I don’t own WW2, but I have played a good chunk of CoD games and to me, they are all pretty much the same game with a couple more bells and whistles, a different, generally shortish SP campaign, and generally the same solid gameplay.
Metacritic user reviews are always brutal to videogames because anyone who doesn’t absolutely love it will give it a 0 because they want to have more of an impact in the average despite the fact that a zero should only be given to a game that is so utterly broken it doesn’t work on a fundamental level. And being a popular game, CoD is bound to have a lot of opinions that are either a 10 if the person absolutely loves it, or a 0 if they have a slight problem with it (an effect pretty much the same as Steam reviews, being a binary system and all). But regardless of the reviews it has gotten, I would highly doubt it won’t be anything different from any other CoD game: a short, solid, sometimes gimmicky singleplayer and a lone wolf round based multiplayer where you unlock stuff, and from what I’ve seen in gameplay videos that seems to be exactly the case. There are few things as predictable as a CoD game in my book.
WW2 seems to have gotten a substantial amount of hate for things like nazis wielding PPSh41s in Normandy or a medic applying pressure on an abdomen wound, which I find akin to critisizing a Michael Bay movie for not getting asteroid physics correctly. Not only has CoD been inaccurate in I’d dare say every god damn installment there’s ever been at one point or the other, nitpicking blockbuster entertainment that way only shows how far will people go to find reasons to hate on something popular. Which comes to, I feel, the core of the problem here: it’s not about what WW2 does, it’s whether you like its formula and what reaction you want to have to it.