CoD: World at War thoughts / opinions

Andyfbt · 13-11-2008 11:34AM

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 · 14-11-2008 11:13AM

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 · 14-11-2008 05:14PM

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 · 14-11-2008 09:45PM

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- · 14-11-2008 11:41PM

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 · 15-11-2008 03:12AM

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 · 15-11-2008 04:01AM

You mean CoD5

chavezychavez · 15-11-2008 02:23PM

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 · 15-11-2008 05:02PM

-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 · 15-11-2008 05:35PM

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- · 16-11-2008 04:35AM

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 · 16-11-2008 06:59AM

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 · 16-11-2008 07:04AM

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

Great to have the ole rifles back.

Kazuma · 16-11-2008 12:18PM

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 · 16-11-2008 01:31PM

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 · 16-11-2008 01:49PM

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 · 16-11-2008 11:44PM

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

)

19-11-2008 12:01PM

-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 · 19-11-2008 01:44PM

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 · 20-11-2008 03:04PM

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!!

jonski · 28-11-2008 01:40PM

Right , finally got to play the single player ( on PC ) , first thoughts , it played well , graphics were fine , sound was fine , weapons were fine , missions were fine ,.... no problems with any of it ...except .... my god was it short .

I am and have always been a fan of the WWII games and wasn't impressed when it changed to modern warfare in 4 but enjoyed it anyway .

So on to the multiplayer now , anyone got IP's for Irish servers ?

Pablo Sanchez · 29-11-2008 10:58PM

Great game, way too short imo, also as someone else mentioned earlier the point blank shooting of prisoners was a wee bit dark to say the least!?

frozenbullet · 30-11-2008 03:14PM

Good game,alot like cod4 though !

gags89 · 30-11-2008 03:23PM

i just got the game on the back of cod4s superbness and you know with two little brothers i figured id let them play with me too, but why is the split screen so small ..whats the point in not having it fill the whole screen??it just makes it harder to see enemies, it doesnt even display kills or anything in it? and its the first split screen iv seen like this...can u change it somehow?

Blazer · 01-12-2008 01:01AM

I like the maps in it..lot bigger for snipers...COD4 maps were not really suited to snipers.
Saying that..the sound is absolute crap..sometimes you hear a sniper shooting..but only every 2nd bullet..must be that silencer he puts on for each 2nd one;)
Much prefer COD4..if somone could mod these maps for COD4 I'd be very happy.

Fatalis · 04-12-2008 09:13PM

It's a good game, but after the hype of CoD4, it feels somewhat inferior. The maps are bigger and the guns are older, giving it a much gritter feel as opposed to the smooth, modern setting of it's predecessor.

As a result, the game felt like a let down. Single player kept solid as a previous player mentioned, but online multi feels very sluggish. Nearly all the weapons of each different genre/class feel exactly the same, but it does make it a lot more difficult because of this.

I've always been a dedicated sniper in FPS games , and must say that the bolt action sniper rifles all feel repetitively similar like I'd mentioned before about all weapons in general.

Sod'o swords · 04-12-2008 09:41PM

There was a what, 4 year gap between cod2 and cod4, so it was obviously going to be a huge improvement.
There was only a year between cod4 and 5.
Not much change they could do, and as you can see they're pretty much the same.

Still good, not amazingly better than cod4 as many people thought it would be.
It's just basically cod4 with a new face.
Which is welcoming seeming how cod4 was quite repetitive.

Codofwar · 04-12-2008 11:26PM

rented it today and ive been playin it since early afternoon. Must say, i really enjoy it. Didn't expect too much from it as going back to ww2 but it surprised me. Havn't tried the online yet though so i might have to edit later. Hopefully not. Just thought id share that with ye!

KamiKazi · 04-12-2008 11:34PM

Sod'o swords wrote: »

There was only a year between cod4 and 5.
Not much change they could do, and as you can see they're pretty much the same.

There was a two year gap, Treyarch have been working on it since CoD3 was released.

Dcully · 05-12-2008 09:33PM

I have the 360 version the past 2 weeks, borrowed from the bro inlaw.
Decided to go with the PC version which i bought yesterday and really enjoying the multiplayer.
GFX are very nice on the 360 but still nowhere near as nice as on a high end PC.
Obviously the PC controls are far superior too.
Im running both the 360 and pc through a monitor.

Fine game on all formats.

CoD: World at War thoughts / opinions

Comments