Call of Duty: Vanguard
Year: 2021
Developer: Sledgehammer Games
Publisher: Activision
Platform: PC, PS4, PS5, Xbox One, Xbox Series
PEGI: 18
Published: 05/12/23
Developer: Sledgehammer Games
Publisher: Activision
Platform: PC, PS4, PS5, Xbox One, Xbox Series
PEGI: 18
Published: 05/12/23
The COVID-19 pandemic had a knock on effect for everything, and games were no exception. For most releases this just simply led to a delay, but for yearly franchises like Call of Duty it seemed as though delays were out of the question. What became Call of Duty: Vanguard had originally started life as a joint operation between Sledgehammer Games and Treyarch, but following a split over creative differences, Vanguard ultimately got the better end of the deal with an extra year’s development time, whilst Black Ops Cold War had to be rushed out in just over a year (much of that being developed under COVID restrictions). So when it came time for Vanguard, hopes were high because Sledgehammer had consistently proven themselves to be capable of mixing up the Call of Duty formula whilst also delivering a strong experience, and an almost four year development cycle would make this the only game in the franchise to receive that length of time to make. But when Vanguard released it was met with some of the worst criticism the franchise had faced since Infinite Warfare. So where did Vanguard go wrong?
Whilst attempting to hijack a train in 1945 Hamburg, the strike team known as Vanguard are captured by the Nazi’s and interrogated by Untersturmführer Hermann Freisinger. As the squad begin to recount their story they learn of Hitler’s suicide and bear witness to the downfall of the Third Reich.
Vanguard’s story is honestly one of the best in the entire franchise, and I feel that it’s kind of criminally overlooked when the franchise is looked at on the whole. Whilst WWII stories have been done to death, I’ve never seen one set amongst the downfall of the Nazi Empire in the immediate aftermath of Hitler’s death.
Each member of Vanguard gets a couple of missions to tell their story of how they came to be a part of the unit. British Army Lieutenant Arthur Kingsley, Red Army sniper Polina Petrova, U.S Army pilot Wade Jackson, Australian Army demolitionist Lucas Riggs. Because each one of them has a specialised skillset the missions are varied and come with unique gameplay abilities.
Freisinger is also a fun villain, he’s the perfect kind of moustache twirling wannabe world conqueror who’s living in the shadow of Hitler.
You do get to really get to know the characters of Vanguard too, in particular Polina who I feel has one of the strongest characterisations of anyone in the entire CoD franchise.
Whilst attempting to hijack a train in 1945 Hamburg, the strike team known as Vanguard are captured by the Nazi’s and interrogated by Untersturmführer Hermann Freisinger. As the squad begin to recount their story they learn of Hitler’s suicide and bear witness to the downfall of the Third Reich.
Vanguard’s story is honestly one of the best in the entire franchise, and I feel that it’s kind of criminally overlooked when the franchise is looked at on the whole. Whilst WWII stories have been done to death, I’ve never seen one set amongst the downfall of the Nazi Empire in the immediate aftermath of Hitler’s death.
Each member of Vanguard gets a couple of missions to tell their story of how they came to be a part of the unit. British Army Lieutenant Arthur Kingsley, Red Army sniper Polina Petrova, U.S Army pilot Wade Jackson, Australian Army demolitionist Lucas Riggs. Because each one of them has a specialised skillset the missions are varied and come with unique gameplay abilities.
Freisinger is also a fun villain, he’s the perfect kind of moustache twirling wannabe world conqueror who’s living in the shadow of Hitler.
You do get to really get to know the characters of Vanguard too, in particular Polina who I feel has one of the strongest characterisations of anyone in the entire CoD franchise.
It is a bit oddly paced because it’s told through flashbacks, and in a few ways reminds me of Gears of War: Judgment through the interrogation style storytelling that follows one character at a time.
I also didn’t like how short it was. CoD campaigns have never been lengthy affairs, but Vanguard’s barely brushed five hours, and I was taking my time with it too.
I had been expecting Vanguard to play similarly to Sledgehammer’s previous title, WWII. But instead, it felt more like Infinity Ward’s 2019 Modern Warfare reboot.
Built on Modern Warfare’s engine, the movement is similarly slow and sluggish, which I personally love. It gives everything weight, and the narrow POV makes everything feel more intense. It felt extremely cinematic, opening with an exhilarating train heist and delivering epic missions every single time. This is about as far removed from the original vision of Call of Duty as possible whilst still retaining a WWII theme.
But the game does showcase some excellent squad mechanics and special abilities unique to each character. You do feel like you rely on your friendly AI squamates more than most CoD games, and that was definitely something that went in the game’s favour.
It was a shame to see WWII’s health bar scrapped though as I felt that was one of the best things Sledgehammer did for that title, and it made the gameplay far more methodical. I also really don’t like how you don’t automatically pick up ammo in Vanguard, and I often found myself pinned down with almost no ammo because I can’t get out of cover long enough to pick anything up.
Because it’s running on the Modern Warfare engine the game inherently looks incredible. It showcases some great character models, environments, and lighting, and truly is a sight to behold. However, I did find that there were a number of weirdly low quality textures that were shoved right in your face and were impossible to ignore semi-frequently. A shame because the game is clearly capable of looking amazing, so why weren’t these moments, such as waking up on a muddy riverbank that just looks like a plain flat brown texture not given more attention?
The art style reminded me a lot of Machine Games’ Wolfenstein titles. It felt like it took the usual WWII aesthetic and amplified it just enough to make it feel fresh.
I also didn’t like how short it was. CoD campaigns have never been lengthy affairs, but Vanguard’s barely brushed five hours, and I was taking my time with it too.
I had been expecting Vanguard to play similarly to Sledgehammer’s previous title, WWII. But instead, it felt more like Infinity Ward’s 2019 Modern Warfare reboot.
Built on Modern Warfare’s engine, the movement is similarly slow and sluggish, which I personally love. It gives everything weight, and the narrow POV makes everything feel more intense. It felt extremely cinematic, opening with an exhilarating train heist and delivering epic missions every single time. This is about as far removed from the original vision of Call of Duty as possible whilst still retaining a WWII theme.
But the game does showcase some excellent squad mechanics and special abilities unique to each character. You do feel like you rely on your friendly AI squamates more than most CoD games, and that was definitely something that went in the game’s favour.
It was a shame to see WWII’s health bar scrapped though as I felt that was one of the best things Sledgehammer did for that title, and it made the gameplay far more methodical. I also really don’t like how you don’t automatically pick up ammo in Vanguard, and I often found myself pinned down with almost no ammo because I can’t get out of cover long enough to pick anything up.
Because it’s running on the Modern Warfare engine the game inherently looks incredible. It showcases some great character models, environments, and lighting, and truly is a sight to behold. However, I did find that there were a number of weirdly low quality textures that were shoved right in your face and were impossible to ignore semi-frequently. A shame because the game is clearly capable of looking amazing, so why weren’t these moments, such as waking up on a muddy riverbank that just looks like a plain flat brown texture not given more attention?
The art style reminded me a lot of Machine Games’ Wolfenstein titles. It felt like it took the usual WWII aesthetic and amplified it just enough to make it feel fresh.
The multiplayer is a bit of a letdown though. It feels sluggish to play, and whilst it may be easy to blame the slower general speed of the game because of the Modern Warfare engine, Modern Warfare’s multiplayer never felt slow to me. Vanguard’s meanwhile felt cumbersome, and the maps weren’t particularly well designed I thought. I did also generally struggle to find matches, with me frequently being disconnected from the servers, taking ages to find games, and then often being stuck in a laggy lobby. I wondered if my internet was playing up, but everything was fine according to my network settings and I even jumped on a few games of Black Ops Cold War just to test and I had no issues there. The player count was startlingly low, and so I’m wondering if Activision is kind of pulling the plug on Vanguard early, neglecting it in favour of the other Call of Duty titles that are more popular (and understandably so).
Zombies was also a shambles. I normally dislike the zombies’ modes anyway, but this genuinely felt lifeless (no pun intended). It had little personality of its own, and with the slower gameplay it just felt cumbersome. Needless to say, I didn’t stick around long enough to see what was any different about the mode in comparison to previous iterations, because I just had no patience for it.
Vanguard is generally a poor showing from Sledgehammer Games who have previously knocked it out of the park with each of their Call of Duty titles. I did really enjoy the campaign's storyline and characters, and I appreciated the return of the slower gameplay style introduced by Modern Warfare. But there are so many other poor decisions made by Sledgehammer, as well as seemingly cut corners and clunky feature implementation that I can see why Vanguard was received so poorly.
Sledgehammer were always the studio that did CoD differently, they gave it a unique personality by trying new things, but with Vanguard it feels like they more often than not chose the safest bet and then managed to screw it up.
There are some great things to be found in Vanguard, but there’s little reason to hang around beyond the credits rolling on the campaign, and considering how short it is I can’t really recommend seeking it out for that alone.
Zombies was also a shambles. I normally dislike the zombies’ modes anyway, but this genuinely felt lifeless (no pun intended). It had little personality of its own, and with the slower gameplay it just felt cumbersome. Needless to say, I didn’t stick around long enough to see what was any different about the mode in comparison to previous iterations, because I just had no patience for it.
Vanguard is generally a poor showing from Sledgehammer Games who have previously knocked it out of the park with each of their Call of Duty titles. I did really enjoy the campaign's storyline and characters, and I appreciated the return of the slower gameplay style introduced by Modern Warfare. But there are so many other poor decisions made by Sledgehammer, as well as seemingly cut corners and clunky feature implementation that I can see why Vanguard was received so poorly.
Sledgehammer were always the studio that did CoD differently, they gave it a unique personality by trying new things, but with Vanguard it feels like they more often than not chose the safest bet and then managed to screw it up.
There are some great things to be found in Vanguard, but there’s little reason to hang around beyond the credits rolling on the campaign, and considering how short it is I can’t really recommend seeking it out for that alone.