I'm sad to say that is probably one of your weaker reviews. I can understand the points you're trying to emphasise but your choice of words escapes me in places. Here's what I mean:
Treyarch were given this one chance to prove they can create a successful Call of Duty game, after the series was handed permanently to Infinity Ward. Have Treyarch managed to create a masterpiece, a game that, according to interviews, is the "best game Treyarch have ever created"?.
Repeating Treyarch so much is making a mess of the word flow here. Read it aloud to yourself and you'll hear that it's a touch off. My suggestion would be:
Before the reins to the series were handed to Infinity Ward for good, Treyarch were given a final chance to show what they can do with Call of Duty: World at War, and now it's here is it really what critics are heralding as the finest game they've ever created? Note: I hate cliffhangers, so here I would make a generalised answer to the question e.g. Well, sort of. However, it's a personal choice in the end.
The game follows the adventures of a private in the American Army during the raid on the Japanese who goes by the name Miller.
I'd contest you on that. Yes, his name is Miller and yes, he's in the U.S. Marines, however you'd be more correct in saying that he's a U.S. Soldier in the Pacific Theatre of War. The Raid on the Makin Island is just the first mission, so you could get away with saying that the game opens with a raid on Makin Island and then elaborate on where the campaign goes from there if you wanted.
What's interesting about the storyline is the way the two events parallel each other. Despite these battles taking place in different decades (as a result different guns are used) it easy to see what kind of tale Treyarch are looking to tell. That war never really changes. For example; events such as pushing foreword on an enemy stronghold or sneaking around through enemy bases are similar.
Very confusing paragraph. The first sentence here reads out like: "What's interesting about this singular thing is how they parallel each other." Which is nonsensical. You'd easily fix that by saying something along the lines of "What's interesting about the storyline is how much it parallels that of Modern Warfare."
Read it out loud to yourself. it's the easiest way to pick up your mistakes. If it sounds bad, it reads bad. I personally think COD: WAW's story is a far cry from Modern Warfare's, but you're entitled to your opinion, and to be honest, I gave up on World at War after the 3rd or fourth Japanese mission. I've no idea why Treyarch had to be so scripting-happy. At times it felt a bit like you were there to hit the "more enemies" tripwires and then burn down a couple of waves.
Keep trying. You do some good stuff.
Treyarch were given this one chance to prove they can create a successful Call of Duty game, after the series was handed permanently to Infinity Ward. Have Treyarch managed to create a masterpiece, a game that, according to interviews, is the "best game Treyarch have ever created"?.
Repeating Treyarch so much is making a mess of the word flow here. Read it aloud to yourself and you'll hear that it's a touch off. My suggestion would be:
Before the reins to the series were handed to Infinity Ward for good, Treyarch were given a final chance to show what they can do with Call of Duty: World at War, and now it's here is it really what critics are heralding as the finest game they've ever created? Note: I hate cliffhangers, so here I would make a generalised answer to the question e.g. Well, sort of. However, it's a personal choice in the end.
The game follows the adventures of a private in the American Army during the raid on the Japanese who goes by the name Miller.
I'd contest you on that. Yes, his name is Miller and yes, he's in the U.S. Marines, however you'd be more correct in saying that he's a U.S. Soldier in the Pacific Theatre of War. The Raid on the Makin Island is just the first mission, so you could get away with saying that the game opens with a raid on Makin Island and then elaborate on where the campaign goes from there if you wanted.
What's interesting about the storyline is the way the two events parallel each other. Despite these battles taking place in different decades (as a result different guns are used) it easy to see what kind of tale Treyarch are looking to tell. That war never really changes. For example; events such as pushing foreword on an enemy stronghold or sneaking around through enemy bases are similar.
Very confusing paragraph. The first sentence here reads out like: "What's interesting about this singular thing is how they parallel each other." Which is nonsensical. You'd easily fix that by saying something along the lines of "What's interesting about the storyline is how much it parallels that of Modern Warfare."
Read it out loud to yourself. it's the easiest way to pick up your mistakes. If it sounds bad, it reads bad. I personally think COD: WAW's story is a far cry from Modern Warfare's, but you're entitled to your opinion, and to be honest, I gave up on World at War after the 3rd or fourth Japanese mission. I've no idea why Treyarch had to be so scripting-happy. At times it felt a bit like you were there to hit the "more enemies" tripwires and then burn down a couple of waves.
Keep trying. You do some good stuff.
