Call Of Duty: World At War Reviews

I played the L4D demo last night and couldnt help but feel like its some 3rd party mod of HL2 with a graphics tweak.

Gonna have to play it again I think.

And come on this is CoD. Its like...a manditory purchase for all FPS fans.
 
^pretty much.


The single player kicks ass, perhaps a bit too linear sometimes... but still kicks a huge amount of cajones...
 
I might just upgrade for this game, the Call of Duty series has yet to let me down.(never played the console versions.)
 
DOOOOO EEEEEEEET!




We must play together again, my brother in arms!
 
I'm looking forward to renting it when I can. It looks like a lot of fun, even if WWII games have been done to death.
 
Probably going to pick this up on friday. Quite looking forward to it.
 
I'm pretty indifferent when it comes to CoD. I won't go out of my way to play it, but if someone put it in front of me I'd play it.
 
That flyboat mission looks really cool. Other than that I am pretty indifferent to this game, just like Nipples.

BTW somewhat off topic: Jason Ocampo sounds like he's about to slit his wrists. Wassup with that? Cheer up mate!
 
ĐynastҰ said:
I played the L4D demo last night and couldnt help but feel like its some 3rd party mod of HL2 with a graphics tweak.

Gonna have to play it again I think.

And come on this is CoD. Its like...a manditory purchase for all FPS fans.
Click to expand...

WHAT! :|

CoD5 is almost identical to CoD4, it offers nearly nothing new, just a different theme, models and textures.

And you call L4D a Mod... at least it's original unlike this crap.

/rant over. :bounce:
 
I was waiting for someone to get on him about that. Haha.
 
ĐynastҰ said:
And come on this is CoD. Its like...a manditory purchase for all FPS fans.
Click to expand...

No, it is the mandatory "Stay Away" from FPS that has plagued the genre for years and won't, for reasons entirely unknown, die an excruciatingly painful death in the deepest, darkest depths of the cosmos.
 
I think Samon isnt a fan of following the masses...
 
Excellent game with extra graphic.

This is the newest version of call of duty right??
 
Samon said:
No, it is the mandatory "Stay Away" from FPS that has plagued the genre for years and won't, for reasons entirely unknown, die an excruciatingly painful death in the deepest, darkest depths of the cosmos.
Click to expand...

So what is exactly your problem with CoD, I would have imagined you liking CoD4's narrative.
 
I guess I enjoyed CoD1. It was kinda fresh from an FPS standpoint at the time and WWII wasn't done to death yet. I played about ten minutes of part 2 and vowed I was done with the series. The vids I've seen of this one enforce the fact that I'm happy with that decision.
 
Fishlore said:
I guess I enjoyed CoD1. It was kinda fresh from an FPS standpoint at the time and WWII wasn't done to death yet. I played about ten minutes of part 2 and vowed I was done with the series. The vids I've seen of this one enforce the fact that I'm happy with that decision.
Click to expand...

It always amuses me how people can give an opinion on a game based an a video.

The game is awesome, a few videos are not going to capture the effort that has gone into this.
 
stemot said:
The game is awesome, a few videos are not going to capture the effort that has gone into this.
Click to expand...

If by effort you mean take CoD4's engine, not just another game's engine, another developer's, and gameplay, add a new story, setting, weapons, characters, etc.

Agent.M said:
Definitely CoD over Mirrors Edge
Click to expand...

It always amazes me how many people would rather spend their money on a sequel of a long running serious that takes place in a war that is so overpopulated in the gaming scene than something original and never seen before.
 
nipples said:
If by effort you mean take CoD4's engine, not just another game's engine, another developer's, and gameplay, add a new story, setting, weapons, characters, etc.
Click to expand...

So what? It uses the COD4 engine, what game doesn't use another games engine nowadays, and of course the gameplay going to be similar but like you said, whole new story, setting, different enemies, weapons, characters, BETTer single player levels, along with better set peices and graphical effects.

Doesn't sound like a bad thing to me, then again, I suppose Tryarch are just doomed to fail to some people who don't want anything to hold a candle to Infinity Ward's effort, even though Tryarch have improved on IW solid single player base.
 
nipples said:
If by effort you mean take CoD4's engine, not just another game's engine, another developer's, and gameplay, add a new story, setting, weapons, characters, etc.



It always amazes me how many people would rather spend their money on a sequel of a long running serious that takes place in a war that is so overpopulated in the gaming scene than something original and never seen before.
Click to expand...

He's probably going for the replayability factor.
COD5 actually has multiplayer and if it's as addicting as COD4's, it'll probably keep him entertained far longer than Mirror's Edge would.
 
nipples said:
If by effort you mean take CoD4's engine, not just another game's engine, another developer's, and gameplay, add a new story, setting, weapons, characters, etc.



It always amazes me how many people would rather spend their money on a sequel of a long running serious that takes place in a war that is so overpopulated in the gaming scene than something original and never seen before.
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out the key words as to why we're playing COD games still.

Well, no - unique games exist, but they aren't exactly in the bucket loads, are they? What would you suggest we singularily play when we could play a nice mix of both? I don't think the COD games are anything groundbreaking or mindblowing but I still enjoy them. I'd rather take more over less but I'll still value the original titles when they come around just as much anyway. Mirrors Edge is just one title amongst many at the moment. I think I'll pass on just playing one game a year, thanks, not that I think Mirrors Edge is going to be THAT spectacular, anyway.
 
While I am sick of WWII FPS's, I feel obligated to get this because I missed out on COD4's online experience when it was at it's peak popularity.
 
TheAntipop said:
I'm pointing out the key words as to why we're playing COD games still.

Well, no - unique games exist, but they aren't exactly in the bucket loads, are they? What would you suggest we singularily play when we could play a nice mix of both? I don't think the COD games are anything groundbreaking or mindblowing but I still enjoy them. I'd rather take more over less but I'll still value the original titles when they come around just as much anyway. Mirrors Edge is just one title amongst many at the moment. I think I'll pass on just playing one game a year, thanks, not that I think Mirrors Edge is going to be THAT spectacular, anyway.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying. He said that he would get CoD5 instead of Mirror's Edge. I'm not saying that CoD5 is a bad game or not enjoyable, or that Mirrors Edge will be the greatest game ever made. I'm saying that you should always give an original idea a chance, just like you said. Not everyone has this philosophy though.
 
Samon said:
No, it is the mandatory "Stay Away" from FPS that has plagued the genre for years and won't, for reasons entirely unknown, die an excruciatingly painful death in the deepest, darkest depths of the cosmos.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but....This.
 
Have they fixed the hugely frustrating bugs that was going on with the PC beta players yet?
 
Can someone here please help me?

I seem to have run out of quarters while playing COD:WAW. Can someone here spot me $20, so that I can continue playing this arcade game? No? Oh thank god! :p

I wanted to like this game and I tried to like this game, but for some reason I just don't. I gave it an honest-to-goodness, all American chance, but in the end, it failed to hold my attention past the standard 2 hour "Oh cool! New Game!" feeling that comes with playing any new big named game. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is about the game that I don't like. The visuals are decent, ( though not much more than that, as lets face it, games like Crysis have risen the bar as to what us Gamers can expect visuals wise from a PC game ) it's a WW2 themed game which should by itself insure that i'll enjoy it, not to mention it's a COD brand game, a series which I have greatly enjoyed playing over the years. Perhaps what raised a red flag, for me at least, was the IMO overall poor audio. For whatever reason, my low end Audigy 2 ZS just could not seem to render the games audio signals in a manner that conveyed a realistic gameplay enviroment. The weapon sounds were Ho-Hum, the explosion sounds were Ho-Hum, though the spoken dialogue I found to be rather excellent. Then there was the matter of the enemy & friendly AI interacting with each other. I lost count the amount of times both sides would be facing each other, but not shooting. An enemy would be 15 feet in front of an ally AI, but he would not shoot him. I laughed out loud when an enemy & an ally took cover behind the same tree, yet didn't shoot at one another. It also seemed very hit & miss when it came to an enemy or ally picking up a thrown grenade & then throwing it back. I would have an ally AI soldier, run out from behind good cover, to pick up an enemy grenade to throw back, only for the enemy AI to then seem to work & proceed to put a 100 or so rounds into my ally's body, only for him to then "flop" around as he got hit, while running back to cover, but when a grenade was thrown at his feet, he ignored it. The same for the enemy AI. Not once did I see them pick up a thrown grenade of mine to throw back at me.

Only once in the 2 hours I played, did I see an enemy lose a body part, which was his arm. I opened fire with every weapon available, from my M1 Garand to a stationary MG, to a grenade to called in airstrike. No Gibs, though in every review I read, it seemed to laud how this was the first game in the COD series to enable body part removal. So do I need a top secret super-gibbing weapon to see the gibs, because they are not to be seen.

How this game got such high reviews, is way beyond me. MOH:Airborne is a much better & somewhat new WW2 themed game. I'm sure I'll stand alone when I say, that COD:WAW sucks. At least from my end. It did run super-smooth though. With everything maxed out, it did run very smooth.

-MRG
 
mastag said:
While I am sick of WWII FPS's, I feel obligated to get this because I missed out on COD4's online experience when it was at it's peak popularity.
Click to expand...

CoD4 is still very popular and imo has a better online component.
 
MRG said:
MOH:Airborne is a much better & somewhat new WW2 themed game.
Click to expand...

Yeah give being unrealistic as one of the reasons you don't like WAW, then go onto to say that Airborne is better? So super Nazi soldiers and super Nazi towers of babylon are true to the history books are they? right.
 
stemot said:
Yeah give being unrealistic as one of the reasons you don't like WAW, then go onto to say that Airborne is better? So super Nazi soldiers and super Nazi towers of babylon are true to the history books are they? right.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about this game itself being realistic or unrealistic.

for me at least, was the IMO overall poor audio. For whatever reason, my low end Audigy 2 ZS just could not seem to render the games audio signals in a manner that conveyed a realistic gameplay enviroment.
Click to expand...

Perhaps instead of "Realistic" I should have said immersion?

The issues I mentioned, are I feel a programming fault. Of course I do not know the first thing about programming & so perhaps I am wrong. It's just my own opinion that MOH:A was/is a better game than COD:WAW. Perhaps saying that COD:WAW sucked, was taking it a little too far, but I found both COD:MW & MOH:A to be very much better games. No video game is realistic & never will be. (Respawning or reloading after death) Even playing COD:WAW on the hardest setting, allows you to take an insane & "Unrealistic" (there's that word again) amount of damage.

I have uninstalled the game & am reinstalling it again on a fresh install of XP. Like I have already mentioned, perhaps it's an issue on my end. I hope it is, as I want to like this game & you know what they say about first impressions...

Thanks for getting on my case though stemot...

Cool info Eejit. Thanks for the link. :thumbs:

-MRG

EDIT: Turn off the music in game. I think they stopped playing music as they marched into battle back in the 1700's with the drummer & flute players & to quote Dane Cook "I need a bayonet for my flute!" :p
 
MRG said:
I never said anything about this game itself being realistic or unrealistic.



Perhaps instead of "Realistic" I should have said immersion?

The issues I mentioned, are I feel a programming fault. Of course I do not know the first thing about programming & so perhaps I am wrong. It's just my own opinion that MOH:A was/is a better game than COD:WAW. Perhaps saying that COD:WAW sucked, was taking it a little too far, but I found both COD:MW & MOH:A to be very much better games. No video game is realistic & never will be. (Respawning or reloading after death) Even playing COD:WAW on the hardest setting, allows you to take an insane & "Unrealistic" (there's that word again) amount of damage.

I have uninstalled the game & am reinstalling it again on a fresh install of XP. Like I have already mentioned, perhaps it's an issue on my end. I hope it is, as I want to like this game & you know what they say about first impressions...

Thanks for getting on my case though stemot...

Cool info Eejit. Thanks for the link. :thumbs:

-MRG

EDIT: Turn off the music in game. I think they stopped playing music as they marched into battle back in the 1700's with the drummer & flute players & to quote Dane Cook "I need a bayonet for my flute!" :p
Click to expand...

Your sound reference was not what I was referring to. You likened WAW to an arcade game, which suggests to me it was not as realistic as you wanted, yet you like Airborne, when it has it's feet firmly in arcade land (medals for headshots etc) and even Airborne had it's fair share of spawning enemies (the first level when you reach the big museum type building on the steps).
I did enjoy Airborne up until it all got a little silly to be honest, even then though I was still being constantly peeved by it's niggling faults (hit detection being the prime example), while all the way through WAW I was gripped, especially by the russian missions, which I have found to be the weakest in every other COD game to date, really do shine in this game.

I guess if you prefer one game to another, then that's fair enough, but you can't berate one game for faults, when the game that you hold above it is guilty of the same things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

simonjedi
Hey Darkside, Look at this.
Replies
26
Views
2K
Wanted Bob
Wanted Bob
Tollbooth Willie
FOOTBALLS OF WAR 3 THE FOOTBALLING
Replies
10
Views
654
<RJMC>
<RJMC>
YROC
Call of Duty: Black Ops
2 3
Replies
103
Views
4K
Dynasty
Dynasty
Gargantou
Future Call of Duty plans announced.
Replies
18
Views
1K
the cow says moo
the cow says moo
Dynasty
Prince Of Persia Reviews
Replies
35
Views
2K
ktimekiller
ktimekiller
Back
Top