LogFAQs > #948477026

#6: Call of Duty WWII

It probably seems very strange for many people that I'm putting a Call of Duty game directly above literal Bloodborne lol. Let me explain.

I have thought the early golden era of CoD, roughly from Modern Warfare through Modern Warfare 3, produced some of the best FPS games ever. If this game was able to at least somewhat match those, it would be a good game. Yet, the last 7-8 CoD games haven't been consistently worth playing (Ghosts being the one that turned me off of getting new games in the series). When this game was free on PS+, there was no risk in trying it and seeing if it was good, so I tried it out, and I was pleasantly surprised.

The gunplay is just a bit heavier than the typical CoD style, but the multiplayer still plays as competently as ever. One difference between WWII and the MW multiplayers that I really like is that you rarely are able to win a firefight against more than one person unless you have a better position or they miss their shots. It creates a more balanced multiplayer experience. I will say though that a few of the maps here are pretty poorly designed (USS Texas stands out as one of the worst CoD maps I've ever played on).

Even though the campaign isn't something most people play CoD for, it is something that I always look forward to. If it's done well, it's a short and easy-to-digest shooter with solid gunplay and some cool setpieces. That's never a bad thing. WWII's campaign succeeded at pulling that goal off, but also had a surprisingly solid story. It swings and misses on one or two emotional moments, but overall, it's a satisfying experience.

In the end, CoD WWII offered a rather complete package that consistently did what it needed to do. While it's not the best shooter out there, it's worth your time if you've enjoyed some of the CoD titles.

---

Got a brand new blues that I can't explain