• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Kotaku bitching about CoD Vanguard - it's too woke, apparently, to the point it defies history ... *SPOILERS*


What's funny is that Kotaku has always been the worst kind of left-wing racist media (and I know this from personal sources) hiding behind "woke" signaling in ways that people who are actually against racism (and educated) have always spotted that.

This article is just a less subtle illustration of that.
Last edited:
Hate to take a page from ERA's book when it comes to censorship but can we please list Kotaku as a banned source at this point? They offer nothing of value to gaming journalism, which says a lot considering the state gaming journalism is in.


thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Final thoughts: the campaign isn’t perfect. I think it’s a brilliant opportunity to understand World War 2, the Russian, Aussie, American backgrounds, looking at the nazis like rats, the fear from the nazis overwhelming you isn’t there, but there’s teachable moments like Phoenix, and midway. Couple bullet points on COD 2021 Vanguard:
Story is ok.
Women characters is ok.
The clashing ally characters are fine.
African American characters is fine.
Just because it’s a short 7 hour campaign doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Because you can't explore outside maps doesn't mean its bad.
The multiplayer gun system adds value to ranking and leveling them up.
Sliding through maps sucks.


"Fuck Kotaku" and yadda yadda

But he is not wrong, you know? Actually read the fucking thing

People with drive by posts hating the site: we get it already

Now read the article, because for once they have written something that you may agree with
I read it and it's terrible. ONLY thing I agree with is the 1st couple of COD games were brilliant, and this campaign is nothing like those earlier games.

Other than that, this is a bullshit article for some other fucking moron to try pander to "minorities". The game is complete SJW crap but I had fun in a Hollywood blockbuster type of way. Other than that, the single player campaign is woke crap dressed up in a WW2 game. All the minority heroes are perfect in every way.

Funnily enough, there are some ex devs, one in particular who posts here and has a youtube channel, who still think companies making these games DON'T go out of their way to pander to the woke mob... that they don't include "diverse" characters to appease the mob.


All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
Rewriting history via fiction? Seems like an interesting strategy. Let's see how many university history departments take up their new version of history.


Kudos for at least pasting this utter garbage rather than providing a link to aid these charlatans. They are gutter trash.
Last edited:


Well, Call of Duty has always been a terrible franchise, with a lot of awful things about it. I can never understand the gamer that keeps buying this game every year.


I'm not reading this shit

didnotread tldr GIF by FirstAndMonday
My head aches just for the scrolling, and scrolling, and scrolling, through that long hass wall of text

wall GIF

FU kotaku! No more walls!
Last edited:

Fox Mulder

"Fuck Kotaku" and yadda yadda

But he is not wrong, you know? Actually read the fucking thing

People with drive by posts hating the site: we get it already

Now read the article, because for once they have written something that you may agree with

the article is just whining that the characters are hollow and tokenism. They want deeper woke context and history of racism in a fucking call of duty campaign.


Writes a lot, says very little
Gamers are sexist, racist, and misogynist.

Just shows that people at Kotaku don‘t actually believe in any of the shit they spout. They just want to cause outrage for clicks.

Fucking cunts, the lot of them.

lol true, but funny enough some of the same people attacking their point now, argued a lot of those same dumb points against BFV, as to why anyone even brought that game up. They argued this whole "historically accurate" shit and its from a fucking video game that has never argued the point of it was to actually be some history lesson. People kept bitching about it and making it sound like some real "outrage" and their feelings are hurt over the "rewriting of history" in a video game lol

Kotaku makes an article like this and suddenly NeoGaf remembers videos games are fake? They are works of fiction? The fuck? I even cited Call Of Duty years ago when people kept trying to make that whole fake outrage thing over BFV, they'd bring up the Call Of Duty WWII game as if that was some history lesson, we needed to remind them it has fucking zombies and clearly they did not happen in real life.

So I think what Kotaku is saying is fucking stupid... but I thought that of some of the same in this very forum when they kept making it sound like BFV was suppose to be a replacement for a fucking history lesson even with no history of the series ever doing this or suggesting this or something.

Imagine defending Kotaku. Have some self respect.

lol that goes to show you just how easily people will fall for shit if you pander to them. Even Kotaku, if the just say anything that favors some side, even the most hardcore people against them will be like "well they make a good point bro, all is forgiven, Kotaku is life" lol

My stance since BFV has remind.

This is a fucking fake video game, its not a history lesson. They got shit like robot dogs, zombies and shit lol


I'm not reading this but...

What the fuck? Is it Kotaku criticizing wokeism?! I never thought I would see the day.

edit: reading more comments, seems there's more to it and kotaku are still SJW shitbags. Still not gonna read this tho.
Last edited:


I thought sledgehammer made it very clear that the characters in this game represent multiple real life people rolled into one and that the story intentionally takes place after Hitler is dead (and the war in Europe ending). That way they would have more freedom to create a story while still honoring the era? What’s wrong with that? Dice straight up re-wrote history in BFV and completely told rightfully pissed off people to fuck off.


Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
If you read deeper into the article (which is painful, I know) the Kotaku writer isn't really upset that the game is too woke, he is upset about woke-washing history.

In other words NOT showing the racism, misogyny and lack of political correctness of that period in history. He isn't upset it's woke, he's upset the wokeness isn't properly done to SJW acceptable standards, i.e. painting the white male troops as vilians as vile and racist as the Nazis.

The whole game reeks of “even though”ism. “Even though she’s a woman…” “Even though he’s a Black man…” Rather than saying anything honest, its painful attempts to be right-on, to do everything short of punching a fist in the air and shouting “BLACK LIVES MATTER!” or “GIRL POWER!”, make it all far more offensive. There’s no truth here, but instead an attempt to wokewash history, make it feel palatable and progressive, thereby denying the reality of those it so grimly patronizes.


Who cares how accurately it portrays a setting, which in this shooter genre has been done a million times before?

It is probably a dull cod campaign. Getting all bent up about it changing stuff is dumb.

Also, they are hypocrites. Cause they don't mind changes if it suits them.


If you read deeper into the article (which is painful, I know) the Kotaku writer isn't really upset that the game is too woke, he is upset about woke-washing history.

In other words NOT showing the racism, misogyny and lack of political correctness of that period in history. He isn't upset it's woke, he's upset the wokeness isn't properly done to SJW acceptable standards, i.e. painting the white male troops as vilians as vile and racist as the Nazis.
That was always the problem about inaccurate portrayals.

it is just weird when it is the woke mob doing it because they wanted this.

they move goals posts constantly


Gold Member
You are not getting progressive ideals in these military games because they are high minded or want an accurate telling of history. They are there because the military has shifted to reflect the values of the generation they need to recruit

Call of Duty / Battlefield etc. Is literally Western Military propaganda. And it has been since the start, so they will reshape history so that it seems like WW2 was fought for progressive values and against racism

This is how the military advertises these days: some of these literally look like the cover of a new Call of Duty



The nicest person on this forum

A misguided attempt to rewrite history for the better demeans those involved​

The original Call Of Duty, released 18 years ago, was a game that gave a shit about the Second World War. To play it today (and you should, it remains excellent) is to experience fear, disorganization, confusion, and horror. A bunch of barely-trained teenagers are thrown into a situation beyond their comprehension, trying not to be killed by another bunch of barely-trained teeangers. It, and its first sequel, remain extraordinary depictions of the horror of war, based on the anecdotes of those who survived it.
Call Of Duty: Vanguard’s campaign, released last week, is a game that couldn’t give a shit about the Second World War. To play it today (and you shouldn’t, it’s dreadful) is to see the conflict used as a backdrop for a woefully inept attempt at exploiting the valuable notion of a diverse, modern-minded game. A clandestine group of the world’s most elite soldiers attempt to infiltrate the Gestapo, before uncovering conspiratorial gibberish akin to the plot of a Wolfenstein game. And it is very little fun to play.
As the franchise returns to its WWII origins, it’s absolutely fascinating—and deeply demoralizing—to see just how much its sensibilities have so radically changed. While the worst excesses of the COD campaigns were firmly established many years ago, they are far more starkly and grimly revealed when more easily comparable with the series’ own heritage. But the extremes to which it goes to fail to be progressive in any meaningful sense are even more spectacular.

Activision’s series is, without question, extraordinarily successful. A multi-billion dollar franchise, dominating mainstream sales every year, primarily bought for its multiplayer, and depicted with world-leading graphics. That it even bothers with its campaigns any more is surprising, let alone that it spends hundreds of millions of dollars, hires A-list Hollywood actors, and crafts dozens of photorealistic cutscenes. All for six hours of following some impossibly elite NPCs through increasingly tight, generic corridors.

Vanguard continues the trend, focused on a secret group of best-of-the-best soldiers, via a combination of shallow, dreary target ranges and astonishing tech. The cutscenes are a phenomenon of art. I have never, ever seen graphics like these, locations that look photorealistic, characters so meticulously, perfectly created that despite occasionally looking as if they were filmed, somehow avoid the uncanny valley. They are, visually, a masterpiece. And they are all for absolutely nothing.

There’s not a moment of intrigue, pathos, wit, surprise, even rudimentary drama. The story of “Task Force One” is made of empty, tedious sequences, where moustache-twirling Nazis sneer vindictively at stoic, unbreakable Allied soldiers, one where people look momentarily a bit sad at the deaths of their loved ones, before gritting their teeth and carrying on. It all looks a bit like war movies you’ve enjoyed, whether that’s Saving Private Ryan or Downfall, and Activision so clearly believes that this was all that was needed. Remind players of something bombastic or dramatic, and then assume the work is done.
What was once a series about the brutal, tragic reality for the war’s infantry has become a bizarro-world power fantasy about its greatest imaginary heroes. And with this, ironically, it has lost all its power, all its ability to say anything of worth. This latest entry’s narrative is only about how desperately it wants to ride the zeitgeist of progressive representation, without ever giving a moment’s thought to just how poorly it rewrites the reality of marginalized people involved in the war.

Call Of Duty: Vanguard is all about a time-travelling group of six elite soldiers, sent back to the 1940s to save the war effort. Now, I should say this is not explicitly stated, but there’s no other workable explanation for this wokest group of sensitivity-trained, progressive millennials to exist in the time period. They’re there to thwart the Nazis in the very tail-end of the war, to infiltrate Gestapo HQ and secure some secret files on conspiratorial nonsense Project Phoenix, and spread their message of tolerance.
Let me attempt to dissuade the notion that I’m some sort of alt-right whingebag, and unequivocally state that I am delighted to see a multi-billion dollar franchise centering a Black man as its lead character. There was a time when major publishers truly believed that featuring a person of color most prominently on their box art would be a sales disaster, and while he’s teeny-tiny on Vanguard’s plastic case, he is the one nearest the front. That’s important. Meanwhile, the role of people of color, of women, of basically not-white-men in the Second World War has been grossly underrepresented across all media, and kudos to Activision for attempting to step up. Except, well...
Rather than attempt to actually confront any of the relevant issues that would have been faced by anyone at the time, the game instead takes the most pusillanimous route possible. You’ll never believe this, but, right, the Nazis were pretty racist. I know! The game’s cartoon villains snarl their bigotry, while our heroes are all dreadfully offended on behalf of each other. We know the Germans are the baddies, because they’re the naughty racist ones. The very notion would never cross the indefectible minds of any of the Allied characters.
Things venture more daringly when it comes to sexism, because of course they do. The female character, a Russian sniper, gets to say, “Because I’m a WOMAN?!” most of the times she gets a line, and here the game is so brave as to put some of the misogyny into the mouths of her teammates. Sorry, not mouths, mouth. The Australian one. Because we all know they’re a bit like that, eh? Them and their Sheilas. Bunch of drongos.

In its desperate attempts to avoid controversy, the game grabs at armfuls of it, and then defies reality in response. Having a Black British soldier take the lead demands so much interesting commentary, of which there is absolutely none. At the time of WWII, there were no more than 10,000 Black people living in Britain, in a population of 46 million. And while Britain was a relatively more tolerant country at the start of the war, initially very welcoming to the 150,000 Black American soldiers arriving in the U.K., in 1942 the British government directed that “it was desirable that the people of this country should avoid becoming too friendly with coloured troops.”
The British, sometimes reluctantly, started to integrate the segregation America brought with it when 1.5 million U.S. troops arrived in the country. Formerly integrated businesses introduced segregation in order to maintain white American soldiers’ custom. America imported its own brand of racism to Britain during the time this game so flagrantly pretends none of it was an issue.
Meanwhile, Britain itself was spectacularly awful. Some 600,000 Black troops were recruited from Africa and the West Indies, brought to fight for the country, and then immediately sent back once the war was over, with one-third of the bonus paid to white soldiers. And while Britain was surprisingly lacking in racism during the war years (although institutionally, more often as a matter of convenience), it quickly stepped up once the effort was over, with tidal waves of discrimination arriving.
Black British soldiers like Vanguard’s Arthur Kingsley have been grossly underrepresented by history books and war movies. There was Johnny Smythe (on whom I suspect Kingsley is partially based), Ulric Cross (who is likely also a source), Sidney Cornell (from whom Activision says they drew inspiration), and Billy Strachan, but that we know them by name is perhaps indicative of how unusual it was to see Black soldiers in prominent positions. That Vanguard acknowledges this, makes an amalgamation of these real people into its lead character, is wonderful. But it does it with so much fear, such clear terror of criticism, that it ends up just feeling uninterested.
Private Sidney Cornell was a runner, his primary role in the war to parachute in and deliver messages. He was an astonishingly brave man, and an incredible war hero, wounded in action four times, regularly injured while running through machine gun fire to ensure vital messages reached their destination. For this he was given the Distinguished Conduct Medal, and promoted to Sergeant, with an extraordinary citation. He went on to face a great deal more combat, until he was killed aged 29, in 1945, when a couple of 15-year-old German soldiers blew up a bridge. His is a story that deserves telling. (It almost was, but sadly a film about him seems to have vanished during the pandemic.)
Kingsley is…I have genuinely no idea. His flashback mission sees him assume authority in the middle of a battle, to no objection from anyone, based on nothing at all. He seems like a very nice guy, and is extremely well voiced by Chiké Okonkwo, but there’s never any clue what path he took to being in charge, how he became recognized as one of the most elite, and certainly not a single glimpse of any racism, let alone even hesitation, he might have faced at any time in his army career. That’s all left to those boo-hiss Nazis. Which is a lovely idea, but not the reality of any soldier of color. Vanguard is so deeply in denial that its idealistic fantasy just feels disingenuous, dishonest.

Elsewhere the game attempts to have its cake and shoot at it, with its incredibly clumsy inclusion of America’s 93rd Division. Rather than saying anything meaningful about racism, about the abysmal treatment of Black American soldiers for instance, it glosses over the entire matter. Its effort to portray Black Americans’ role in the war, with the 93rd Division fighting in Japan, exists only to teach the bolshy white American player character (Wade Jackson) a valuable life lesson. I cannot stress enough how woefully this is done: It’s not all daredevil stunts in the sky, Wade, but about getting muddy on the ground too. As if that was what made the experience unique to Black infantry divisions. “Down there,” we’re narrated, “he learned the only way to win was to have each others’ backs.” And if that weren’t already the most patronizing, end-of-He-Man lesson from the wizard, in doing so it reduces the role of this division to being there to teach the white man the error of his ways. These simple folk, fighting in the mud, have so much to teach us. It leans about as far into the Noble Savage trope as you could imagine.
The whole game reeks of “even though”ism. “Even though she’s a woman…” “Even though he’s a Black man…” Rather than saying anything honest, its painful attempts to be right-on, to do everything short of punching a fist in the air and shouting “BLACK LIVES MATTER!” or “GIRL POWER!”, make it all far more offensive. There’s no truth here, but instead an attempt to wokewash history, make it feel palatable and progressive, thereby denying the reality of those it so grimly patronizes.

Activision has made much of how the characters in the game are “based on” real-life soldiers. Russian sniper, Lieutenant Polina Petrova, is based on several different Russian women, for instance, “whose confirmed kill count was in the hundreds.” But this only makes where the game ends up going even worse. Because—and if you can call anything that occurs in this half-assed drivel a spoiler then be warned—by the end things enter such a realm of stupid fantasy that it demeans anyone by whom they were inspired.
Because the “twist” at the end of this campaign reveals that after Hitler’s death, the game’s fictional baddy, SS officer Hermann Wenzel Freisinger, steps up to be the new Führer. He always thought Hitler was too weak, and now he can finally instigate his secret plan, the Fourth Reich. I’m not fucking kidding. He plans to take over the world with all his secret projects, including psychic super-soldiers, but fortunately our heroes all step up to boss-fight this previously unknown Ultro Hitler to death. It is genuinely surprising he doesn’t don a giant robot suit.

Even without this weird-ass progressive rewriting of history, it would still be an atrociously written game. Dialogue is the most hackneyed rubbish from start to finish, with lines as clichéd as, “But if you fly too close to the sun, eventually your wings will get burnt,” delivered as if they’re groundbreaking insight. It’s incessant. There’s a scene where someone is injured on the field, and attended by a fellow soldier. “Your bedside manner sucks,” says the wounded man, oh-so humorously. His buddy replies, “I don’t want you bleeding out and missing all the fun.” Where do they get these ideas from?!
Moments later a character being tortured utters, “You tried to break me, but you failed.” Just how did a room of writers get to that line and say, “Yup, we’re there!”
My focus here is so heavily on the narrative, because what you actually do is almost a parody of the descent of this franchise. Where 2003’s Call Of Duty has you free to explore its open areas, even allowing you to run and hide to escape the terrifying combat, Vanguard’s very first mission immediately flashed up a warning on screen that I’d ventured three paces too far to the left, and should I not return to the prescribed route I would be killed. I was chasing an enemy soldier.
So often during the game your actions—following the enemy, hiding behind the path a tank is taking, going over to a building to look for enemies—result in your being angrily told to get back to your mark. And that’s only in the very rare areas that aren’t literally walled corridors, not even giving the illusion that you might be able to go left or right if you wanted to.
As ever, the NPCs want to play the game instead of you, unless it’s about killing the enemy. Constantly shoving to the front, and when they can’t, literally teleporting ahead, your place is always at the back. They have to get there first so they can…not do anything. They all stand next to the German soldiers like old friends, oblivious to how these opponents are shooting only at you with psychic precision.
Get in the route of a teammate’s scripted pathway and they’ll genuinely push you out of their way. I was shoved out of windows, pushed into the path of tanks, pinned against doors while being shot at. It’s just embarrassingly bad. For the majority of the game, between shooting through the pop-up rifle ranges, you’re just following NPC’s bottoms.

Again, go back to that first COD and your mind will be blown. No matter how its graphics have aged (and honestly, they’re still great), the experience is so much more frightening, moving, horrifying, because the NPCs around you are constantly dying. The enemy fires at them as much as you, and should you sneak cowardly behind a building and wait it out, your company will shoot the enemy too. You’re not the star. You’re another grunt, another nameless uniform, just trying to stay alive. The impact of this, combined with its simple diary entries, tells a story orders of magnitude more powerful than Vanguard’s woeful mess.
In the first game, in the level based on the Normandy beach landings, you play an American soldier tasked with clearing out German bases that could respond to the landing soldiers. You are doing essential behind-the-scenes work that will hopefully ensure a smoother passage for Operation Overlord, in the background, unknown, modest. I cannot imagine a modern COD having a fraction of the confidence to depict such a thing.
When Call Of Duty 2 was in development, I spoke to Activision writers who had spent months interviewing surviving soldiers from around the world. This was 2004, soon before that generation all but died out, and they solemnly recorded the untold stories of veterans, with a promise to retell them in their game.
It makes me so sad that what was once a heartfelt attempt (alongside a desire to blow shit up and make loads of money) to honor those who fought against tyranny, often themselves subjected to it, has become...this. A loud, stupid, ahistorical exercise in bombast, that neither represents the truth of the war, nor meaningfully explores the realities of those whose lives they so clumsily loot. And, perhaps rather importantly, is dull and tiresome to play.

Both Call Of Duty and Call Of Duty 2 are available to buy and play via Steam. There’s a quick hack to get them running in widescreen, and no need to add so much as a texture pack. Almost immediately, on replaying to ensure I wasn’t remembering with rose-tinted hindsight, I was consumed by the frenzy, panic, and madness of its depiction of the conflicts, and especially at its peculiar modesty in doing so. You weren’t Earth’s greatest elite hero. It didn’t need that.
Call Of Duty: Vanguard is probably the most visually astonishing game I’ve ever played. It’s also one of the ugliest. It’s a tragic depiction of the descent of a franchise, a game which simultaneously hides from the true horror of WWII and yet for which that horror is not nefarious enough, replaced with childish action heroes and humiliating worse-than-Hitler cartoon villains. It takes real people’s lives and experiences, and reduces them to simplistic stereotypes, delivering moth-eaten cliché, with the sophistication of a flannel, and absolute cowardice in the face of saying anything of worth.

Well, I am sorry, Kotaku ... but when you literally take offence at EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING, this is inevitable. A rewriting of history, the Mary-Sueism of every female character to virtual perfection, the pandering to people of color ... every token in the book in order for you people to not be offended. This is the pop culture you've wanted. This circus. This parody.

Or am I wrong?

Maybe you don't want to be satisfied with what you read, watch and play. Maybe all you want is to bitch about stuff not being woke enough, or being too woke. Because how else can you scream and yell at clouds in order to make people notice you? Being satisfied? No, that won't do. That won't do at all.

This starts to remind me of that scene in 'The Wrestler' with Mickey Rourke at the Deli Counter and the old lady who was 'a little less ... a little more'.


Yeah I'm not reading all that. I played like two missions of the campaign, before I removed it from the SSD. It probably is crap. I'm just here for multiplayer which is superb


Marlboro: Other M
Gee, it's almost like the devs were not making a product they wanted to make, but rather were pushed to have a "positive" message that is fitting for what "modern" audiences "want".


Unconfirmed Member
I somewhat agree. Call of Duty started out humble with an (for video games) authentic representation of WW2.
Nowadays its just an action flick a la Michael Bay. Even the gameplay got a whole lot faster and arcade, and while either isn't inherently bad, it's still sad that even when they want to go back to the roots they still end up making the same game as in the last 10 years, just with a different paint of color.


Hard to Kill
Yeah the writer lost me when he started to talk about “woke” anything.

Talk about thin skinned individuals, it’s a fictional story it can be whatever they want it to be.

what the hell happened to kotaku’s writing staff it’s horrible now.
Yeah no they're right I hated guardians of the galaxy because no peter quill has ever been abducted to go on space alien adventures.It is also too woke and not enough woke at the same time...Too much alien representation and not enough black/brown people.It's like a racist/woke that is supposed to be a paradox except when you dig a bit into it and realises it is the same thing.
Honestly I agree with Kotaku in a way. They made a checklist of characters that are super bland, and super smart and awesome. The black guy speaks German, Russian and is a natural leader with no faults (lol). Meanwhile most of the game , you are a one man army against comically evil Nazis. Which is kinda written in a way that is awkward. Stalingrad is hilariously badly represented, and it's one lady with a sniper rifle against thousands of Nazis. Everything felt empty in the Stalingrad missions. The characteraztion written in the above article is ... yeah accurate.

Well first off, its a video game. Not like you havent been a lone soldier against hordes of Nazis before. Since when was COD considered "realistic", even Battlefield isnt. BTW that sniper lady is based on a real life person called Lyudmila Pavlichenko who killed 310 Nazis alone with her sniper, the most in female sniper history. Why I cant take Kotaku seriously is because they themselves are woke so I dont know where this is coming from, like a rogue reviewer or something lol.

Anyway what is being discussed is not even the problem. Characters are bland no matter what skin color or sex they are. The game is clearly unfinished/rushed. Shortest campaign ever....took me 5 hours or less and thats counting the 1+ hour of cinematic. Also not sure where that comment about saying how COD wants to change history...its a fiction story of "what if" WW2 continued even after Hitler died. Its made up shit, none of it is meant to change what already happened.

But was there a bad ass Russian female sniper in WW2 in real life, there absolutely was.
Last edited:


Gold Member
It’s a fictional video game. They can have them fighting aliens for all I care. Who gives a shit about historical accuracy?

Apparently, you don't.

I actually miss when CoD at least made an effort to try honoring and adhere to historical instances or proposed a believable modern warfare scenario (does not apply to CoD games post CoD4). CoD4 might've been a fictious timeline I'll give you that. But, you could tell that Infinity at least went through a sufficiently exhaustive research phase to build anything remotely believable and of authentic value for that point in time. It was true to the vision and foundation of the CoDs prior.

Anything beyond CoD4 has been a glorified Michael Bay popcorn flick where any historical research, relevance or believable authenticity was an afterthought. The majority just passively accepted that.


Gold Member

It’s not a matter of being “woke.” It is a matter of survival. Video game websites, as they exist now, repeatedly fail to represent the wide swath of people who play games. And every year that passes, this failure becomes more and more evident. “Everyone” plays games now, yet most of these people hardly frequent video game websites unless they need to know how to do something.


Well, Call of Duty has always been a terrible franchise, with a lot of awful things about it. I can never understand the gamer that keeps buying this game every year.

Call of Duty 2 was fantastic, you actually felt like being on a WW2 battlefield. It's Saving Private Ryan, the game.

Last edited:
Top Bottom