperate to play the game for you, I coined the term " un-game" to ambiguously describe the experience. While the multiplayer has proven enormously popular and inventive in each annual output, the single-player games have degraded to the point of sheer farce. While once the industry was saturated by the conflict, those days were over ten years ago, and if there were ever a series that so desperately needed to go back to its roots, it's Call Of Duty. Here's wot I think:Ĭall of Duty's return to WW2 might have caused some eyes to roll, but for various reasons it didn't mine. Be shocked - Call Of Duty: WWII is a decent single-player game. Fully expecting another ghastly CoD campaign, I've been utterly surprised by the shooter I've just played.














Call of duty world at war review