What is Digg?Sponsored by Amazon.com
Kindle(TM) - Give the Ultimate Last Minute gift view!
amazon.com - Order Kindle now and receive it in time for Christmas. Free Expedited shipping. Click to learn more.
178 Comments
- fxu1989, on 11/17/2008, -10/+53Is this game worth it?
Short answer: no
Long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - boozedrinker, on 11/17/2008, -9/+49It sure as hell isn't up to the CoD4 standards.
- inactive, on 11/17/2008, -4/+40It's what Battlefield 2142 to Battlefield 2 is, a $60 mod made by a bunch of former potato sculptors.
- inactive, on 11/17/2008, -6/+42Anyone who liked cod4 won't dislike this game.
I only play multiplayer so if you're into mp only then read on.
The first thing that will bother you is the sound effects, since it's ww2, the sounds are a bit toned down compared to cod4, but that will soon be gone.
It feels very different in the beginning but give it some time to settle in, (approx 2 hours) and you'll realize treyarch didn't ***** this one up at all, you'll realize it's the same game you've loved with some added stuff that's just really cool. The game is very fast paced even though most of the stages are really big.
My complaints about the maps: there should've been more and some of them feel too similar. Most stages have an overcast and smokey feel to them, which stays true to ww2 but doesn't give you a different feel for each map.They could've made a couple of "snow" levels as well as water and jungle levels.
And there could've been a few more small maps.
Some minor cool details:
1. last stand gives you the ability to be revived by a teammate (however they sort of ruined last stand because you can't always turn when you're by a wall)
2. you can operate a tank by yourself, in both 3rd person and first person view (the latter i discovered today and it's awesome!)
3. Baracks for almost everything in the game (domination, sabotage, pistol and many others not present in cod4)
i'm a hardcord cod4 fan and i was skeptical about this game but it has passed the test with great marks.
cod4 is a 100/A+
and WaW is a 90 - shyampoo, on 11/17/2008, -14/+48Treyarch gives "Call of Duty" a bad name
- redscofield, on 11/16/2008, -4/+35nazi zombie mode is the *****...
- Kordras, on 11/17/2008, -1/+22Wow, for second I thought you were saying "Barack's for everything in the game."
God damn it politics, get out of my mind! - djpray2k, on 11/17/2008, -4/+24I'd just like to ask the developers....why WW2? I mean who thought that was a good idea.
- inactive, on 11/17/2008, -3/+20The rule has always been to skip every other call of duty
- comptonstomp, on 11/17/2008, -0/+16I would love to see a futuristic war based game built off of the COD4 engine. I want some crazy ass weapons and some huge frieken explosions
- MCA2142, on 11/17/2008, -1/+17Hey CryTekEmployee,
Do you mean like how Crysis Warhead is to Crysis? :-)
Just saw your name, and had to. - danwallace, on 11/17/2008, -1/+15Because she's a woman?
- MrJ777, on 11/17/2008, -3/+17Bury for Treyarch. With all the good games out right now, why play a subpar game?
Save the money, Fallout 3 awaits. - computershack, on 11/17/2008, -2/+14So the reviewers issue is that the game is too like the real world where bullets do come from nowhere, grenades do get lobbed where you don't expect them, an enemy has snuck up on you and killed you and the enemies have martyrdom. On that last point, I remember quite definitely being taught in basic training when lifting over a body to check it that you place yourself behind it and roll it towards you to protect you for that very reason.
I find it funny that he calls it vulgar to throw bombs and bullets at a player in a war based game. In a real war, the idea is to make sure you put down more firepower than the enemy so why is the game bad for mimicking reality?
The reviewer is nothing more than an attention seeking ***** who complains about the realism where no doubt in other reviews and comments, he was calling for more realism in games. So now he has it, he's not happy. No pleasing some people. - JoeBeardie, on 11/17/2008, -3/+15I find this review to be pretty damn harsh.
Though i only played co-op (though completed the entire game including zombie mode on this) I really enjoyed it. Perhaps solo might suck but co-op was truly awesome, especially when you are in the same room as the people you are playing with. One of the best multiplayer gaming experiences I've had in a very long time. - Brian994, on 11/17/2008, -0/+12Wow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_theater - Metalcard, on 11/17/2008, -0/+12Treyarch started planning the game before Infinity Ward announced CoD4 was Modern. By the time the announcement came CoD:WW was to far into development to switch it for something else, and they didn't want to anyway, they had planned on making a Pacific Campaign WWII game and they were going to see that they did.
- Dylson, on 11/17/2008, -2/+13Or any game for that matter.
- marmanukem, on 11/17/2008, -5/+16I am not shelling out $50 for a mod of COD4.
- MrBogard, on 11/17/2008, -1/+11It's hardly the same game. The weapons, movement, sound, level design honestly aren't as good as they are in COD4. I've played around 800 hours of COD4 MP, so I'd like to think that I'd recognize where Treyarch fell short. It's a *good* game, but COD4 is *great*.
Oh, and Kiefer needs to STFU. - ernasty10050, on 11/17/2008, -1/+11"Girl gamers" never get deeper than Peggle or Cooking Mama.
- Malchus89, on 11/17/2008, -0/+9I'll save my thunderous applause for the game devlopers that tackle the TRUE FPS era...
The Civil War. - philomatic, on 02/08/2009, -1/+104 player co-op and zombie mode are awesome. This review is wayyy too harsh
- staticneuron, on 11/17/2008, -0/+9It's ok Brian. Some people don't realize that WORLD WAR 2, was fought at various locals in the WORLD.
Some people think that the only bad guys was Germany. Ignorance is not bliss... it is ignorance. - petemorley, on 11/17/2008, -0/+9He said "the *****", not *****.
- 3rin, on 11/17/2008, -3/+11It simply looks like bad "skin" over CoD4, and the graphics look a lot less clean. Personally, I'm just waiting for my boyfriend to unlock the Zombie mode I've seen clips of. . .
- MonkeyNews, on 11/17/2008, -2/+10What a crybaby. Clearly this "reviewer" has an axe to grind against Treyarch. Apparently he thinks COD4 has some intricate, epic story that WAW failed upon. Personally I loved the Russian missions.
The problem is if Treyarch changed the multiplayer or used another engine or did anything too drastic the fans of the series would go ape-***** and go back to COD4. So they were forced to use what they had already - you can blame them
Overall this is a great game - campaign in fun. - spindigg, on 11/17/2008, -2/+10I was going to buy this based on how much I liked COD4. Sounds like I better rent this first!
- qpingu, on 11/17/2008, -2/+10It's not a bad game, but it brings nothing new to the series and can be faulted for portraying your enemies as demons. It's not CoD4, but is not much worse than CoD2 (at least for single player). I couldn't finish it, although playing coop with a friend was somewhat fun.
- Ii_0o_il, on 11/17/2008, -0/+8If this game developed by Treyarch, but was labeled developed by Infinity Ward, all yous thats rating this game as "another Treyarch game", would rate this game differently. Guaranteed
- Stettenbauer, on 11/17/2008, -3/+10This review sucked.If you are a COD fan you'll love it.
- cle2105, on 11/17/2008, -0/+7You're over 50, aren't you?
- Brian994, on 11/17/2008, -1/+7People that exaggerate like this are so lame
There is no way the game is that bad. At all. Not even close. "EPIC FAIL!!" Hardy harr harr. Dumbass. - mofficer, on 11/17/2008, -1/+7Co-op is great for the game.
One of the most overlooked and unused features in the multiplayer is the squad system. Treyarch recoded the spawning but it seems to be WORSE unless your in a squad. You will feel this game is much worse then cod4 unless you have a group of friends to play it with. The new things they added really shine with a little bit of teamwork, sadly theres very little teamwork in pub games since everyone just wants to run around and kill like they did in cod4.
Squad Able + Teamwork + Squad members with second chance + communication = Best multilayer experience, far better then cod4.
Then throw in vehicles and large maps with an objective game mode and you've got yourself a BF1942 feeling with all the polish of cod4.
You can make the game feel like quake by playing team deathmatch without squads, or you can make the game a tactical shooter, moreso then cod4 - MrBogard, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6That rule only started on COD3 though :)
Honestly, this game isn't as good as COD4, but it's much better than Treyarch's last Call of Duty. Hell, it's better than any game Treyarch has ever made. As far as I'm concerned they can co-exist. I'm playing COD4 still in a league, but I'm pubbing WAW on the side just to play something different. I doubt it will have the priors lasting power, but it will be fun for a while. - Browzer, on 11/17/2008, -1/+7You need to play the Left 4 Dead demo (be quick, because it will be disabled once the full game comes out tomorrow).
- xino, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6For anyone that cares, I found some thing interesting about the game from wikipedia.org
The PlayStation 2 version, titled Call of Duty: World at War - Final Fronts, differs significantly from the main versions. Developed by Rebellion Developments,[1] Final Fronts features 13 missions set near the end of World War II and provides a "companion experience" to World at War. Instead of only the U.S. campaign in the Pacific and the Soviet campaign in Eastern Europe, Final Fronts also includes a third campaign involving the British advance on the Rhine River. - GTanaka, on 11/17/2008, -2/+7Why not just unlock it yourself?
- IndigoMoss, on 11/17/2008, -6/+11There's absolutely no reason to play this game when Call of Duty 4 is out. If you want to play WWII shooter, Call of Duty 2 is superior in almost every way.
- edealeasy, on 11/17/2008, -2/+7I　love this game!!!!!!
- clickwir, on 11/17/2008, -0/+5At lot happened in WW2, it was going on for a long time, it's well documented, it happened just long enough ago that it's still in peoples minds yet far enough away to have lots of information about it and some disconnection.
I don't think I'd want to be reloading a blackpowder muzzle loader for the Civil War. - SpectreFire, on 11/17/2008, -3/+8The only problem I have with the game is that it's essentially a glorified mod. With Treyarch being a highly glorified mod team, and not even a good one at that. Real mod teams actually innovate and completely change the game. All Treyarch did was give it a new paint job.
Yes, WaW is not a bad game. It's a good game, but most of the greatness and polish of it came from Infinity Ward, not Treyarch.
You take a Porchse, give it a new paint job, and it'll definitely be great. But you don't attribute the greatness to the guy who did the paint job, you give it to the guy who designed and built the car.
So my conclusions is that WaW is a good game, but not worth $60, and it doesn't mean that Treyarch is a good developer. It just means they know how to make something look good. - MrBogard, on 11/17/2008, -0/+5No, yes, no.
- MrBogard, on 11/17/2008, -0/+5BF2 > 2142
- JoeRW, on 11/17/2008, -2/+7Wow, this reviewer is lame. This game is excellent. The single player is fantastic, the two stories make it very interesting and compelling. Im playing it on casual mode which is very enjoyable indeed. The graphics and textures are often eyepopping and the musical score and sounds are first class.
- asdflawejilf, on 11/17/2008, -3/+8this reviewer needs to stop crying. He didnt like the flame thrower!?!? you kidding me? i refused to give it up even when it wasnt practical. Grenades everywhere? sounds like he just dies too much and that pissed him off. Its no cod4 but its not that much worse. Ive played thousands of hours of everything from 2-5 and im looking forward to going home and playing 5 some more now.
- 0tis, on 11/17/2008, -2/+7This isn't a review, it's a rant. If the reviewer has trouble with the grenades, he should mention it and move on, but this takes up almost the entire review. I do see where he's coming from, but I personally haven't had nearly that much trouble with them - that's why there's a grenade indicator onscreen to tell you to get out of the way or throw it back.
CoD4 was a different game, but in my opinion if you ever liked the original Call of Duty games you should love this. It's not trying to be CoD4. It's not trying to match up to it in terms of plot. It's going for that feel of being one more anonymous soldier in a wave of people fighting for their lives.
If I have two criticisms of the game, the first would be that the first Russian episode does, despite what I said, try to rip off CoD4 a little bit, as well as being almost exactly the plot of Enemy at the Gates - but it's still awesome, and it's done well in WaW's style more than the style of CoD4.
The second would be the AI, which does have a tendency to only shoot at you - I have seen enemies standing two feet in front of my companion's face, firing at me six feet away and being ignored by my teammate. That's not what happens all the time, but it is consistent enough to be annoying.
Lastly, I have the game on Wii, so it will be different to the one PS3 and 360 users are playing in some small ways. - thejuggernaut11, on 11/17/2008, -1/+5Over 50 and a fatas
- mst3kcrow, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4Even #1?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 182 discussions
