The first Call of Duty game, released 18 years ago, was important for World War II. When we experience it today (which we should because it is still amazing), we experience emotions such as fear, panic, anxiety, and confusion. A few young people who have practically no special training enter a situation that is beyond their comprehension and they try not to be killed by some other young people. The game, along with its sequel, is a stunning depiction of the catastrophes of the War and is actually based on the memories of the survivors of that time. Does not believe in World War II. When we experience it today (which we should not do, because it is really bad), we see that the creators used the War space only as a background to present their game. A secret group of skilled soldiers with strange abilities intend to infiltrate the Gestapo; The Gestapo was the acronym for German secret police during the Nazi regime. The result, however, is the unveiling of a ridiculous conspiracy theory that bears a striking resemblance to Wolfenstein's story. It has changed from the concept of war. While Vanguard does not have the worst campaign in the history of Call of Duty, a return to World War II makes it easier to compare it to its secret roots. On the other hand, even in its "progressive" approach, the game has performed so badly that it is truly spectacular!
There is no doubt that Activision's veteran shooter is incredibly successful. A multi-billion dollar franchise that takes over the sales charts every year, most of its audience goes to the multiplayer segment and has always been a leader in games graphically. It is strange that the creators pay attention to the solo sector at all, let alone that they want to spend millions of dollars every year on this sector and hire great Hollywood actors. All this is just to follow a few skilled and unrealistic soldiers who shoot at the Nazis in the narrow corridors.
Vanguard follows a stereotypical and general process; The story of a group of soldiers who are the best of the best and must save the world. I confess that the cinematic scenes of the game are really an artistic phenomenon. I have never seen visuals like this, locations so realistic, characters so detailed and flawless. At times, you may feel like you're on the side of a movie, not a video game. Thus, Vanguard is visually a masterpiece. And all this was for "nothing".
There is not even a moment of curiosity, pity, intelligence, surprise or drama in the game's story. The story of Task Force 1 is made up of a series of hollow and boring sequences in which the vengeful and soulless Nazis laugh at the Allied soldiers; Soldiers feel a moment of grief after their loved ones are killed, and a few seconds later, they continue on their way, clenching their teeth. The gameplay as a whole is similar to some of the War movies you liked (probably "Rescue Ryan Soldier" or "Fall"), and Activision thought that was enough. Remind players of sad or dramatic things and then assume the job is done. Narrates several imaginary heroes. Ironically, with this approach, he has lost all his power and ability to say anything valuable. The narrative of the latest episode of the franchise shows how much the creators are struggling to present themselves as pioneers of the progressive movements of society, without thinking for a moment, they are questioning the people involved in the War with their unrealistic and blind narrative.
Call Of Duty: Vanguard is about six skilled soldiers who traveled through time, into the 1940s, and set out to save the world. Have. The issue of time travel is not discussed anywhere in Vanguard, but there is no explanation for the strange skills and intelligence of this group, which thinks like the progressives of the third millennium. They are here to end the War by infiltrating the Gestapo headquarters and protecting the files of the Phoenix conspiracy project. At the same time, they are not unaware of the fact that they convey their message of "tolerance" to the World to different races and genders. Instead, I'm glad a multi-billion dollar company in the video game industry has chosen a black man as its main character. There was a time when companies thought that if they put a colorful personal image on the cover of their game, selling it would be catastrophic. Now, although the image of this character on the cover of Vanguard is very small, but it is located in front of the others, it is important. Also, the role of people of color and women in World War II has always been overlooked in the media, and Activision's attempt to paint a different picture is admirable. But
Vanguard chooses the most cowardly path possible, instead of dealing with the possible problems and tragedies of the people at that time. You may never believe it, but the Nazis were a racist! The villainous cartoon characters of the game shout their prejudices, while our heroes are all very upset with each other, and we know that the Germans were evil because they were considered racists. But in reality, the idea never crossed the minds of any Allied soldier.
When it comes to sexism, things get even worse. The game's female protagonist, a Russian sniper, constantly utters the phrase "Because I'm a woman." Later, in order to create more such scenes, the creators have put several nonsensical and sexist professions in the mouths of other characters; Including the Australian man.
This game is a desperate attempt to avoid controversy and to reach To this end, he is willing to deny the truth. It should take a lot of attention for a black British soldier to take the lead, but at what cost? At the time of World War II, there were only 10,000 blacks living in Britain, with a total population of about 46 million. While the country had no particular problem with people of color, accepting more than 150,000 black American soldiers at the beginning of the War with open arms, the government declared in 1942: "It's better not to get too close to people of color." Much of the poisonous culture of racism was transferred from the United States to Britain during World War II, and the behavior of the rulers clearly showed the insignificance of such issues. Although the British themselves were not in a very interesting situation; Early in the war, more than 600,000 black soldiers from Africa and India joined the army, fought for the country, and were sent home immediately after the war. All this while their salaries were one third of those of white soldiers. Britain showed very little racist policies during the war, but as soon as it was over we saw a strange and great wave of racial discrimination. It has received little attention. Yes, there have been people like John Henry Clive Smith (who was probably the main source of inspiration for the Kingsley character), Ulric Cross (who was probably the source of good inspiration), Sydney Cornell and Billy Strachan, but as soon as we called them We know how unusual the presence of blacks in important military situations has been. Vanguard understands this very well and, inspired by different colored characters, builds his main character, which is really amazing. But Activision did so with great fear, an apparent fear of a storm of criticism that made its important mission insignificant and forced.
Sydney Cornell's soldier was a messenger whose main task was to go to dangerous areas. Using a parachute and delivering the most important messages. He was an admirable and brave soldier and a true War hero who was shot four times on the battlefield and wounded many times while running between cannons, bullets and fire to deliver vital messages to his destination. He received the model of honor for his important services and became a wanderer. He was killed in 1945 at the age of 29 after a long struggle on the battlefield. The story of this hero is worth telling. This was about to happen, and they wanted to make a film based on his life that the problems with the Corona pandemic actually ruined the project.
Now, I really do not know who Kingsley is. The flashback mission shows him that he is in charge of the struggle without any objections or challenges, and that this has no basis. He's like a very kind and special human being, and Chaik Okunko has voiced the character with the utmost skill, but overall we do not know how Kingsley got there, how he became one of the most expert soldiers, and why there are no signs. Racism is not visible to him. These ugly and evil deeds have all fallen on the necks of the evil Nazis. Yeah Al that sounds pretty crap to me, Looks like it aint for me either. Vanguard is so adamant in denying the facts that we feel it is an unrealistic and not-so-honest fantasy.
In another part of the game, the creators of "America's 93rd Division" have skillfully entered the story. Now, instead of talking about significant issues about racism, such as the mistreatment of blacks in the military, Vanguard is actually focusing elsewhere. The game tries to show the role and services of blacks in the War with the story of the 93rd Division battle in Japan and only teaches life lessons to the white character (Wade Jackson) who is in control of the player. I can not say how badly this was done. The narrator says at one point: "Down there, he learned that the only way to win is to be behind."
The whole game is full of phrases like "against" and "despite"; "Even though he's a woman", "Even though he was a black man" and dozens of similar examples that are thrown directly or indirectly at the audience. Instead of honestly raising issues, Vanguard constantly pursues simple slogans such as "Black lives are important" and "Girls' power", making everything even more offensive. There is no truth here, but only the washing of history in the style of modern progressives who, for their simplistic aims and views, deny the bitter reality of war.
Warning: The rest of this article contains a spoiler of Call of Duty: Vanguard
Activision has tried to design the characters in the game "inspired" by real World War II soldiers. The Russian sniper, Lieutenant Polina Petrova, is based on several real Russian female soldiers whose "confirmed death toll has exceeded 100." But at this point, the game is in a bad state. Because at the end of the story, he enters the fantasy World of the writers so much that he practically questions the inspiration of these characters.
At the end of the campaign, we encounter a "twist" of the story, during which after Hitler's death Hermann Wenzel Franzing (the game's negative and imaginary character) will become the next leader. He always thought that Hitler was a weak man, and after his death, Hermann could carry out his great secret plan called the Fourth Reich. I'm not kidding, this is Vanguard's story. He wants to conquer the World with these mysterious plans, which include the project of mutant superheroes and the like. Fortunately, our heroes were already ready to fight this "good" and Hitler's secret replacement. One can only be happy that he did not wear a robotic suit with strange technologies in the final mission.
Moments later, when a character is being tortured to death, he says, "You tried to break me, but you failed." For now, I can only imagine how successful and genius Vanguard's writers felt after writing this line.
My main focus here is on "narrative," as the activation of the core and values of the Call of Duty franchise. Duty mocks and offers ridiculous and vile versions of it. The first game in the series, which was produced in 2003, allowed you to move in the free zones of the game and escape the enemy's barrage and fire as you wish. On the other hand, when I was in the first stage of Vanguard and only a few meters away from the main route, I received a warning that I would be killed if I did not return to the route. I was following one of the enemy soldiers.
Most of your moves in the game are like chasing an enemy, hiding behind a tank, passing a building to check the position of enemies, and the result of violent demonstrations that You are told exactly what to do at any given moment. These also occur in rare locations that are not full of narrow corridors. As a result, you can not even experience Vanguard under the illusion that you have as much freedom of action as a pinhead.
As always, non-playable characters (NPCs) do everything, except when it comes to killing enemies Be in between. They are constantly moving in front of you and if they can not, they are literally teleporting to do nothing there. Like old friends, they stand by the Germans to show that these enemies are only shooting at you, and that Vanguard has not smelled realism in this regard.
If you stand in the way of these NPCs, they will push you aside. They throw. I'm serious. I fell out of the window several times, pushed myself in the direction of the tanks, and got stuck in a corner while shooting at enemies. All of this is embarrassingly bad. In most games, in addition to shooting at enemies with low AI, you are pursuing a handful of NPCs that look like the walking dead.
Again, if you go back to Call of Duty 2003, your brain will explode. It does not matter how old the game graphics are, because the experience is still impressive, scary and realistic, because non-playable characters are constantly being shot and killed next to you. The more the enemy shoots at you, the more they aim at them. Also, if you cowardly hide behind a building, you will see that your companions are also shooting at the enemy. You are not the main star of the story. You are just an anonymous soldier in a normal uniform who wants to survive. Combining these with writings that tell you stories throughout the game has created a narrative that is not at all comparable to Vanguard's ridiculous performances.
, You played the role of a simple American soldier who basically carries out a behind-the-scenes mission to allow other soldiers to enter from the sky. By doing so, the Allied Front will have more hope for the success of Operation Overlord. So you have an important but unknown and modest role in the background. I really can't imagine a modern Call of Duty game having the courage to paint such a picture.
During the development of Call of Duty 2, I spoke with Activision writers who had spent months interviewing World War II survivors. This goes back to 2004, when we lost almost all the survivors of the war. The developers of Call of Duty at the time promised to tell the untold and important stories of these survivors in their game.
The memory of those who stood up to oppression has become this (you know what I mean by "this"). A tumultuous, silly, and non-historical show that neither depicts the truth of the War nor respectfully examines the tragedies of the lives of those involved in this bloody and horrific event. And most importantly, it's a dull, low-cost game.
Call of Duty: Vanguard is probably one of the most visually appealing titles I've ever experienced. But at the same time, the inside is very ugly. Because the fall of the Call of Duty franchise is palpable. The game does not want to depict the tragedies and events of the war, but only tries to hide behind its childish heroes and ridiculous anti-heroes. Vanguard takes the lives and experiences of real people and reduces them to simplistic stereotypes and does not have the courage to say valuable professions.
Source: KotakuTags: story, call, duty, vanguard, disrespect, history, world, war