Call of Duty: Vanguard

Campaign: brisk, cinematic, and over before it settles in

What stood out to me first in Call of Duty: Vanguard's campaign was how aggressively it chases momentum. I was pushed from one battlefield to the next with very little downtime, and in my sessions that made the story feel less like a broad historical epic and more like a tightly edited war film. I liked that approach more than I expected. The game keeps changing the shape of the action just enough to stop the campaign from feeling repetitive, and I found myself staying engaged even when the plot itself was moving along familiar rails.

At the same time, I felt the campaign's biggest strength and weakness were the same thing: it moves fast. I finished it quickly, and by the end I had the distinct impression that I had spent more time admiring the staging than getting to know the people in it. The squad has a clear “found family” structure, but I didn't think the writing gave those characters enough room to become truly memorable. I understood what the game wanted me to feel, yet I rarely felt it with full force. That left the campaign enjoyable, but emotionally lighter than it clearly wants to be.

Still, I can't deny that I had a good time with it while it lasted. I liked the mix of stealthier beats, direct assaults, and more scripted action sequences, and I appreciated that the missions didn't all blur together. In my time with the campaign, it worked best as a compact, polished ride rather than a deep narrative statement. That is a perfectly valid approach, even if it left me wanting a little more substance.

Multiplayer: the real reason to boot it up

For me, the multiplayer is where Vanguard earns most of its keep. The shooting feels sharp, the movement is responsive, and on Xbox Series X|S I experienced a very smooth, consistent performance that made every match easy to jump into. I found the core gunplay immediately satisfying, which matters a lot in a game that lives or dies by split-second reactions. Even when I was only playing for a short session, the game made it easy to stay for “just one more” round.

I also noticed how much the game wants to give me control over my loadout and playstyle. There is a lot of customization here, and I enjoyed experimenting with different setups to see what felt best in the flow of a match. That said, I also felt the setting occasionally got diluted by the sheer amount of personalization and visual noise. The WWII theme is still present, but not always in a way that feels grounded or cohesive, and that pulled me out of the atmosphere more than once. I liked the flexibility, but I didn't always love the look of it.

The map rotation and pace help the multiplayer a lot. I rarely felt bored, and I rarely felt like the game was dragging its feet. What I did feel, however, was familiarity. I had fun, but I also recognized how much of that fun came from a very refined version of a formula I already know well. For me, that makes the multiplayer strong, but not especially adventurous. It is the kind of experience I can recommend confidently without pretending it is reinventing the genre.

One thing I appreciated throughout my time with the multiplayer was how little friction there was between me and the action. Match flow is quick, the controls are responsive, and the game generally respects my time. I could hop in, get a few satisfying firefights, and leave feeling like I had gotten exactly what I came for. That simplicity is part of the appeal. It may not be surprising, but it is very effective.

Zombies and presentation: competent, but not the standout

The Zombies mode was the part I felt least excited to return to. I could see the intent to do something a little different, but in my playtime it never became the kind of mode I wanted to sink hours into. I had some enjoyable moments because the shooting mechanics are still solid, yet I found the mode less compelling than the campaign and clearly less compelling than multiplayer. It exists as a side attraction, but it never became a major reason for me to keep playing.

Presentation is one of the game's better assets. On Xbox Series X|S, I thought the visuals were sharp, the lighting was strong, and the battlefield detail made the whole package feel modern and expensive. I also appreciated the audio work: weapons have real punch, explosions land with weight, and the overall soundscape sells the chaos of war well. Those elements gave the game a level of polish that I could feel in almost every match. I was often impressed by how cleanly the action was rendered, especially when the screen filled with smoke, debris, and muzzle flash.

Even so, I kept wishing for a stronger identity. The game is technically confident, but I found it a little too safe in how it presents itself. It looks and sounds like a premium shooter, yet it rarely surprised me in a meaningful way. That left me with respect for the craft, but not much lasting excitement. I admired the production more than I remembered the moments, and that is not quite enough for a game that wants to stand out in such a crowded series.

My time with the game on Xbox Series X|S

On Xbox Series X|S, Vanguard played like a modern Call of Duty should: fast, fluid, and largely free of friction. I ran into very few technical issues, and the overall smoothness made the action feel even better. In a shooter like this, that matters more than it might in other genres. I noticed how much easier it was to settle into the rhythm of the game when the frame pacing, controls, and feedback all lined up so cleanly.

I also appreciated how little downtime the game asked of me. Menus, load times, and transitions were compact enough that I could move from one match or mission to the next without losing momentum. That kept me playing longer than I expected on several nights. I would plan to stop after one more match, then end up staying because the core loop was so easy to re-enter. That is a strong sign that the fundamentals are working.

At the same time, I didn't feel the same long-term pull I get from the best entries in the series. I had fun, but I didn't feel compelled to keep digging because I was discovering something new. The experience is solid and comfortable, but also very familiar. For some people, that is exactly the appeal. For me, it made the game dependable rather than unforgettable.

Who is Vanguard best for?

I think Call of Duty: Vanguard works best for anyone who wants a well-playing, polished shooter and is less concerned with a deep or surprising story. The campaign is short, but it varies mission types enough to support its length. The multiplayer is fast, stable, and immediately satisfying. And even though Zombies didn't do much for me, I can see it serving as a decent change of pace for players who want a little extra variety.

What I value most here is execution. I found the gunplay excellent, the controls responsive, and the technical performance consistently strong. Those are the foundations a Call of Duty game needs, and Vanguard gets them right. It does not reinvent the series, and I never felt it was trying to. Instead, it focuses on delivering a smooth, familiar experience with enough polish to make the familiar parts feel good again.

Verdict

Call of Duty: Vanguard left me with mixed but generally positive feelings. The campaign is entertaining and varied, even if it stays shallow. The multiplayer is easily the strongest part and the main reason I kept coming back. Zombies was the least convincing piece for me, and the setting sometimes gets undercut by the amount of customization and visual clutter.

Even so, I had enough fun with the game to recommend it to series fans. I found the gunplay and technical smoothness especially strong, and those are the things that matter most in a Call of Duty release. If you want a reliable, fast, and well-made shooter on Xbox Series X|S, this is an easy pick. If you're hoping for a campaign that lingers in your memory or a bold creative leap, Vanguard is likely to feel more like a solid stop along the way than a defining entry.