Call of Duty Thread - Potential return to form? Or nothing but cope on the horizon? You decide!

They at least should have waited for MW2.
The blinged out WWII guns are bad enough. It's even more jarring to see a modern musician wield them.
All for the low price of 2400 CP. Or $20 worth of currency. Oh, and it's Vanguard only. You want to use that stuff in Cold War or MW2019, fuck you.
 
Should've waited until Modern Warfare II instead of further making a disgrace out of the WWII setting.

Why man? Why are developers treating WWII like a sick joke these days?
Hell, Cold War would've been more appropriate for a cosmetic like this. If I didn't know any better, I would say it's a means of rewriting history for an agenda.
 
I'd rather repurchase Ghosts, the Snoop Dogg voice pack and the Blunt Force aesthetic over THIS garbage. It'd actually be cheaper.
 
Honestly, I can't wait until bullshit like this hits Modern Warfare II as someone who had to hear them insufferably go on and on and ON about how much Cold War/Treyarch ruined their "serious" shooter last year.

Worse CoDs ever to exist. Debate.

World at War: Final Fronts. (PS2)
Black Ops III (all)
WW2: Vanguard.
Black Ops 3 over Ghosts, Advanced Warfare and Black Ops 4?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lemurakk

CODzilla.jpg
 
Funny that this is all happening when the last WWII vets are dying out, isn't it?

Just saying, turning the setting into some wacky Fortnite adventure probably wouldn't fly if the guys that survived had a thing to say.
to be fair the devs back then wouldn't have allowed it either; like everyone has said why couldn't they have waited until the MW2 release for all this dumb shit?

having said that Kong v God came out over a year ago, so even less reason for this crossover. Having said that, if this means we get to fight the fuckers or have to battle monsters during BR then i'm fine with it.
 
Black Ops 3 over Ghosts, Advanced Warfare and Black Ops 4?
Advanced Warfare was forgettable, Ghosts was okay if bland, Black Ops 4 wasn't THAT bad aside from its monetization.

I can forgive those two as they were self-contained titles. Black Ops 3 was a sequel to Black Ops 2, yet made it cumbersome and bloated for no reason.
 
I never bothered with Black Ops 4 on the grounds of it not having a campaign. The series had it from the very beginning, and I wasn't going to support a game that could risk convincing Activision to drop it entirely. Much as I've been giving Vanguard shit lately for its blatant disregard for the setting, I'll happily take it for having an ok (if very weird) campaign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wright
Should've waited until Modern Warfare II instead of further making a disgrace out of the WWII setting.

Why man? Why are developers treating WWII like a sick joke these days?
something something weak men. did you just miss the collective buttclenching of the west and sois losing their mind when russia actually put it's dick on the table?
modern writers have no concept of hardship or even common reality, hence all the retarded shit you see everywhere.

They haven't learned a damn thing. I hope Xbox would set them straight with annualizing this franchise.
:story:
one word: 343

After 3's absymal campaign, 4 felt like a breath of fresh air.
BLOPS4 didn't have a campaign...
 
I've been out of WW2 shooters since the original CoD (the only one you needed, really), but given the utter disdain Activision and EA have for portraying WW2 accurately and with any respect, I take it the only good shooter left for that setting is Hell Let Loose, yes?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vault Boy
I've been out of WW2 shooters since the original CoD (the only one you needed, really), but given the utter disdain Activision and EA have for portraying WW2 accurately and with any respect, I take it the only good shooter left for that setting is Hell Let Loose, yes?
Probably. I'd say Brothers in Arms if a sequel ever happened, but who knows how Gearbox would do it in light of Vanguard and BFV...
 
Back