So it seems COD WW2 it's pretty damn good

So it seems COD WW2 it's pretty damn good

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/u1d07
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I honestly can't tell if this is fake or not.

>activision-hosted review event

Yes yes, >ign >modern journalism etc etc

>four-day Activision-hosted review event
fukken lol

>yearly rehash gets a 9
>great game that took years to make gets an 8 because it's "too difficult" and wasn't dark souls

is the "two hours" campaign the new meme?

>campaign took just over 2 hours to complete
>scores 9/10

fucking WHAT

Read the part about where the review was done

I only care about polygon reviews

>Activision-hosted review event

If this isn't the biggest red flag, I don't know what is.

>best competitive multiplayer of last decade
>9
haha wow game of the year material

NOOOOOOOOOOOO

13 hours for the level cap is even worse

Still better than locking your exp behind timewalls

Thought it was midget porn. Got excited for a moment.

i genuinely don't know how. i played on retard difficulty so i could get through it quick and keep my rental period cheap and it still took five and a half. campaign was good but definitely not $60 good, especially with that shitty multiplayer that feels way worse than Infinite Warfare (which, circlejerks aside, was a good game. supposedly campaign is fun too but I haven't played it)

thats how CoD multiplayer has always been but the whole progression in CoD Multiplayer is based around upgrading Prestige and doing it over again with rewards each time. I actually think it's pretty good because it keeps casual players on a level playing field since they'll have all the good gear and won't have to spend hundreds of hours while giving the people who play it a lot more something to do as opposed to getting bored shortly after hitting rank 70 (or 55 depending on the game.)

tldr; game is short but not that short, rent it, do not buy. IW is better for multiplayer, go buy that.

What I love the most about Trump's election is that media finally lets us kill Nazis and bash the fash.

>2 hours campaign
>13 hours multiplayer
>four-day review event
Being a game journalist must be such a hard job

classic

you guys still take reviews seriously?

>best competitive multiplayer of last decade
If this isn't fake, I don't know what is.

I want to play a WW2 game where I'm a Pole fighting furiously against both invading Nazi Germany and Soviet Union or in Warsaw uprising.

There was a lot of fighting there.

Why do they never, ever put those fights in games? I'm bored of ye old american/brit/french/russian campaign.

Maybe because its hard to feel like a badass war hero when you are controlling a pitchfork-wielding Pole whose country average american can't even pinpoint on the map of Europe nor knows the name of its capital off the top of his head.

probably meant of the CoD series. which is still a flat out fucking lie.

CoD4, MW2, MW3, Black Ops 2, Ghosts and Advanced Warfare were all better set up for competitive play. As much shit as it got, Ghosts was actually considered the best in terms of pure mechanics. Ghosts on Mw2's maps would be fucking fantastic.

You think them used pitchforks? Gettng invaded by both nazis and ussr and fighting them off for a month with pitchforks sounds pretty bad ass to me.

>2-hour campaign

I'd much rather play as a Yugo saboteur in Belgrade or an innaforest Partisan.

>Activision hosted review event

I will never ever not be amazed at how anyone can ever take these reviews seriously.

>Activsion-hosted review
Seriously, what the fuck.

But Poles had the biggest partisan army.

Wiki literally told me this:
>One estimate for the summer 1944 strength of AK and its allies, including NSZ, gives the strength of 650,000. Overall, the Polish resistance have often been described as the largest or one of the largest resistance organizations in World War II Europe.

And they fought from 39 to 45.

No idea why you'd want to play a stick wielding yugo partisan if you can have pitchforks.

>2 hour campaign
>13 hour multiplayer
>4 days
>he played less than 4 hours per day and was pampered by Activision for the rest

>best competetive multiplayer of last decade
>when Siege exists
HOLY FUCK THIS TRIGGERED ME LIKE NOTHING ELSE
THIS PIECE OF SHIT DOESNT EVEN HAVE A WORKING ANTICHEAT

>there's no way this shit can be real. I'm getting fucked with
archive.is/u1d07
>turns out it's 100% real
Well 99%, they updated the play summary to mention the Zombies mode, but holy fuck.

Ironic. After four days of free handjobs courtesy of Activision it's you who ends up being a whore.

COD reviews are paid off always have been

They don't even hide that it's a paid review

>no Anzac campaign when you play as aussie/kiwi digger and slap the jap
>no China-Jap where you play as peasant struggling to survive
>no Spanish civil war with its complete chaos, which is armed by entirety of Europe
>no Greek/Polish/Yugo resistance
But hey, we get another D-day..

China-jap war is like.. don't think i've ever seen it in a WW2 game
i guess it's the same for Poland - when they historically lose the war/capitulate the devs can't put in the "epic underdog comeback" that the soviet side and the whole western front (french resistance included) allows for

Technically Germany recovering from economic ruin and almost nullifying the versailles treaty was a bigger underdog comeback

I just don't understand why anyone does.

isnt IGN the ones who give every COD game 9/10 even if their shitty and no one plays them after 3 weeks?

>midget porn

thats what you call it?

>no Greek/Polish/Yugo resistance
>Not playing as Bulgarian police officer hunting filthy partisan scum with your Spitzskommand death squad
>Not playing a member of the Iron guard conducting pogroms in jewish ghettos
>Not playing as a young bright-eyed Ukrainian volunteer in the SS
Trully shit game

cod ww2 comparable to cod 1 in any way
nice joke