By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - vgchartz: Is call of duty world at war your favorite game?

toastboy44562 on 17 November 2008
CAL4M1TY said:
If you've played CoD4, it's definitely a step back. It's still a good game, except (when you take into account CoD4):

- I now understand why CoD4 didn't have vehicles. Because they incorporate vehicles, certain maps are just too big for certain game types. In particular, Headquarters. HQ in vehicle maps SUCKS. The reason for this is that when you die and respawn on the other side of the map, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get to the HQ point and make a difference (i.e kill whoevers there) without it being taken before you get there (even if it's just one person on the opposition team capturing).

On top of that, the tanks are so slow that riding them won't get you to the HQ point any faster.

The number of HQ's I've taken WITHOUT a single person on the opposition team getting in there to stop me is ridiculous (and not very fun either).

- This game doesn't encourage running and gunning, the fact of the matter is, there isn't enough of a distinction between what the players wear and the environment that if you sit in one spot with either a bit of shade or something to hide behind, chances are you can just pick people off because it's so hard to distinguish between a person and an object if they don't move. Which brings me to my next point

- Loss of Technology. What I liked about CoD4 was that I could turn on night vision when I entered into a dark room. There's a few maps in W@W that could really use night vision, because I'm getting killed by campers that sit behind a shaded area that's completely blacked out. It sucks that the only way you can tell if someones there is if you have your cross hair on them and their name shows up (in which case you're probably already getting shot at).

- The Gun progression is ridiculously unbalanced. This is my biggest gripe with this game. In CoD4, I can kill ANYONE using any of the first guns available. That's not the case with W@W, you will STRUGGLE to kill many people at the start, because the later guns are superior to the earlier guns in almost every way (except maybe 1 stat and the difference is minimal at best).

That takes alot of the fun out of the game, when you know that the only reason the person who just killed you, only did so because he had a gun you can't unlock until 10 more levels, because you both spotted each other at the same time and he's has the better stats.

Honestly, it's not a bad game, It's actually quite good, it's just ridiculously unbalanced. If you go into this game thinking it'll be the next step up from CoD4, think about it as being more like CoD2 on the CoD4 engine.

Call of duty 2 rox my sox!

 



Around the Network
Smashed on 17 November 2008
Sephiroth357 said:
I've seen people on my friends list go back to COD4.

Need I say more?

 

That game is way to old, tell them to move on already.



Impulsivity on 17 November 2008

After playing COD4 I really don't feel like going back to World War 2 weapons and stories. When almost everyone who was involved in a war dies of old age, it might be time to stop making games and movies about it. Maybe there is a cutoff so that when only 10% of the war generation continues to survive they have to stop making games/movies about it. After all you don't see a whole lot of games like "World War 1, back in the trenches" being released.

Wake me when the proper Call of Duty 5 comes out set in modern times and made by Infinity Ward. I've had more then enough of the Springfield thank you very much.




 PSN ID: ChosenOne feel free to add me

Killergran on 17 November 2008

I haven't played the PS360 version, but the PC version. And I must say I wasn't very impressed. The game tries very hard to be Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (MW), but completely fails to do any of the things that made that a good game. Let me explain what I mean, after I point out that I only play singleplayer. Never multiplayer. I haven't played multiplayer since Counterstrike: Source.

World at War (WaW) start off with you being held captive by some japanese soldiers, in a small hut somewhere in the pacific. The scene lasts for about a minute or less, and in this time you see another soldier being beaten, saying "don't tell tell them anything" and then having his throat cut by the japanese guards. You are then predictibly saved from the same faith a couple of seconds later, handed a gun and asked to kick some ass.

This scene only reminds me of the opening of MW, where you take the view of a warlord on his way to execution. Something that actually made an impact on me. In comparison, the opening of WaW is pretty lame, and doesn't accomplish either making me feel for the protagonist or making me hate the japanese. After this first mission you get extraced by boat and rewarded by seeing a couple of huts getting blown up. Again, this is almost a direct reference to the nuclear explosion in MW, only with a sense of emotional detatchment and not at all as beautiful or impressive.

The game goes on trying to emulate its predecessor, but all the time missing the reasons that made the scenes there good. The detatched black and white on-rail shooter from MW becomes a bland experience in an airplane over sea. The exciting snipermission with the awesome finale becomes a 5 minute sniper mission and 20 minute chase with a much less than satisfying end and so on. Treyarch also throws in original failiures, like a tank-mission with a tank that controls like a toy-car and way too many quick-time events.

But all is not bad in this shooter. There are some geniunly awesome moments, such as walking through a building with Mozarts requiem's Dies Irae coming through a radio somewhere, and gunning down germans that abandon their posts. Also, there are some killing of prisoners that really makes you feel like a grim soldier avenging your friends.

Mostly, this game suffers from the same flaws as all the Call of Duty games. The pace is too high, with very few moments on maps that allow you to take a deep breath before going on. The shooting also degenerates to a point and click game after a while. Right-click, point, left-click. Right-click, point, left-click. In absurdum. The need to advance to stop the enemy from respawning is also still in place, and leaves you feeling guided. It's still extremely linear, which does not necessarily have to be a bad thing.

The graphics... well. As I said, I played this on PC, so I might not have gotten the best of it. But I still feel that MW beats WaW in esthetics, if not detail. Modern Warfare looked cool and awesome while World at War is a lot more boring.

In the end, I would give Call of Duty: World at War a 4 out of 10.

(compare to Modern Warfare: 6 out of 10)



This is invisible text!