Call of Duty: Vanguard analysis, at the forefront?
PVS $ 70.00
“For Call of Duty players, having the game of the year running is like paying for cable TV just to watch the games of your favorite sports team. The sport is the same, there will be changes in the uniform and surely some new players, but the same club continues to be supported. ”
Robust multiplayer with lots of replayability
It plays practically the same as Modern Warfare
I joined a quick game as soon as I entered the Call of Duty: Vanguard multiplayer menu. The game joined me in a session that had already started: two teams were fighting inside the Hotel Real for control of a bomb; whoever could secure and protect it scored points. My team was losing, and they kept losing until the scoreboard was four points behind us. Then I’m sure the game had to rebalance the teams with some player transfers.
The games continued and in a kind of somersault epic, we started to close the gap. Well, they started, because I just kept dying – I’m not a Call of Duty expert. Then, with the score 5-5, the miracle happened: as touched by the wand, and a bit imitating what the best players did, I advanced flanking the map, eliminated two rival players and bet on securing and defending the bomb; Head on, a player tried to eliminate me by destroying a wooden door, but I took cover behind the bomb and got some shots in the face. We won. I couldn’t believe what happened myself, until the game recognized me with an honorable mention for MVP. The instant satisfaction the series is known for is in Call of Duty: Vanguard, and without it being a defining element to say if the game is worth it or not, that satisfaction of the honorable mention screen made my day.
Call of Duty: Vanguard It must be the umpteenth game in the series set in World War II. That could be anecdotal were it not for the fact that, except in the campaign, Vanguard it plays and feels like some of the recent Call of Duty. Nearly 100-year-old weapons like the Nazi MP40 submachine gun or the bloodied MG42 submachine gun adapt holographic sights that simply did not exist in WWII. Add to that that they can also be customized with phosphorescent camo, gold butts and whatever quirky accessory you can imagine, the result is more of a Call of Duty-worthy fiction than a historically respectful representation. In multiplayer, the only hallmark that makes it obvious that you’re fighting in 1940 are the swastikas that adorn the game’s maps.
The “big” additions —and in quotation marks because I satirize— are moderately destructible scenarios and a kind of filters to choose the combat rhythm of the game: tactical, with a limit of 12 players; assault, with games for 14 or 36 players depending on the size of the map, and blitz, which are chaotic combats for between 16 and 48 players. By default, the game rhythms alternate randomly. Clearly, that Honorable Mention game had tactical pacing, and I certainly enjoyed them much more than the Blitz sessions, where I probably lasted an average of 46 seconds alive before reappearing on the map.
Without being a deep connoisseur of Call of Duty multiplayer (I’m the guy who walks into Warzone with his friends to talk about adult life), I must say that the multiplayer of Vanguard It seems to me full of content, but as soulless. I think a fan who went through Modern Warfare and Black Ops Cold War will have a hard time pointing out, in addition to the swastikas on the maps, substantial differences between the multiplayer of one and the other game. Yes, the semi-destructible scenarios (they are because you break doors, windows and barricades, not entire structures like in Battlefield) and the game rhythm filters add some novelty, but I seriously cannot imagine a fan of the series telling their friends that must buy Vanguard Through filters and destructible barricades.
Still, I know that for Call of Duty players having the game of the year running is like paying for cable TV just to watch their favorite sports team’s games. The sport is the same, there will be changes in the uniform and surely some players who arrived and others who left, but the same club continues to be supported.
On the other hand, the campaign Vanguard left me mixed feelings. At times I very much enjoyed riding a train shooting down Nazis, and at other times I simply continued out of sheer inertia. The whole story, which lasts around six hours or less depending on your skill and how difficult it is to play, revolves around four operators: Lucas riggs, Wade Jackson, Polina Petrova and Arthur Kingsley. All the operators are based on real characters who fought in World War II, although of course, they are very touched by fiction. Their story revolves around how they fought together to discover the Nazis’ Phoenix Plan, and their entire story is told in retrospect, since at the beginning of the campaign they end up captured by the Gestapo.
Narratively, the campaign is not going to change your life and, to my liking, it abuses cinematic scenes to tell the story. Regarding the gameplay, the campaign tries to differentiate the skills of each operator, for example, Arthur Kingsley has the ability to order the soldiers controlled by the game to attack certain positions, while Polina Petrova sneaks into small spaces. It’s an attempt to bring a certain freshness to the gameplay that, however, ends up feeling like an effort to hitch a ride.
Where definitely the campaign shines Call of Duty: Vanguard It is in the graphic section. Visually, the game is simply spectacular and shows off the technical capabilities of the new generation consoles, adding dozens of effects to scenes that are visually stimulating in themselves (explosions here, soldiers there). Paradoxically, the moments where it seems to me that graphically it shines the most Call of Duty: Vanguard it is in the contemplative scenes, like the introductory scene of the sniper Polina Petrova. I’ve never seen such a detailed mug in a video game before.
Finally, the zombies mode has a notable change, which is that instead of appearing on a map that you explore little by little as you progress in your session, you start in a snowy city of Stalingrad with portals that take you to other parts of the map . When you teleport and kill the zombie waves, you return to Stalingrad to spend your upgrade points and open another portal.
In each scenario, the objective is slightly different, such as following a floating skull that emanates a yellow glow and moves across the stage while zombies invade it, or simply defend an area from the arrival of an army of the undead. I’m also not an expert on zombie mode, but one gamer said in his review that this formula dilutes the feeling that you are working as a team to achieve a common goal. I didn’t feel exactly that, but after round five I preferred to stop to go to sleep. Other players have been more inflammatory and say that the mode is a disaster. It didn’t look that way to me, but I’ve enjoyed other iterations of the zombie mode more. Likewise, developer Sledgehammer Games announced that the mode will have an update that will add narrative elements on December 2.
I think Call of Duty: Vanguard It is a worthy title. Sure, there are nuances, but I think those who are fans of the series will take it as my analogy of supporting the same club season after season. On the other hand, those who without being regulars ended in 2019 with Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War in their collection, can do without VanguardTherefore, except for the paintings of Hitler in the scenarios, it will be difficult for them to notice substantial differences between one game and another. The same, judging only by the quantity — and quality — of content that it includes Call of Duty: Vanguard, that $ 70 dollars will be paid out all year until the arrival of the new game in the series.