Top
80°
4.0

Call of Duty: Vanguard (XS) Review | VGChartz

VGChartz's Lee Mehr: "Leave it for a subtitle like "Vanguard" to be attached to such a safe title – even by Call of Duty's own standards. Aside from select tweaks to competitive multiplayer, you see this play out across all fronts; there are brief intimations of an interesting idea before the game retreats to a comfy routine. What sours this even further is the clear decline of polish alongside these expectations. WWII has seen better days."

Read Full Story >>
vgchartz.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Snakeeater2546d ago

Haha really ?! Why are you so angry ?
Did he gave battlefield 2042 11/10 haha

coolbeans46d ago

A natural tendency of mine when reviewing sub-par games.

UnSelf46d ago

I love COD and I agree with this score.

Vanguard MP is beyond the worst I have every played in a FPS.

How tf is there no perk to withstand Grenades?

coolbeans46d ago

It's funny to see us reaching an agreement with score, but not the same sentiment on MP. It's certainly flawed - with even worse spawn points than MW reboot, but there is something to it's different pacing options and little extras that earn *some* credit imo.

SniperEdition46d ago

lol MW 2019 was amazing, this is shit sorry

thesoftware73046d ago (Edited 46d ago )

I disagree with the score(did not read the review)

I would say 7.5/10 as its very solid gameplay as always, smooth frame rate, nice graphics and still fun gameplay. My biggest complaint besides it being same-y as all CoD are, is the Zombies mode. I think its really fun how they made it objectives but its too barebones in terms of no easter eggs, no pack a punch camo, no wonder weapon, not even the ray gun! I think if they add a lot more content in the Zombies I would move my score to an 8/10.

coolbeans46d ago

"(did not read the review)"

That's a shame, but appreciate you chiming in and glad you came away with a better outlook on it.

thesoftware73046d ago (Edited 46d ago )

I did chime in as I still play the game, with that said, a 4 to me is a below average game, that is for the most part broken.

As tired as some maybe of CoD, trust me I play less of it than I did in the past, but as far as FPS go, the game is definitely above average, 60-120fps, responsive tight controls that you can customize, and abundance of customization options for guns and characters, a fair amount of modes, including a 1/2 decent campaign and good sound effect paired with good graphics alone make it a 5 or more..the 4 is part of why I didnt read the review..because I was 100% sure I wouldn't agree with it..but hey we all got opinions right?

coolbeans45d ago

For the sake of not arguing past each other, here's what a 4/10 translates via the site's review methodology:

"4 / 4.5 - Poor
Before investing in these sub-par games, think twice. They get a few things right, but too many obvious problems make them difficult to recommend."

Although it's definitely a clear drop down in polish compared to MW reboot (my last-played COD) in my experience, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's broken. I can somewhat agree with your sentiments regarding the mechanics, but it's tougher to latch onto that positive when they're recycled anyways. And I'm also not giddy to praise stuff like the quantity of maps when quality is really suspect. I'm always glad when Hotel Royal is randomly selected, but insta-quit when I see Dome or several others pop up.

I'm sure we'll still disagree on the score anyways, but I hope this provides a better window as to how I see that score in this context.

Show all comments (11)