Call of Duty World at War

Ravager69

Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I recently finished the singleplayer part of CoD 5, here are my thoughts.


A) The best way to describe it is ... unoriginal. It's a mediocre mix of Enemy at Gates (it's a movie, if you're wondering), CoD: United Offensive and Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault.

B) You seem to be captured by the enemy and cheat death just in time too often - they're like 3-4 beginnings of missions, where you're unarmed and at the enemy's mercy, being saved right before you're killed.

C) Weapons are a standard - most of WWII weapons with some new stuff, like a huge fucking sniper rifle, resembling the .50cal. Fortunatly, machine guns aren's as accurate as in CoD2 for example, but still too much in my opinion. Flamethrower and deployable MGs (like MG42) are back, which is cool. We also have Molotov's Cocktails, but their are of damage is pretty low.

D) AI. This is where the game really sucks, it's the worse part of the game so far. Freaky pathfinding results in people running with no apparent reason, often under enemy's barrel. I've often seen situations where a Japanese soldier walkted right before my comrades' eyes and they didn't seem to notice him, even though he shot at them.

E) The game seem to follow the predecessors example of gameplay, where your allies often will not move forward until you do, which is annoying at best. This forces you to push forward no matter what, because the enemies won't stop spawning until you reach a specified location(s), so usually you can't do what would be the most reasonable behaviour on war - sit behind a solid cover and shoot 'till nothing's left alive and THEN move forward. Usually, this looks like this - there's 10 Japanese soldier firing at you, you get hit and duck to regenerate (another broken feature - makes the game unbalanced). Unfortunatly, 2 seconds later a grenade lands at your feet in a distance from which you can't throw it back, but it still will kill you and you are pretty much screwed, beause you can't push forward or run away.

F) Missions are fairly easy and short and thus, uninteresting. Most of them are recycled from other games and designed poorly to that - there is little freedom in completing them. You are often railroaded badly and the enemy shoots at you from all sides. Ambushes are common (japanese banzai charges especially), but they're usually well done.

Overall, I give it a 7\10 for the singleplayer, though it could be 6\10 as well. This game is definetly not worth to buy it for solo gameplay.

In some time, I''l post my thought on multiplayer.
 
I find that it looks too much like a re-skinned CoD 4, and I'm sick of WWII shooters, so I'm going to stick to COD4.

Besides, Infinity Ward makes superior games to Treyarch.
 
3 things I liked about the game

1) Flamethrowering

2) The between mission videos

3) Putting the Soviet Flag up at the Reichstag

That Reznov guy is cra-zy.

3 things I didn't like

1) The tank mission

2) Nazi zombies

3) Being a "darker" World War II game apparently means blood and limb severing effects.
 
How can you NOT like nazi zombies?

Besides, that's just a retarded statement. They're multiplayer only, have absolutely no effect on the gameplay WHATSOEVER since you can play regular multiplayer too, and well, zombies are just cool.

It's just a fun addition to the game that you can LAN with some friends, like Left4Dead.

I liked the singleplayer part. Definitely not as good as COD4, but you know, Treyarch ain't that good at making games, so they probably tried their best. A bit unforgiving at times, but meh, wasn't too shabby. At least they copied the multiplayer part from COD4.
 
fedaykin said:
When will there be an FPS where you can play on the nazi side?

When people like being on the losing side of a war.

The Overseer said:
How can you NOT like nazi zombies?

Besides, that's just a retarded statement. They're multiplayer only, have absolutely no effect on the gameplay WHATSOEVER since you can play regular multiplayer too, and well, zombies are just cool.

That's exactly why I hate it, the concept has so much possibility and it's just some half-assed mini-game with no real forethought or lasting fun factor.

Seriously, they could have at least put a few different levels with different themes in there. Imagine playing as a Nazi Officer being assailed by Jewish Zombies at the ruins of a concentration camp or being an American soldier being attacked by nuclear zombies created by the atomic bombing at Hiroshima.
 
Single player is so boring I don't think I finish it. Zero skill is requiered..and that tankmission is the most pathetic thing I've ever saw.Consoldtards anyone? Singleplayer: 3/10 (because of the graphics, but thats about it), MP I can't test
 
The Catalina mission was fun. I also like most of the Russian missions, but they were hard. Also pretty cool that Jack Bauer voiced the game.
 
Heh, I knew all of those a+ reviews were bullshit. (It's a shame, but I had no hope once I noticed treyarch was developing it).

Guess I'll be waiting for iw's cod6.
 
aaaw...darn..oh well..nothing i didnt suspect already, seems that WWII shooters tend to be tedious now days, at least when they are bit unrealistic. i want some WWI shooters, want to see the germans attack with their spiked helmets on. I want to see huge artillery strikes and gas attacks and melee trench combat.I want to see Korean war, with its night attacks by chinese/n-koreans, its hill battles and the stalemate of the end. or maybe its just me. but i want variety and more difficulty please.
 
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude said:
Heh, I knew all of those a+ reviews were bullshit.


It does have A+ reviews? Damn.

I wonder why does Activision even bother to work with Treyarch - they're obviously worse than Infinity Ward. Is it cheaper?
 
Patton89 said:
i want some WWI shooters, want to see the germans attack with their spiked helmets on. I want to see huge artillery strikes and gas attacks and melee trench combat.I want to see Korean war, with its night attacks by chinese/n-koreans, its hill battles and the stalemate of the end.

Or how about a Vietnam War FPS? I would think that would be a perfect setting for a FPS with the dense jungles, ambushes, and smallish force sizes.
 
TorontRayne said:
Men of Honor FTW!

Do you mean Medal of Honor?

On topic, why would one make another WW2 fps nowadays? What could they possibly put in it that hasn't been done a million times by now? IMHO CoD series should move on, there are pleny of other wars to cover.
 
maximaz said:
TorontRayne said:
Men of Honor FTW!

Do you mean Medal of Honor?

On topic, why would one make another WW2 fps nowadays? What could they possibly put in it that hasn't been done a million times by now? IMHO CoD series should move on, there are pleny of other wars to cover.

hahaha. Yes thats what I meant. I just remember playing it on the XBOX. Pretty interesting FPS.
 
Back
Top