CoD: World at War thoughts / opinions

KamiKazi

There a fair few threads on here about CoD5 with people chipping in with their thoughts so I thought it would be better if it was all in one thread

So what do you guys think of this game?

For a beta, I think it shows potential. I love that they brought back rifles which will hopefully be one-shot kills when promod is developed for it.

The new SMG's are nice, they feel a bit strange but that will be fixed in the final version or after patches hopefully. They feel underpowered after using the AK74u, which can only be a good thing to be fair.

The shotguns are well, shotguns

The snipers seem to be solid and without the sway bugs of CoD4.

Maps are public maps really, but show real promise IMO especially when there are rumours of almost 20 maps for this game there should be a fair few decent competitive maps.


What you guys think of it?

Dcully

Its a ww2 mod for cod4 tbh.
Very similar to cod2 but with better hit reg.
Its a fun game i suppose but 2-3 years on from cod2 its not a bit improvement.
Overall im disapointed but its still a fun game all the same.
Not sure id call it COD5,its just a COD4 mod imo.

Maps are public maps really, but show real promise IMO especially when there are rumours of almost 20 maps for this game there should be a fair few decent competitive maps.

Screw competitive maps and games ,been there done that and got bored
Public maps you say? sweet im a casual fps player so it should suit me

I like the game just hoped it would of been a lot better than the last ww2 cod for pc cod2.
Ill be buying it i think.

jonski

Only played it for an hour or so yesterday so still getting used to it . Think I like the new war mode .......

I would agree that it is just a mod for cod 4 and that i wasn't really blown away by it but with so many advances over the last 5 years I doubt that I would be blown away by anything tbh .

Overall I would be biased as I am fan of WWII games on pc ... will be buying it on release day .

Lukker-

It's ****ing **** but I'll play it anyway. It's even worse then CoD4 was. Curse my natural ability at CoD.

ToughyIRE

It's what BF2142 was to the Battlefield franchise, a glorified mod, you either loved it or hated it.

Joeface

Played for a few hours , Still Meh on this

Good: Friend Link , return to the sniper weapons of old, Artillery is good , goes on a bit , but still good.

Bad : Tanks are silly , Most of the weapons need a little bit of tweaking , The Dogs are funny the first time , I think the gfx are step back. I know its a beta but the sound was terrible. Movement feels clunky , Spawns are worse than COD4.

Beta 4.5/10 , i will wait and see if the full release is better.

COD4 full 8/10

MiCr0

i'd agree with joeface on the tanks and the spawns
i don't think i ever spawned behind a sniper in cod4 - but i've done this loads of times in WAW

great for knife kills though :-)

AdMMM

I know they're probably still working on it, but the sound is terrible. You hear the same shuffling sound of footsteps regardless of how close or far away the enemy is making it exceptionally difficult to pinpoint them. Also, does anyone else think that the US guy sounds just like Kiefer Sutherland?

I also think that some of the weapons are so unbalanced that it's hardly worth using them in any situation and at times it feels as if you're firing pure blanks. While this may have been the authentic feeling and behaviour of these guns "back in the day", it's not enjoyable being directly behind someone, unloading a hail of bullets into their back only for them to slowly and awkwardly turn around and one-bullet you. It just reeks of poor Netcode rather than authenticity.

I really, really hope that they're still working on the spawn points. I would have thought they would have just lifted the code from CoD4, but I find people spawning right in front of me and right behind me all too often which is frustrating, especially in Hardcore Team Deathmatch. The inclusion of tanks is laughable too. They simply allow players to rip through entire teams and too much resources need to be focused on destroying them which is oftentimes just a frustrating process especially when we have packs of dogs and artillery to contend with!

Speaking of trying to contend with the packs of dogs, I like the idea of them as they weed out the campers that the helicopter in CoD4 couldn't touch. But come on, should a pack of German ****ing Shepperds be all that difficult to kill? Maybe if they unleashed a pack of blood-thirsty lions then I'd be able to believe that I should die if one catches me or that it should take a few bullets to kill it! Also, while I'm at it, a recon plane?! This certainly shouldn't behave the same as the UAV in CoD4 and just exemplifies the laziness of the developers! Why not have "Informants" and instead of refreshing the position of the enemy ever 3 or so seconds, have their positions update every 10 seconds with the actual feature lasting longer than a UAV?

With all that being said, I enjoy the game, but can't help but notice so many missed opportunities to improve upon the CoD4 model. It could have been a better game than CoD4, but the way I see it, it's a step backwards for the franchise!

Joeface

It appears to be Kiefer "Kiefer Sutherland and Gary Oldman have been cast as voice actors for the game, Sutherland will voice main character, Sgt. Roebuck.[18]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_5

TerrorFirmer

Not sure whether to play the beta or just get a copy for christmas... Will only be using a 7800gtx until then, and I feel like I might ruin it a bit by having to run it looking fugly....(24" monitor). To be honest I'm pretty happy with the general opinion, 'WW2 mod/expansion for COD4' sounds pretty damn good to me - sure what was enemy territory to Wolfenstein, or United Offensive to COD? Could be a lot worse - very, very few people have actually said it's a poor game, and added to that I have a real bias for WW2 titles. COD4 engine with WW2 skins, weapons, sounds and environments is actually something I would happily pay money for, to be honest - all the COD games were ever primarily about was good, fun multiplayer.

ZeRoY

Feels like a big mod or Total Conversion of COD4 and thats because its exactly what it is

Its a good game though, for me the downside are the weak sounds on most Weapons and the horrible use of the sound occlusion which is somehow delayed on my Rig (i would hear MY footsteps AFTER i moved).

The Friends and Squads features are most welcome and the maps are of good quality.

Visit www.rgnwiki.com if you are looking for infos on the Beta and other stuff.

christophicus

ZeRoY wrote: »

(i would hear MY footsteps AFTER i moved).

I get that too, its REALLY annoying, the amount of times I start/stop start/stop just to make sure its me making the noise and not an enemy is rediculous.

KamiKazi

disabling occlusion and attentuation (sv_cheats protected) makes the sound 100x better, hopefully it'll be turned off in the final release or at least in promod.

Lukker-

Poor sound or not it's actually a really really bad console port. Judging by the response from the competitive community this is going to fail.

ZeRoY

Lukker- wrote: »

Poor sound or not it's actually a really really bad console port.

Duh? Like all Call of Duty Titles Cod:WW is developed on PC. The maps/scripts are then compiled for Either Xenon (Xbox360) or PS3 or PC.

Even Call of Duty 3 was a PC port to Console not the other way around.

IgsTer

they should stop targeting the console market first when developing games espcially fps..if they just make there games targeted towards pc players they can easily port it over to console and it would still be a great game..where as it just doesnt work out as well the other way around..in the end the pc version would lack alot of things that would make it a great game due to the way it was developed and who for..

and yeah for me the biggest issue with WaW is the sound..i just think its too cinematic with tonnes of echoing sounds coming from all over the map like gunshots, water rising up on the beach, pebbles rolling off heaps of dirt etc..sure its great for realism giving your in the middle of a war..but when it comes down to gameplay all these extra ambient sounds that give it that extra realism and cinematic feel which in my opionion was made for the console version just brings down the gameplay of the pc version..

hopefully theyll be removed though when it comes to the final version or at least be able to change with out being cheat protected

Lukker-

ZeRoY wrote: »

Duh? Like all Call of Duty Titles Cod:WW is developed on PC. The maps/scripts are then compiled for Either Xenon (Xbox360) or PS3 or PC.

Even Call of Duty 3 was a PC port to Console not the other way around.

Clearly every game is like that then? I didn't mean it in that context, but the fact that the game feels like it was created for console play primarily (which it obviously was) and the fact that map design is awful, full of gimmicky features like dogs. Every single gun is simple to use, no recoil, no muzzle flash. Basically giving a bad player a feeling that they are better then they are. The core gameplay is actually awful as well ....

Think they just killed CoD.

TerrorFirmer

Lukker- wrote: »

Poor sound or not it's actually a really really bad console port. Judging by the response from the competitive community this is going to fail.

Pretty much everyone here bitching about COD3, including yourself, didn't stop it from being a huge commercial/critical success - World at War is not going to fail either.

Andyfbt

I wouldn't like them to move away from COD4 too much as it was the first fps that I every really enjoyed. Hopefully they sort out some of the stuff people have been saying like the respawns and the sound but COD4 in WWII envoirnment with new maps. I will defo be buying

Maximilian

Read the new COD has got 10/10 from PSW - who say its better than COD4.

Pretty surprised. Christ another game I have to get.

IgsTer

Maximilian wrote: »

Read the new COD has got 10/10 from PSW - who say its better than COD4.

Pretty surprised. Christ another game I have to get.

they may have gotten there hands on the final release then which hopefully has ironed out alot of the stuff that people dont like in beta

Lukker-

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Pretty much everyone here bitching about COD3, including yourself, didn't stop it from being a huge commercial/critical success - World at War is not going to fail either.

Just because it's a success doesn't mean it's good. It just shows the influence of franchising and how stupid people are.

TerrorFirmer

Lukker- wrote: »

Just because it's a success doesn't mean it's good. It just shows the influence of franchising and how stupid people are.

As discussed before the average ranking on meta critic is resoundingly positive; that is to say, not any where remotely near negative. When reviewers across the board, on all platforms - Xbox, PS2, 360, PS3, Wii - rate the game as 'very good', and it sells well - I think that makes it fair to assume it is, indeed, a good game. Or do you know something everyone else is missing?

Or are you telling me the only reason COD3 is so popular is because 'people are stupid'. Are all those professional critics stupid as well?

http://www.metacritic.com/search/process?sort=relevance&termType=all&ts=call+of+duty+3&ty=0&x=0&y=0

Average result: 80%, dragged down considerably by the Wii scores which are miles below the norm for every other platform. Is gaming so unbelievably fantastic now that 80% - 4/5 - is referred to as a crap game that only stupid people buy?

christophicus

In fairness to Lukker, I have only heard bad things about CoD3 aswell, both from mates and on CoD forums. I've never played the game so I am just guessing, but I'd say it must have sucked for match play and that is why so many people hate it.

Lukker-

Just finished the SP. Was insanely average. I did't play it CO-OP and I'd say that would add abit to the game. Waiting for a few cracked servers to show up.

heebusjeebus

Lukker- wrote: »

Just finished the SP. Was insanely average. I did't play it CO-OP and I'd say that would add abit to the game. Waiting for a few cracked servers to show up.

Any idea how the Co-op works Lukker? Do you start up a single player game and then send the invites to your friends or is it similar to starting a multi player server??

ToughyIRE

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Pretty much everyone here bitching about COD3, including yourself, didn't stop it from being a huge commercial/critical success - World at War is not going to fail either.

this is were your going to be wrong, if it doesnt get the big teams backing it for competitive play, then its going to fail

KamiKazi

ToughyIRE wrote: »

this is were your going to be wrong, if it doesnt get the big teams backing it for competitive play, then its going to fail

WRONG

Few games companies care about competitive play. Competitive gamers buy 1 copy of the game and play it for years if its good.

Joe public buys a game when it comes about because it looks nicer or has new shizzle in it and will still buy a copy of the next version when it comes out in a year.

What you class as a success and what game publishers class as a success are two completely different things unfortunately.

Jip

I played a few hours of the 360 beta over the weekend and it's not too bad I suppose. I like the fact that some of the maps are quite large but I did find that the there was something about it that was very hard on the eyes, can't quite put my finger on it but when I went back to COD4 afterwards for comparison purposes I found it much clearer and easier to view.

Andyfbt

jesus i hope it's easy on the eye. My eyesight is already fooked.

muppetkiller

I was playing the single player today on the PC and I thought it was woeful.
The level design is very poor and so Linear.. Vast jungles seem to only have one path meh.
Haven't tried the multiplayer but will give it a go tonight..

Andyfbt

I never played the single player on COD4 and I had it for a year so I don't really care about the one player mode. although this new Co-Op mode sounds interesting.

Jaysoose

Jip wrote: »

I played a few hours of the 360 beta over the weekend and it's not too bad I suppose. I like the fact that some of the maps are quite large but I did find that the there was something about it that was very hard on the eyes, can't quite put my finger on it but when I went back to COD4 afterwards for comparison purposes I found it much clearer and easier to view.

I have my copy since last night and the colour scheme is very hard on the eyes and on some levels its very hard to actually see your opponents etc. Gotta say after one days play and getting over the initial euphoria this is not a patch on COD4 and certainly wont be playing it religiously. The WW2 idea has been done to death and this game is a bit of a cop out and they should give the franchise back to infinity ward. They have gone ridiuclous with the size of the maps and there seems to be a path to every portion of the map!!! the fact that they left juggernaut in (relevant in WW2?) shows that this is basically a patch for the previous COD and no new ideas have been thought of and they have simply repackaged the game for the crimbo market.

One step forward two steps back im afraid.

Andyfbt

This is really the best way to summarise it. COD5 will be a success depending what you were looking for

By staying largely true to the formula that made Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare so successful, Call of Duty: World at War has ensured a proven level of technical quality, particularly in the multiplayer arena. On the other hand, one of Modern Warfare's strengths was its fresh approach, and by embracing a familiar setting and familiar mechanics, World at War achieves greatness but falls short of excellence. This is only a bad thing if you are expecting this game to top its benchmark predecessor. If, however, you are hoping for an exciting campaign, fun cooperative play, and engaging multiplayer action, then you'll find a lot to be happy about in World at War.

Jaysoose

Andyfbt wrote: »

This is really the best way to summarise it. COD5 will be a success depending what you were looking for

By staying largely true to the formula that made Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare so successful, Call of Duty: World at War has ensured a proven level of technical quality, particularly in the multiplayer arena. On the other hand, one of Modern Warfare's strengths was its fresh approach, and by embracing a familiar setting and familiar mechanics, World at War achieves greatness but falls short of excellence. This is only a bad thing if you are expecting this game to top its benchmark predecessor. If, however, you are hoping for an exciting campaign, fun cooperative play, and engaging multiplayer action, then you'll find a lot to be happy about in World at War.

Translation::: We popped a ww2 skin on the sucker, please give us your money for the little effort we put in, no new ideas here but give us your money anyway as after all we are just cashing in.:D

-osborne-

I can’t believe how s*** it is ,the graphics are so bad, the gameplay isn't great either ,don’t waste your money buying it:mad::mad::mad::mad:

wierdal

haven't played loads of it yet but no major complaints.
It is bery linear and not a scratch on cod4 buts its still a good game i find so far, and not a real waste of money at 45 quid for a ps3 game.
Personnally I think its Treyarch, look at they're games, I dont think cod3 was very good, the spider man games were terrible and quantum of solace isn't the best, where as Infinity Ward has amde all the 'other' cods(i.e ones made for pc i suppose) and these were the best. Just more reason to look forward to Cod6 i suppose.

ToughyIRE

You mean CoD5

chavezychavez

Andyfbt wrote: »

I never played the single player on COD4 and I had it for a year so I don't really care about the one player mode. although this new Co-Op mode sounds interesting.

Played a good bit of the co-op last night and I think its class. Great fun trying to kill eveything in sight and then rush back to revive a team mate. Good times:D

Davei141

-osborne- wrote: »

I can’t believe how s*** it is ,the graphics are so bad, the gameplay isn't great either ,don’t waste your money buying it:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Get a decent telly, the graphics are pretty much same as cod4.

SniperSight

I really cant ee why all the hate towards this gam but anyway my opinion:
The graphics are brilliant, at leastas good as COD4 probably a bit better.
The sound is brilliant too, from guns, explosions to Germans screaming as dogs chase after them.:D

The single player so far is great, plenty of tense and action filled moments.
Its clearly darker than previous CODs, even the menu music would sugggest that, very eerie.
I think the gore also adds new realism and is sometimes especially graphic, be it a flamethrower tank exploding along with the guy carrying it or a Jap turning black as he burns to a crisp.

The multi-player is just brilliant. I just love it. Great maps and great weapons with some handy new perks. I think the inclusion of tanks is good to see again, although I'm glad they got rid of the ability for the driver to use both the cannon and MG from the driver position. Weapons feel great and so far seem well balanced. IMO, It just works and is great fun.

I think Treyarch have done an excellent job, and I think its a real pity that some people hate it just because it is made by them and say it's simply a "mod". Contrary to some peoples belief its clear alot of work has gone into the game from research, to implementing the WW2 era weapons and style into a the scheme that was so loved in COD4. Of course its gonna appear similar, it uses the same engine. Furthermore the same people would be having fits if Treyarch had changed the engine or made the game play copletely different or even kept to Modern Warfare. Unfortunately alot of people will never give Treyarch the credit they hugely deserve. After all the were following COD4. Before this game was even realesed or brought out in Beta form people were still hating on it.
I've no doubt that if Infinity Ward was the developer on the box and the same game was made it would be lauded as a true sucessor to COD4 and excellent in every aspect, not merely a "mod".

One thing that annoys me is people saying that WW2 has been done to death, surely the same can be said for Modern warfare, there are countless variations on the modern theme, so I dont see why treyarch should be vilified for bringing back WW2.

Anyways rant over, I shall continue to really enjoy this very fine game, and look forward to what IW and Treyarch bring to the table in future.

-osborne-

Davei141 wrote: »

Get a decent telly, the graphics are pretty much same as cod4.

ya i have 42" HDTV so i don't think the telly is the problem

Br4tPr1nc3

SniperSight wrote: »

I really cant ee why all the hate towards this gam but anyway my opinion:
The graphics are brilliant, at leastas good as COD4 probably a bit better.
The sound is brilliant too, from guns, explosions to Germans screaming as dogs chase after them.:D

The single player so far is great, plenty of tense and action filled moments.
Its clearly darker than previous CODs, even the menu music would sugggest that, very eerie.
I think the gore also adds new realism and is sometimes especially graphic, be it a flamethrower tank exploding along with the guy carrying it or a Jap turning black as he burns to a crisp.

The multi-player is just brilliant. I just love it. Great maps and great weapons with some handy new perks. I think the inclusion of tanks is good to see again, although I'm glad they got rid of the ability for the driver to use both the cannon and MG from the driver position. Weapons feel great and so far seem well balanced. IMO, It just works and is great fun.

I think Treyarch have done an excellent job, and I think its a real pity that some people hate it just because it is made by them and say it's simply a "mod". Contrary to some peoples belief its clear alot of work has gone into the game from research, to implementing the WW2 era weapons and style into a the scheme that was so loved in COD4. Of course its gonna appear similar, it uses the same engine. Furthermore the same people would be having fits if Treyarch had changed the engine or made the game play copletely different or even kept to Modern Warfare. Unfortunately alot of people will never give Treyarch the credit they hugely deserve. After all the were following COD4. Before this game was even realesed or brought out in Beta form people were still hating on it.
I've no doubt that if Infinity Ward was the developer on the box and the same game was made it would be lauded as a true sucessor to COD4 and excellent in every aspect, not merely a "mod".

One thing that annoys me is people saying that WW2 has been done to death, surely the same can be said for Modern warfare, there are countless variations on the modern theme, so I dont see why treyarch should be vilified for bringing back WW2.

Anyways rant over, I shall continue to really enjoy this very fine game, and look forward to what IW and Treyarch bring to the table in future.

i read everything you said there,
and i cant agree with you more.
very well said.

and the ww2 aspect,
although used quite a bit, its one of( if not biggest) war this world has ever seen), how could it not be reconstructed in games over and over and over again.

Tar.Aldarion

Loving this game, been laning it for two days. DOgs are sick, insta 40 kill streak.

Great to have the ole rifles back.

Kazuma

SniperSight wrote: »

I really cant ee why all the hate towards this gam but anyway my opinion:
The graphics are brilliant, at leastas good as COD4 probably a bit better.
The sound is brilliant too, from guns, explosions to Germans screaming as dogs chase after them.:D

The single player so far is great, plenty of tense and action filled moments.
Its clearly darker than previous CODs, even the menu music would sugggest that, very eerie.
I think the gore also adds new realism and is sometimes especially graphic, be it a flamethrower tank exploding along with the guy carrying it or a Jap turning black as he burns to a crisp.

The multi-player is just brilliant. I just love it. Great maps and great weapons with some handy new perks. I think the inclusion of tanks is good to see again, although I'm glad they got rid of the ability for the driver to use both the cannon and MG from the driver position. Weapons feel great and so far seem well balanced. IMO, It just works and is great fun.

I think Treyarch have done an excellent job, and I think its a real pity that some people hate it just because it is made by them and say it's simply a "mod". Contrary to some peoples belief its clear alot of work has gone into the game from research, to implementing the WW2 era weapons and style into a the scheme that was so loved in COD4. Of course its gonna appear similar, it uses the same engine. Furthermore the same people would be having fits if Treyarch had changed the engine or made the game play copletely different or even kept to Modern Warfare. Unfortunately alot of people will never give Treyarch the credit they hugely deserve. After all the were following COD4. Before this game was even realesed or brought out in Beta form people were still hating on it.
I've no doubt that if Infinity Ward was the developer on the box and the same game was made it would be lauded as a true sucessor to COD4 and excellent in every aspect, not merely a "mod".

One thing that annoys me is people saying that WW2 has been done to death, surely the same can be said for Modern warfare, there are countless variations on the modern theme, so I dont see why treyarch should be vilified for bringing back WW2.

Anyways rant over, I shall continue to really enjoy this very fine game, and look forward to what IW and Treyarch bring to the table in future.

+1
There's a serious amount of undue hate going towards this game, and none of it's deserved. Campaign is fun, the gore is genuinely entertaining - actually can't play other FPS' now without feeling somethings missing (try hitting somebody in FC2 with a rocket launcher after playing WaW for 4 months, it'll just seem hollow)
Characters are pretty good in it, in the russian arc, anyway. And the european missions really do have an epic feel about them.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Loving this game, been laning it for two days. DOgs are sick, insta 40 kill streak.

Great to have the ole rifles back.

+1 again.
Those guns are so much more fun

jonski

Still haven't played it , can't get into town to pick it up , but I have played the multiplayer beta ...... on PC I might add .

I thought the graphics were good , but I do think this undue hate is due to COD going back to WWII , thing is , for a lot of us COD players the whole idea of it going modern for COD4 did not impress . I look forward to my COD WWII games and updates to them the same way the FIFA guys get their updates ( just not as regular as that please ) . I played COD4 and enjoyed it , never finished the SP game , didn't really grab me but I played the MP for a good while in Clan leagues and for fun ....... but I couldn't help thinking that "this would be nice in a WWII setting " .... not being a fan of the Medal of Honour means I have been getting my fix from Day Of Defeat .

Spear

I've finished the singeplayer campaign last night, after picking it up Friday. It's barely 6 hours long or so. Everything in the SP is something you've seen elsewhere, the Pacific sections are the same as Pacific Assault, the Russian sections are the same as CoD 2, including the same Enemy at the Gates scenes being ripped off, and ending at the Reichstag storming. There's no attempt to do anything new or different.

My brief foray in MP does show some differences from CoD4 at least. The maps seem more cluttered and chaotic than the sometimes fairly linear CoD4 ones, leading to more oppurtunity for flanking and sneakiness. The addition of dogs is a welcome bit of variety.

humanji

I've been playing the singleplayer part of this today (on PC) and am loving it. It's nothing revolutionary, but it's a lot of fun.

The graphics and sound are great. Very dark and moody. The maps a fairly linear, but that's no different to almost all FPS's. I love the pacific setting. MOH: Pacific Assault cocked it up when they tried and made a fairly ****ty game of it, so I was happy to see it done well for a change.

There were two things that bothered me about it. One is the music. At times it's great and fits in really well, and then at other times they have this horrible electro-rock playing. It was just weird.

The other thing (that since I havent finished it yet, may be addressed later) is the tone of the story and some elements they seem to gloss over particularly in the Russian part. For example

there's a part when you're in Berlin and there's Russian soldiers needlessly destroying the city with rockets. You comrade makes a passing reference to the slaughter and then moves on and it's not mentioned again. There's another scene where you've to execute prisoners and again, after it happens it's not mentioned again

.

I haven't had a chance to play the multiplayer, so I'll have to give it a whirl tomorrow if I can. All in all, the single-player experience is pretty good. I don't mind yet another WW2 shooter because I love those games. And the addition of Keifer Sutherland and Gary Oldman to it raises it up a few notches in my book (but I'm easily won over by celebs )

-osborne-

-osborne- wrote: »

ya i have 42" HDTV so i don't think the telly is the problem

If ppl are having problems wiith the graphics it could be there HD, i know a lad with a 1080p Sony Bravia and it looked TERRIBLE on his screen, says on the back it runs at 1080p so thats what i must have seen it at when i was in his house, mine only has 1080i and it looks the same as COD4.... just down the settings

BTW nobody else hate the guns in this?.... i used to always use the M16 in COD 4 and theres no equivilent in this one, the rifles don't carry enough ammo and the gaster fireing guns are **** for aiming.... wrecking my head, as i was always a higher ended player in 4, now i'm lower ended and dying more times then killing in lots of games

Some of the maps are kack aswell..........

SP fairly good doh, stayed true to 4....

ScumLord

You can hardly expect a WW2 era gun to operate like a modern M16/4. I thought the guns where great in this one. The riffles are great. There's some really skilled people playing with them online.

Spear wrote: »

I've finished the singeplayer campaign last night, after picking it up Friday. It's barely 6 hours long or so. Everything in the SP is something you've seen elsewhere, the Pacific sections are the same as Pacific Assault, the Russian sections are the same as CoD 2, including the same Enemy at the Gates scenes being ripped off, and ending at the Reichstag storming. There's no attempt to do anything new or different.

The single player is short but I was expecting that after COD4. It's more in line with movie entertainment. The last few missions of the US mission are really good though.

SniperSight

ScumLord wrote: »

I thought the guns where great in this one. The riffles are great. There's some really skilled people playing with them online.

+1

Its just Soooooo satisfying to take a running opponent down from distance with a bolt action rifle!!