Wot I Think: Call of Duty: WW2 Multiplayer

ww2multiplayer header

Call of Duty WW2 takes the series back to its roots, stripping out the jetpacks and wallrunning from the recent futuristic iterations. As Sledgehammer Games enthusiastically say, the game is back to being ‘boots on the ground’. It’s certainly a change of pace, but I was happier when my boots were sailing through the air at 50mph.

I’ll get to the game’s shortcomings shortly, but I’ll start by highlighting one area where CoD WW2 surpasses its predecessors. ‘Immersion’ may get thrown around as a marketing buzzword, but it’s an appropriate one to use here. My stomach clenches when I hear whistling over my head, knowing there isn’t time to get to cover and just hoping that whoever aimed that glide bomb was targeting someone other than me. The screen shakes and dust goes flying as artillery fire chews up the map – not on the same scale as Battlefield or Battlefront, but it might actually feel more destructive because of that. This is a more intimate kind of warfare.

On that theme, I think it’s worth mentioning that while I’m not usually sensitive to this kind of thing, the screaming sounds when someone gets incinerated are naaaasty: they were off-putting enough that I stopped loading my shotgun with incendiary shells. I’m not sure to what extent my discomfort is to do with the real-life setting and how much it’s just a really unpleasant audio file, but either way I’d have appreciated an option to turn the screaming off.

It should be noted that I haven’t put all that many hours into the previous games, and I spent a lot of my time getting killed by people that have. Now that every soldier is much less mobile, there’s a greater emphasis on raw twitch skill over creative movement. Some might celebrate that change, but I prefer the airborne antics of Infinite Warfare or, to step outside of CoD, Titanfall, Destiny or even Quake. Firefights in those games feel like dances, while most every encounter in CoD invovles stepping around a corner and either dying or killing within a second.

WW2multiplayer 1

As limited as it may be, I can’t fault the actual feel of the shooting. Every gun has heft behind it, and plugging someone with bullets always triggers a little dopamine rush. There are other redeeming features: map knowledge can be deployed intelligently to (occasionally) gain the upperhand over opponents with superior reflexes. In fact, the game rewards playing intelligently in general: maintaining a careful watch on the radar, moving slowly while listening for footsteps and watching for shadows are all tactics that will see you move up the scoreboard. One of the ‘Basic Training’ perks, ‘Instinct’, turns your screen yellow when you’re being targeted by someone off screen – I found that if I kept track of my blind angles, I could often take out someone who thought they had the jump on me.

Another factor that evens the playing field is that some of the first guns you unlock in the progression path – even the starting ones – are among the best weapons. The M1491 is a great close to mid-range option, and the Lewis gun is a beast. I wasn’t constantly getting killed by people who had weapons that take days to unlock, although there are a few of those that I’m keen to get my hands on.

WW2multiplayer 2

Sledgehammer have been keen to stress the importance of Divisions in defining a playstyle, which applies up to a point. Each Division gives a special ability: the Infantry Division can charge people with a bayonet, while the Airborne can attach a silencer to sub-machine guns. My favourite is still the one for the Mountain Division which I praised in the beta. It allows you to hold you breath and eliminate sway when aiming, but also blacks out everything outside your scope and reduces noise – which creates these surreal moments of calm before the chaos of war comes flooding back in.

There are other benefits that unlock as you rank up each division, like a faster sprint speed for the Airborne, but the main distinction between them is what weapon class they use. That means they do cater to different playstyles, though not to the extent that a role-based shooter like Overwatch does. At the end of the day, what sets one player apart from another is how effective their gun is at various ranges. The lack of diversity wasn’t helped by the fact that I found that Instinct perk too useful to not use for every loadout.

There’s some variety to be found in the different game modes, with War mode constituting the biggest addition to the series. As I described it when I took a look at the beta, the mode is like a smaller, one map version of Battlefield’s Operations where one team tries to stop the other completing a series of objectives. There are 3 maps for it, though you might have to queue a few times before you’ve seen each one. To quickly recap my thoughts from the beta: on the plus side, War matches have more structure and variety within each game, and the removal of Scorestreaks does away with that old problem of good players being rewarded with tools they don’t need.

WW2multiplayer 3

On the other hand, games can be quite long and do sometimes feel like they’re dragging. That’s especially true when you’re on a team that’s getting squashed, which isn’t uncommon. One of the maps, Operation Griffin, relies a little too heavily on a tank escorting objective – though the tasks on the other maps are more diverse. What works most strongly in War mode’s favour is that it has a tension that can be lacking from the other modes: when a round goes into overtime, I feel more invested in that final struggle around the last objective than I do in winning any other type of match.

On the loot box side of things, I have to say that while many people have – justifiably – expressed their distaste at them, they don’t actually encroach on the balance of the PvP game. The only non-cosmetic item that can drop from those ones are relatively small XP boosters, but the versions that drop for the Nazi Zombies mode are a bit more troublesome. They can contain powerful consumables, such as a nuker that instantly kills every zombie on the map. You do start off with a mix of consumables that sustained me for the time I spent with the mode, but I can see the system being frustrating for anyone who wants to invest more time in it.

WW2multiplayer 4

This is a more elaborate spin on previous versions of the mode, which I suppose is only fitting for a game that’s actually set in WW2. It has a (still fairly minimal) narrative featuring David Tennant as a foul mouthed Scot, and hearing him cuss and scream might be my favourite part of playing it. There’s only a single, sprawling map where you have to complete various objectives like turning on the power, rejigging weird machinery, assembling a volt gun, and turning on the power. The village of Mittelburg has an awful lot of electricity problems.

Frustratingly, those objectives don’t have their locations marked. I couldn’t fathom how to get past some of them, and nor could my other low level team mates. The zombies still keep pouring in until every player has been simultaneously knocked down, which means you’re still locked in to around half an hour of mediocre wave survival. It’s luck of the draw whether you end up on a team with someone that knows what they’re doing.

WW2multiplayer 5

I’d still say it’s worth giving the mode a go, at least for a couple of rounds. They might be cheap, but there are some fun jump scares tied into those objectives (if you can find them), and there’s a neat tension to desperately trying to fight my way back to my teammates. Killing Floor simply does all of those things better, however, where the guns have been purpose built for zombie slaying, the maps and undead types are much more varied, and it isn’t held back by the faff and annoyance of microtransactions.

That’s a sentiment that takes me back to the PvP: that I could be having a similar but better experience with another game. I miss the extra element of Destiny’s abilities: managing their cooldowns and keeping track of those of your enemies adds a layer of depth that CoD ultimately lacks. When I compare it to games within the series, I find I’d rather be wallrunnning around Infinite Warfare. Call of Duty: WW2 is a decent game with satisfying shooting at its core, but there are better playgrounds out there.

Call Of Duty: WWII is out now on Windows for £45/$60/60€ via Steam. Our Call of Duty: WW2 singleplayer review ran last week.


  1. Blad the impaler says:

    “I smell…. deeeeliciousss!”

  2. Flappybat says:

    Don’t get too comfortable with loot boxes not changing gameplay. They have been stuffing exclusive guns in them since Advanced Warfare.

    • BooleanBob says:

      One of the many beauties of these systems is that you can make them perfectly innocuous, benevolent even, during the review and launch window, then crank up the shittiness shortly after when the media circus has moved on to other games.

      Quite how EA were incompetent enough to still get this completely backwards with Battlefront 2, and wring the absolute maximum yield of negative PR for the game ahead of release, is baffling… or it would be, if it was anyone other than EA.

  3. Jovian09 says:

    I’m glad you can’t mess with the dying sounds. If the audio design team has made a burning scream that genuinely disturbs you to the point of making you stop using incendiary weapons, I doff my hat to them. Being burned alive would fucking suck. The sound of it SHOULD disturb you. It’s a game about war, and if its ticket is to be immersive then I’m glad they haven’t compromised on that even within the multiplayer.

    • UncleSmoothie says:

      This is a lovely and hugely generous interpretation. The game actively encourages you to burn people alive. Today one of the daily tasks in multiplayer is to do so 15 times, and you will be awarded a loot crate for doing so.

      Whatever doubts we feel in Call of Duty about immolating other human beings are those which we bring to the game; there is no such moral ambiguity baked into the product.

      • Jovian09 says:

        Very likely, but it means someone at that studio was getting on with their job and doing it very well.

      • wislander says:

        This struck me years ago when I played Battlefield 3. The first time I died, and my character reached out before drawing his last breath, actually affected me. It made me think, if only for a second, about the morality of pretend homicide for fun. But then I respawned, and died some more, and the animation plays at every single death, which wiped out its poignancy. And it was the same jarring feeling as you described: a game trying to simultaneously make you feel something about war while numbing you to that same feeling with its design.

  4. thomas16632 says:

    i stopped after BO3: they introducted lootboxes and winner circle, and i was caught by surprise after buying the product.
    BO2 was and still is the best.

    WW2 seems to bring nothing more than BO2 (except new graphics, that’s what cods do : new graphic design, same graphic engine, same network engine, same gameplay)

    but now you loose your time
    -longer loading
    -even longer to load useless headquarter
    -even longer watching unskipable [censored]Winner Circle
    -you have lootboxes as always [censored][censored][censored]
    -you can hope, but as said, it’s 100% guaranted they will stuff exclusive weapon in, in future dlcs. It’s activision, do not dream.

    SO : same game as always, worse and worse wrapping around
    => everybody should boycott activision to make them stop their BS model, and be honest with their client.

    1) we want to play, not loose time loading useless stuff (headquarter) and watching useless stuff (winner circle)
    2) we do not want to be screwed, so no lootboxes. None. 70€ + 50€ season pass for uber expensive 4 maps should be enough.
    3) dedicated server would be nice. (it’s not clear, parsing google, if there is or there isn’t. I read that cod-WW2 uses dedicated server, but not for PC, so i’m confused.

    anyway, because of the wrapping, this game is bad, do not buy it, do not condone it in any way.

    • wackazoa says:

      “1) we want to play, not loose time loading useless stuff (headquarter) and watching useless stuff (winner circle)
      2) we do not want to be screwed, so no lootboxes. None. 70€ + 50€ season pass for uber expensive 4 maps should be enough.”

      Royal we? Cause according to the numbers this thing has already sold twice as good as the last COD, so WW2 is doing something right….

      Either “we” are ignoring you or you need shout louder.

  5. MajorLag says:

    The whole concept of a competitive multiplayer game with XP and unlocks is offensive to my 90s brain. In my book, the only thing that should separate pros from noobs is skill and experience.

  6. Stijn says:

    These unlock systems are just a gigantic turnoff for me. Even if low-tier weapons are viable as well. I can sort of see the justification for F2P games, but for a full-price AAA affair like this I feel that if I buy a game I want to actually get what I paid for, without having to grind my way through what is essentially a gambling minigame with low rewards.

    I can see the appeal of a progression system, and I like unlocking stuff as much as the next person, but this is so transparently taking that itch-scratching to the extreme to wring money from a small subset of players at the expense of the rest who don’t want to buy in that it leaves a foul aftertaste.

    Can’t games follow the Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory model more often? Progression, XP and unlocks, but within the match; you start with 0 XP and basic weapons, and unlock stuff throughout the match as you complete objectives, kill opponents and stay alive. Not unlike a MOBA, really, but W:ET shows that it can work for an FPS too. Maybe for some people the novelty wears off at some point but “proper” DLC with new characters or weapons is an excellent way to address that without involving the Random Number God.

    But loot boxes obviously make more money.

    • BooleanBob says:

      I fear it’s worse even than that. When the publishers begin dictating game design from the perspective that they can earn far more from microtransactions than they ever will in box receipts, it’s the game itself that becomes the minigame – a glorified storefront for the hidden casino within.

  7. Goodtwist says:

    Erm, could somebody be so kind and either repost, rephrase or send a link to that post that RPS just has cared to censo… erm, I mean to erase?

    I started reading it, got into the first couple of sentence and – I don’t know why – I refreshed manually this page. Then all of sudden that post was gone, I mean censored.

  8. veracharles898 says:

    Great game but still prefer black ops.Take a look at https://theanxiousgamer.blog for similar articles.

  9. ashlynnjudd123 says:

    Personally, I didn’t think the campaign was all that. I expected a trite narrative about brotherhood, but I was also expecting some exciting set-pieces. I guess I thought it would be a WWII Call of Duty, with the attitude of MW2.
    I played through on veteran difficulty, and the on rails/mandatory flak gun sections were extremely frustrating.
    To be honest, it’s a step back from Infinite Warfare.

  10. yazzie03 says:

    Call of Duty is a franchise that has lost its identity ever since modern warfare was released. It both revolutionized not only the call of duty franchise, but it also revolutionized gaming in general. Every single game franchise then had the idea that if we were like call of duty, we could make some money. Some succeeded, while plenty others failed. Meanwhile, call of duty itself was slowly losing it’s identity by repeating itself over and over again ever since that game came out. It became much more repetitive with its over-the-top campaign’s with the same plot, character type’s, and story structure. The multiplayer never changed, as well as the zombies. All has been the same, and no signs of change have been shown, and this game is just another example of this. If you love the call of duty franchise, you’ll love this one.
    Update : link to moviesonline.gy