(DISCLAIMER: This is an archived article from my time at the gaming/pop-culture website “Escape Zero”. For reasons I won’t fully disclose, most of my articles were removed and the rest were butchered. I would like to note that this was not some sort of personal attack, I was not the only one affected. Nor was it the fault of Escape Zero’s owners. There is no bad blood, I’m simply uploading my work in a place where I know it’s safe. As such, this article is old, and it’s date and timestamp here are not representative. All articles with this disclaimer were written in the latter third of 2019.)
Introduction
I’d like to say from the outset: It’s been about a decade since I’ve played any Call of Duty game. The last ones I touched were Modern Warfare 2, and Black Ops. I actually have quite a few fond memories with those games, but don’t expect me to be able to compare our current topic of discussion to every single yearly release since then. But that begs the question: What brought me back to the series? Nostalgia for the classic Modern Warfare games? If that were the case, I would’ve played Modern Warfare 3. Maybe it’s the fact that Microsoft can’t figure out how digital purchases work, and I got access to some unlucky sod’s pre-order edition? No, it was these two things: An apparent focus on more tactical gameplay, and the pathetic press catastrophe surrounding it. The latter however, is a topic for another article.
I like more realistic, involved experiences when I play a military shooter of any kind. Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell, SOCOM, Spec Ops, these are the modern military games I grew up with. Games that reward forethought, strategy, and caution. The run and gun gameplay that the Call of Duty series devolved into was of no interest to me. As you can imagine, I have a hard time filling that gap in my taste these days. “Ghost Recon: Breakpoint” can actually be quite good (mechanically), but that’s one of the few games out there right now. Thanks to executive decisions made with the title, it’s almost as if Ubisoft doesn’t want to allow it to succeed. On top of that, the game’s story completely fails to act upon it’s compelling setup and themes. So then we’re left with “Rainbow Six: Siege”. Despite my soft spot for the game and it’s realism oriented gameplay that rewards coordination and careful movement, I can’t deny it’s held back by an excessively grindy progression and an online only live service focus.
So then I started to hear about this new Call of Duty, a same titled reboot I would normally ignore the release of. An interesting, shocking story you say? People dying over and over when they fail to check their corners who then complain that the maps need fixing? Now you have my attention.
The Campaign
NOTE: I played the campaign on the “Hardened” difficulty, which sits right above “Regular”, since I was after that more realistic experience. This made the gameplay’s strengths and weaknesses very clear. We’ll be covering them both.
This is a prequel story. They won’t tell you that, for some reason. The only thing that clued me in were references to the story of previous games beginning… Which were only relayed at the very end of this one. They could’ve come up with something else to call it, but I suppose that at least makes the redundant title somewhat understandable.
How is it though, the story? Well, I actually like it. It’s no shocking taboo that’s going to turn the tide of gaming as we know it, but it’s a well rounded story with likable characters and exciting escalating events. It’s the kind of political action plot you’d expect from the old school Tom Clancy games. Don’t take my comment about this not being a game changer the wrong way, this campaign does do some very surprising things. Things that do well to prove a lot of journalists aren’t really playing the game, if white phosphorus killstreaks are all they’re complaining about.
I could talk about the crowds of civilians during terrorist attacks, or the supposed victims who surprise you by pulling a gun (and those are nice touches). But frankly, everyone has. Something I’d like to talk about, is the interesting way the game puts you on the other side of situations most games would put you in some sort of control of. How many times have you been a guerrilla fighter approaching your enemy under the cover of darkness, taking cover when exposed only by the light? How many times have you had to torture someone for information? How many times have you been there to save children and innocents from danger? How many games have put you in the helpless position of all these situations? Modern Warfare has a way of putting you in places most games don’t. You’re not usually the one holding a gun on someone’s family, because the good guys aren’t supposed to do stuff like that. This game puts you there, and even manages to give the characters a thoroughly understandable reason to do so.
It’s moments like this where the campaign shines. A huge enemy force is approaching your position under the cover of night, and your only reprieve is a flare launcher with limited ammo to give you a few moments of a fair fight. Or maybe you’re in a residential area with no idea who’s a threat and who’s not. Moments like these are every bit as teeth gritting as you would want them to be. There are even moments of social stealth where you have to blend in with a civilian environment and find a way to complete your objectives. They don’t hold up to the missions of old from Medal of Honor that had you playing the part of a World War II spy with a large (for the time) environment to explore, but the effort is appreciated.
Even the more linear scripted events the series has faced harsh criticism for, offer you a pretty fair degree of freedom in this title. You might start out being led to the hope of safety by the father of your character in a flashback, but you’re quickly thrust into a stealth situation where you (playing as a helpless little girl I might add) have to defend yourself from a soldier using various tools in the environment. Even when you’re being tied up and tortured, you have the ability to influence events with your performance and dialogue choices. It’s clear the developers went to a lot of effort to tell the story they wanted, while still allowing there to be a game in those heavily guided scenarios.
Now that we’re on the topic of linearity, why not start discussing level design? There’s actually a healthy mix here. You’ll have your “guided tour” sort of mission that leads you down a fairly straightforward path. Although, even those give you some fair sized arenas to play around in. However, there are also missions that open up and give you a large environment to sneak around and complete multiple objectives. The one where Captain Price covers you with a sniper rifle while you infiltrate a small township to search for a hostage was one of my favorites.
The weapons in this are great. Not as many as you’d expect from a game today, but I wasn’t disappointed by a single one of them. They sound fantastic, and they hit hard. They all perform realistically. Shotguns don’t magically stop being lethal because the enemy is more than four feet away from you, and they knock the guy off his feet when he isn’t. Assault rifles are reliable, high caliber sniper rifles sever limbs. You can throw a grenade into a room, and no one walks out of it.
Speaking of believable lethality: This is the only Call of Duty game I recall feeling the need to crawl along the ground just to avoid being picked off. Sure you can sometimes survive a shot, thanks to the typical regeneration. But the sense of danger here is very real, and you don’t wanna risk it.
Something I’d like to commend this game for, is that there are actually a good few instances where you aren’t penalized for shooting civilians for friendlies. It’s usually in the more crisis oriented missions where they’ll cut you slack, only failing you in missions where you’re working with a specific squad that you (ideally, we’ll get to this) should have no reason to be shooting. This is a game where you can take out a group of civilians by accident, and you just have to live with it.
Another thing I appreciate about the campaign, is that “gimmick” features don’t just up and disappear after they’re introduced like you’d expect. Night vision, disarming tripwire, marking targets for support fire… All of these things are used again throughout the missions. Only one feature is introduced never to be seen again: An instance where you’re able to control explosive rigged RC planes that the rebel fighters set up. It was about as exciting as it sounds, probably why it was only used once. Well that, and long range sniping mechanics. But that’s just not necessary at the range most missions have you fighting in.
Enemy AI is pretty solid for the most part, and the time to kill is extremely fast for you and your foes. This makes every gunfight very intense. If you’re not paying attention to your surroundings for even a moment, you will die. It’s not often a game conveys the very real danger of a bullet like this one does. Regenerating health is honestly one of the few things keeping this from being more of a simulator experience like Siege. This topic however, is a great segway.
You’re wondering at this point, “Well, what’s the bad news? It can’t be perfect.” And of course, you’re right. However, I’d like to stress that the real issues are actually very few. But holy ghillie relieving Christ are some of them glaring. I’ll do my best to order this in a way that the worst offenders are talked about first, that way there’s some semblance of organization you can identify things with. If something sounds like a lesser issue, that’s because it probably is.
The friendly AI. Let’s make the distinction clear: The enemy AI and the friendly AI seem to be working on different rules here. I don’t know if it’s broken and doesn’t scale properly with difficulty, or if this was some sort of huge oversight. The enemy AI can drop you like a cripple that wandered into the middle of an ongoing war crime. But the friendly AI handles guns like a handicapped child with mommy issues. The friendly NPC’s are only even slightly competent when they’re scripted to be. To make this problem worse, not only do the majority of missions put you with an AI controlled squad (missions in which your assistance is very clearly accounted for with the size of enemy forces), but there are instances where you actually have to depend on this same terrible AI to cover you.
Here’s a pretty good clip of that stellar friendly AI at work.
I’ve personally witnessed the friendly AI kill an enemy… once. To clarify, that’s the average AI at work, not one of the many scripted moments where they wanna make a character look cool. We’ve had companions in shooters for around twenty years now, helpful ones even. How are we still having these problems? The terrible friendly AI in this game was easily the single largest negative drain on the entire experience. It’s that bad. Imagine having three to five enemies come up from behind you. Ya know, where your sixteen AI companions are sitting doing absolutely nothing. Real, earned deaths did happen. But the vast majority of the times I had to go back to a checkpoint, was because the friendly AI is entirely useless. From getting in my way, to just completely ignoring the enemy that just ran through a group of them. If the developers were to fix the AI, most of my issues with the game would be solved.
Next on the chopping block, is a mechanic called “mounting”. On paper, this is something I would’ve put in the list of positives. In practice… It just doesn’t work. Essentially: You’re “anchoring” or “leaning” your gun on an edge or corner, allowing you to pivot your aim around whatever it is you’re mounted on. A great idea for tactical, cautious gameplay. But for some reason, it just stops working at random, even when you’re not moving at all. This not only forces you to re-engage the mechanic, but it also screws up your aim and forces you out of cover. This is another thing that led to some of my cheap deaths. I like what they were trying to do, and even appreciate that they were attempting to do something different than other shooters with similar features. But in the end, I would’ve preferred a manual “lean” mechanic, like what can be found in Siege. As a way of enabling a more cautious playstyle, the game actually allows you to slowly push doors open instead of just bashing through them. It’s moments like this where a dedicated lean mechanic would’ve been very helpful as well.
Another problem I ran into every so often was enemy spawns. I don’t know any way to describe it simply. Sometimes enemies seem to spawn endlessly when there’s normally a set amount in any given mission. Endless enemy spawns, in a game with a lighting fast time to kill and useless companions. Imagine it for a moment. These endless spawns only seem to be stopped by walking forward just enough. One time, not only did they spawn endlessly in a small room, but they also ran down the exact same path every single time. It’s the only instance the enemy AI was anywhere near this stupid.
So what’s up with the juggernaut? I wanted to put this complaint higher on the list, but it’s difficult to be more upset about this than other issues when there’s only one of these in the entire campaign (more in Spec Ops though). In the mission where it appears, the main NPC “Farah” suggests that I should grab the shotgun with dragon’s breath rounds. So when this guy popped up, I figured that must be the solution… right? Well quite a few deaths later and the game’s death message tells me that explosions stun him. They don’t. Not most of the time, anyway. Then the message told me to use stun grenades. These never worked for me. I tried launching underbarrel grenades at him, which were all duds apparently because none of them detonated (I actually watched some of them bounce off of him). Then Farah suggested I use the steam (which you release with a set piece mechanic) as cover and get behind him. That didn’t offer me much more advantage. Then I was told to shoot him in the head to stun him. You guessed it, I died because he wasn’t stunned. You can see where the problem here is, right? So after at least twenty deaths I got tired of dealing with it, and turned the difficulty as low as it could go so that I could deal with him.
So essentially, the game wants you to run around in circles with this guy who can practically instakill you because Infinity Ward thinks those little glass face shields can take sixty continuous high caliber rounds without breaking (remember, that’s how many it took on easy). He’s a bullet sponge. There’s no strategy, barely anything slows him down, and you just have to keep slamming your head against the wall until he falls over. I’m gonna be honest with you right here: I was debating whether or not to play the Spec Ops for this review. Because I knew it was gonna throw a bunch of these guys your way at once. Just one of them made me want to quit playing the game. It’s an atrocious, lazy enemy design. Do not put stat reliant challenges into realistic shooters. It doesn’t work. Even Breakpoint lets you knock their helmets off.
It’s worth noting that there are some annoying instances of some sort of mounted enemy (whether it be a sniper or gunner) that can’t be killed no matter what you do, unless you get behind them like the game wants you to. There was exactly one instance where I was actually allowed to kill one of these snipers with the use of an RPG I found (no, explosives don’t work any other time).
A smaller, much more isolated issue occurred during a more scripted event. It’s practically nitpicking, but it bothered me. For some reason the game designers seemed to think there were only two possible options in a scenario, so it didn’t know how to react when I chose a third. So instead, it scolded me as if I chose the more merciless option.
It’s a simple thing, so I’ll let the clip speak for itself.
A few minor things before we move on to multiplayer. The soundtrack was underwhelming. I know, most people don’t care. But I’m a sucker for a great, fitting soundtrack. The score composed by Hans Zimmer and Lorne Balfe for Modern Warfare 2 was iconic, it’s a shame we didn’t get something of that caliber here. There was one memorable track used in the final mission, and it’s used all the time during the final stretch of some multiplayer matches.
Another small problem I had was the occasional drastic frame rate drop. I’m playing on console (Xbox One), where the experience is supposed to be at the very least stable. So PC players may have even more occurrences. I also had one crash… Or more accurately, one place the game continuously crashed until I restarted the mission.
In mission number ten, “The Wolf’s Den”, you start out being dropped off by a helicopter. Immediately after getting your feet on the ground, you breach a building with two enemies inside – one in the middle of the first room, and another hiding further in. Upon loading the mission after a night’s sleep (a checkpoint which put me in right after the helicopter introduction), every time I killed the first enemy, the game would crash completely. Not just a freeze, straight to dashboard. This continued to happen until I restarted the mission entirely from the main menu.
The Multiplayer
The logical place to start I suppose would be with my favorite mode: Ground War. This is the multiplayer mode that intrigued me the most. I used to play Planetside 2. Not a perfect game by any means, but it did one thing very well. That one thing being emergent, organic gameplay. It’s the kind of game where I could share stories about how we held our ground for hours with no support, and no respawns. And how in that same instance, when some of the opposing players either got bored or had to go and the fighting calmed just a bit, I joined a small detachment with one goal: Head South and take over the area to reconnect with our territory and support. And that moment of tight player coordination after a long fight, finally gave us the win. So you can imagine when I heard about this mode in Modern Warfare that has teams of up to sixty four players fighting to take over a large map, I was extremely excited by it. It’s been some time since I’ve had a PC that could run Planetside 2, and I was thirsty for that kind of strategic battlefield gameplay.
Strategy is indeed the name of the game here, it’s unfortunate many players can’t seem to wrap their heads around that. The team that doesn’t coordinate, is the team that loses. And I can’t entirely fault the playerbase for this one, as the game provides absolutely no quick effective methods of communication. Only the NPC voice droning on and on about the two players fighting a tug of war battle over the same point, or the occasional helpful warning about incoming enemy killstreaks. There’s voice chat of course, but first of all not everyone uses that for one reason or another, or even listens to it. I can’t for the life of me tell at a glance who’s talking either, I’m fairly certain I’ve never seen a “speaking” indicator over a teammate’s head. What’s worse, is I could swear the game places a “radio” filter over the already greatly varying microphone quality. So voice communication is effectively useless.
Many games have a lineup of “quick commands”, from Overwatch to For Honor. And that’s for a reason, team coordination is extremely important in online games. Not everyone has a huge clan that can not only fill up a team of sixty four, but also have sixty four working adults (or even busy teenagers) from different parts of the world on all at once.
On the topic of team communication, I can’t tell my teammates apart from enemies most of the time. It would be one thing if this were like real life, and everyone wore the same distinctive uniform. But this is a game where you can use skins of many characters from many different kinds of units, with two alternate color options for those characters. Not to mention you’re constantly switching sides. So why do I need to aim for several moments at an ally that’s wearing the exact same colors as one of the enemy team members (and probably shoot them, in a game with friendly fire), just to see the dark blue name tag appear above his head in the exact same way as enemies? I figure out who my teammates are from the fact that they haven’t shot me, faster than I see the indicator that they’re an ally. I never know if that’s an enemy tank I should be hiding from, or an ally tank I should be rallying behind. We’re talking about a game mode with huge environments and skyscrapers where sniping is a legitimately useful tactic. You need to know if that tan blob in the distance is one of yours, or one of theirs.
Speaking of ally markers, some of them are green, for some reason. Yeah most are blue, but some are green in ground war. Now I’m assuming this is meant to be some kind of “squad” mechanic, to encourage people to work together. But no one does it, and there’s no reason to (outside the obvious teamwork thing). You can respawn on them when they’re not in combat, and that’s about it. It’s handy, but with no incentive at all to work together, why should anyone bother working with those teammates over others? Perhaps if there was a kind of XP boost or something, the mechanic would encourage the less coordinated players to assist each other. It’s arguably more beneficial to split up so that everyone can basically spawn wherever they’re needed. Spawning on the ally who’s standing where you just got ripped apart is usually suicide anyway. The only time it’s helpful, is when a few people from your squad all decide they wanna be snipers. In these instances, you can actually use it to your advantage. Watch each other’s backs, share field upgrades, and respawn on each other when one of you gets picked off.
Very rarely is a control point inside a building. It’s usually in the middle of some field or a connecting bridge. Working with your squad in a hold out is almost never an option, so sniper teams are the only players that really benefit. Which is odd, because the map design here is great! Every building can be entered, and the few doors that can’t be opened are very clearly barred. There are numerous entry points on every building. Your options for breaching and defending these interiors are just as diverse. I can’t think of any logical reason these control points were placed in such blatant killzones. I get having a few, maybe make every center point open? But when most of them are nothing more than mosh pits, almost all strategy goes out the window. You either get there first and use a clever trick to hold it, or you take it by sheer brute force (usually involving vehicles, or a lot of explosives and players when indoors).
I didn’t plan to start talking about most of my problems with multiplayer during the bit about Ground War, but it just so happens to be the mode where the flaws are most apparent. However like I said, it’s my favorite mode, despite these issues. I actually had to stop myself from playing it to try the other modes for this review. There are still many instances of genuine teamwork and battlefield strategy. There’s nothing more satisfying than being a member of the team that’s holding the control point inside the cramped barn, other than being on the team that finally gets in that is. Some points are fought with small skirmishes, others are lit up with intense combat. Helicopter attacks, tanks, jets, airstrikes. They all make for quite the spectacle in Ground War.
Planetside 2 had massive, expansive open world maps dotted with everything fortresses to outposts, and designed solely for that kind of freeform gameplay. Ground War maps are obviously smaller, and naturally offer a few less options. They’d basically be making a whole new game to pull that off. Even so, Modern Warfare could stand to benefit from taking some notes. Put a few more of those control points in fortified areas (like any competent military would), make players strategize together to flush out their opponents. Not all of them, just don’t make open points the norm either. It would solve the problem of sniper teams being the dominant strategy. It would also give less equipped new players the chance to be more useful.
Ground War may not quite be Planetside 2, but it certainly scratches the itch. I’m frankly not very good at it right now. But after a fair bit of play, I was taking out snipers at long range with my light machine gun in Planetside 2. So maybe it’s only a matter of time.
“Gunfight” is next on the list of multiplayer modes. I personally got tired of it pretty quick. But that’s not to say it’s bad, to the contrary in fact. I just don’t much enjoy that sort of area shooter combat. I can however appreciate it’s laser focused goal. Two teams of two players, a tiny arena, no killstreaks, and a random loadout (that everyone shares). It’s the purest form of competition. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t find it exciting at times. It’s simplicity also doesn’t offer a lot for me to say about it. It’s good. If you like quick snappy competitive modes, you’ll like Gunfight.
This is where I actually expected my critique to get a bit disorganized. There are two modes, “Shoot House 24/7” and “Hardpoint”. Both are equally bizarre names to me, as neither of them give you any kind of indication as to what the modes actually are. On top of that, they’re both the exact same game mode. There’s a difference between them, sure. But it’s negligible at best. What’s even more odd, is that Shoot House is a post launch release, with one map (currently). They put time and effort to making the same mode again (but slightly worse), and a map for this mode, and labeled it as “content”. Free content sure, but that doesn’t negate what a waste of time it was.
Both of these modes revolve around taking over control points (innovative, I know). It’s one control point, cycling to different locations across the map every so often. There is literally, only one legitimate difference between the modes. In Shoot House, you’re taking over points that have invisible barriers. In Hardpoint, you’re taking over points that have visible barriers. That’s it. That’s the only difference. The points on the one Shoot House map are always outside, whereas the ones in Hardpoint tend to be inside. Note that I said “tend to be”. Some of the Hardpoint control points are outside as well, so not even that can be considered a difference.
If I’m being frank, Harpoint comes out on top as the better of the two variants. Notably in fact. First of all, there’s no reason we shouldn’t know where the barriers of the control point are. In Shoot House, you have to waste time feeling around for the mystical elusive finish line (this is an issue Ground War suffers from as well). Knowing where those boundaries are allows you to immediately and wordlessly coordinate a defensive strategy with your team. And with the perk of most of these points being inside, it makes for quite the intense game of take over, and hold out. With the maps being so small and the objectives so pinpoint, great teamwork is actually very prevalent in this mode.
Even when objectives are out in the open, the awareness of borders allows for better planning. Often times a single player or two will sit on the point to hold it, while the rest of the team sets up at choke points and sniping positions. This too is very satisfying and exciting. Amazing, the drastic difference a simple touch makes. Hardpoint is actually my second favorite mode, and I’m actually pretty decent at it.
Last on the list, is “Free for All”. It’s Free for All. I feel bad for giving it such a small word count in a review, but what do you want me to say? I would never have played it if I wasn’t writing this. I almost didn’t anyway. I knew what it was gonna be, and I knew I wouldn’t like it. I think I’ve made it pretty clear I’m not really interested in that sort of gameplay. The only time I’ve ever actually enjoyed a free for all mode, was in Overwatch. And that’s more down to the variety it’s characters bring. It’s Gunfight without any of the balance or creativity. It’s not bad, it’s just Free for All. If you mess up Free for All, you shouldn’t be making multiplayer games. Bring a shotgun or an SMG and you’re bound to get some kills. If you like that sort of gameplay, you’ll probably enjoy it. Just don’t be surprised when people start breaking out their automated turret killstreaks and set claymores on staircases for easy kills.
Let’s end this on a good note, shall we?
First of all, I’d like to compliment the game on it’s weapon customization. It’s decently expansive, and everything is earned. You can change your reticle, paint, even slap some stickers on there screw it. Attachments don’t have completely nonsense drawbacks, like how most games make suppressors decrease power and range despite the fact that they’re a barrel extension. In fact, they work exactly as they should, extending your range. There are an odd few with attributes that don’t really make sense, but this would seem to be the exception.
Weapons level up seperately, a mechanic you’d be familiar with if you play Titanfall 2. I’m not particularly a fan, as this means you’re essentially punished with more difficult gameplay because you’re new. But at least they’re not making you buy this stuff. If fact, they don’t let you buy anything in the multiplayer, not even boosters to skip the grind. There’s a store page, and the only thing on there right now is a charity related cosmetic pack. I don’t know who sacrificed what, but I appreciate it.
There’s also some character customization. Now don’t get too excited, you won’t be making a tactical waifu in this game. But there’s a decent selection of characters, all with three different skins to choose from. They can earned through various tasks and challenges. Again, no real money purchases here. It’s not much, but it’s appreciated.
Special Operations (Co-Op)
I tried, I really did. Despite the fact that I knew there’d be numerous Juggernauts, I didn’t feel right putting out a review of this game without playing the Spec Ops missions. Unfortunately, I really can’t dig too deep into them. Let me be crystal clear: I have only played the Spec Ops missions, I haven’t completed a single one. That’s because of two major factors: It’s a team reliant mode, and I have no friends to play with. Oh sure, I can play with random parties, and I did. But there’s almost no one who actually works together, everyone wants to run to objectives. And when we fail once or twice as a result, someone always quits, forcing everyone else to restart the mission. If I were to hold up this review to play through Spec Ops, it might very well take the rest of the month. So instead, I’ll tell you what I can. Don’t expect much.
I was actually pleasantly surprised by the setup of Spec Ops missions. First of all, your multiplayer unlocks and loadouts carry over (and vice versa). So playing one doesn’t impede your progress in other. Even killstreaks appear as equippable gear. Once you’re all set and a mission is chosen, you’re dropped into a sizable level to complete various objectives in, much like my favorite missions in single player. One even gives you the option to infiltrate a base quietly (of course no one did that).
Honestly, a coordinated team could take these missions on, even with the annoying Juggernauts (those are still very bad here). It’s just a lack of the former that makes these as difficult as the are. It’s even more of a shame, because the story in these is a continuation of the campaign. These honestly seem like great fun to me, I just can’t play them right now.
Conclusion
Modern Warfare is not a perfect game by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a good one. Above average I’d say. There are quite a few things to legitimately enjoy here, and amazing potential for ideration. The story is solid, and fun. Surprising and gut wrenching at times. The gunplay is exactly what ten years of annual releases should be. Tight, polished and satisfying. Unfortunately, there are also a few genuine glaring problems in places there really shouldn’t be. Either fix the friendly AI, or get them out of my way. There is no excuse for the companions you’re supposed to depend on being useless. There is no excuse for a bullet sponge enemy. There is no excuse for a complete disregard of all logic and reason.
Game developers should know by now that no one can read the dark colored small text above a person’s head. I should not have to struggle to comprehend the name of the person I’m trying to communicate with. I need to be able to point my teammate in the right direction with a command at a moment’s notice. There is no good reason for these basic things to be wrong.
At the same time, this is a game I’ve been enjoying my time with. I hope they fix these issues going forward, because I haven’t been excited to play a Call of Duty game in a long time. It wasn’t a chore to play this for a review, I had fun with it. Even more in the multiplayer. And that’s really weird for me, I’m a PVE and single player type. I almost never thoroughly enjoy competitive games. And when I do, it’s usually racing and fighting games, not first person shooters. This game is an outlier, and I actually want to keep playing it. I sincerely hope they don’t squander what they’ve built here.
