Poll: Call of Duty WAW

[theeconomy]

Here's my review of Call of Duty World at war. First of all I want to say it is a good game so don't let the rest of the review throw you off. The game starts off with the basic premice Japanese Bad. You Good. Now Shoot at them. No tutorial level for new players. No even hint at to what you are supposed to do. And because, I have the need to play through on Veteran the game devs decide "Well, let's knock this little prick down a few pegs. Think you can play through on veteran. Alright, every enemy has 50 granades and needs to use every one." Now the granade indicator is nice but, when there are five granades you don't have time to get away or throw them all back. It got to the point where I didn't need my own granades I'd do fine throwing them back.
Now controls, if you've ever played a FPS these are fairly intuitive. A for Jump, B for Duck, right trigger to shoot etc. Your character is fairly good on health and speed. But, one part that throws me off is the fact that when you are about to die you can just hide and your health comes back. If they really wanted to Impress me they'd put in a medic system like in the medal of honor series.
Level design is good, and as far as I can see it's accurate. But, the problem is everything is too dark, even with the brightness turned all the way up. Yes I know that war isn't all sunny but, don't the Japanese and Germains have to see also? I mean at least a flashlight would be nice.
Finally, Multiplayer the reason you buy a call of duty game. Plenty of servers mean that you will always find one open. Good levels well designed. Except for maybe Roundhouse, It's way too small for a tank. That brings me to this, I love the tanks, they give a whole new group dynamic you didn't get with the helicoptors. Speeking of which I could have done without the dogs, they get really annoying especially because, of their immense damage.

But, all in all apart from a few flaws Call of duty is a good game I give it a 4/5 and maybe a thumbs up sticker.

 

[Labyrinth]

I'm not sure if this is wanted, but it appears to be needed. Alas, here goes.

Here's my review of Call of Duty: World at War.
(Linebreak is your friend. It's and aesthetic quibble, but it's important to differenciate between title and work. Also, include the platform you played the game on, even it's an exclusive.)

First of all I want to say it is a good game. Don't let the rest of the review throw you off. (Supporting evidence? Examples?) The game starts off with the basic premise; Japanese bad, you good. Now shoot at them. No tutorial level for new players. No even hint at to what you are supposed to do. I have the need to play through on Veteran the game developers decided "Well, let's knock this little prick down a few pegs. Think you can play through on veteran? Alright, every enemy has 50 grenades and needs to use every one." Now the grenade (Second mistake, it's not spelt that way.) indicator is nice but when there are five grenades you don't have time to get away or throw them all back. It got to the point where I didn't need my own grenades I'd do fine throwing them back.
(Honestly, I can't quite see the point you're getting at about the grenades. It's not really well put. So far it seems to be more a rant than a review.)

Now controls. If you've ever played a FPS these are fairly intuitive. (Are you sure that's the right word? Sarcasm doesn't travel well just so you know.) A for Jump, B for Duck, right trigger to shoot etc. Your character is fairly good on health and speed, but one part that throws me off is the fact that when you are about to die you can just hide and your health comes back. (Grammar again. "But," is not a good way to start a sentence. More detail is needed here.) If they really wanted to impress me they'd put in a medic system like in the Medal of Honor series.

Level design is good, and as far as I can see it's accurate. The problem is everything is too dark, even with the brightness turned all the way up. Yes I know that war isn't all sunny but, don't the Japanese and Germans have to see also? I mean at least a flashlight would be nice. (The art, as ever, is in the details. You need more supporting evidence.)

Finally multiplayer; the reason you buy a Call of Duty game. Plenty of servers mean that you will always find one open. Good levels, well designed, except for maybe Roundhouse. It's way too small for a tank. (You need to work on you sentence structure for this. It's either too fragmented or too unruly for easy reading. That brings me to this; I love the tanks. They give a whole new group dynamic you didn't get with the helicopters. Speaking of which I could have done without the dogs. They get annoying because of their immense damage.
(You've got more detail here, which is good, but expand on that more. Not all your readers have played the game. A review is meant to explore the entire game so that those who haven't played it can have more material as to whether they should.

Apart from a few flaws Call of Duty: World At War is a good game I give it a 4/5 and maybe a thumbs up sticker.

This probably sounds like a broken record now but you need more detail. This is too short to really be a review, it's more of a rant. Feels like you've taken a leaf out of Zero Punctuation's book then dumped a bunch of random commas and full stops into it. A spelling and grammar check before you post is also a good idea.

 

[theeconomy]

Ok first of all, I wasn't being sarcastic. I think the problem is that text doesn't convey this. Secondly, Intuitive was used in the correct context. (dictionary.com)

In*tu"i*tive\, a. [Cf. F. intuitif.]

1. Seeing clearly; as, an intuitive view; intuitive vision.

2. Knowing, or perceiving, by intuition; capable of knowing without deduction or reasoning.

Whence the soul Reason receives, and reason is her being, Discursive, or intuitive. --Milton.

3. Received. reached, obtained, or perceived, by intuition; as, intuitive judgment or knowledge; -- opposed to deductive. --Locke.

Also, I admit I should have used spell check and that was my fault. However, it doesn't seem to be your place to point out every mistake on a message board. In addition, this is my first post in this forum my posts will get better as time goes on. I appriciate the input. (Not sarcasm) Finally, you forgot a comma before "but".

 

[ZP---Fanatic]

3/5...Not good not bad.

 

[bue519]

An alright review. But, you could have put more into the multiplayer aspect as that probably the best one of the game.
PS
Tanks did not replace helis.
Dogs did.

 

[bue519]

2/5. It's incredibly annoying, the allies are idiots, the enemy can shoot you from 100ft away, and the story is unoriginal. They just made another WW2 game, but more annoying.

Wait are you talking about Halo 3?
No just kidding. But seriously you don't buy this game for its amazing single player. The multiplayer is the only way to justify this games purchase.

 

[Gxas]

2/5. It's incredibly annoying, the allies are idiots, the enemy can shoot you from 100ft away, and the story is unoriginal. They just made another WW2 game, but more annoying.

Wait are you talking about Halo 3?
No just kidding. But seriously you don't buy this game for its amazing single player. The multiplayer is the only way to justify this games purchase.

If you buy a game solely for multiplayer then you don't get the full experience. Besides, not everyone can afford or even wants to play online.

 

[bue519]

2/5. It's incredibly annoying, the allies are idiots, the enemy can shoot you from 100ft away, and the story is unoriginal. They just made another WW2 game, but more annoying.

Wait are you talking about Halo 3?
No just kidding. But seriously you don't buy this game for its amazing single player. The multiplayer is the only way to justify this games purchase.

If you buy a game solely for multiplayer then you don't get the full experience. Besides, not everyone can afford or even wants to play online.

Afford? Wait what? You mean for xbox live right? Well, you know there are other platforms that this game is on where the multiplayer is free. And I'm not talking about buying a game solely for its multiplayer. But, the multiplayer is really half to the game, so we should expect it to be good. Look at Bioshock, great single player story. But, you can only replay it so much, where multiplayer adds new value to an old game. (look at all the people still playing Halo 2)
And please don't bring stuff like "they can't afford it" when online is usually free.

 

[sebar nl]

Did everyone forgot about the awesome Nazi-Zombie mode??

 

[bue519]

2/5. It's incredibly annoying, the allies are idiots, the enemy can shoot you from 100ft away, and the story is unoriginal. They just made another WW2 game, but more annoying.

Wait are you talking about Halo 3?
No just kidding. But seriously you don't buy this game for its amazing single player. The multiplayer is the only way to justify this games purchase.

Seeing as if you're a new player and everyone will kill you because they have better guns and perks kind of dampens the experience for me.

Well, I would have to disagree with you there. Because there is a mode in COD5 atleast on the PS3, not sure about the xbox and pc, called boot camp where you can play with other people starting out like you. Also players of higher levels are prevented from playing this mode. So I'm just wondering but have you even played this game before?

 

[Red Dragon414]

3/5.. the single player was O.K. multiplayer is garbage. The tanks BLOW,if it takes more than the number of RPGS you have, it shouldnt be in the game, and dogs are ok, not hard to get around, and there are hardly any attachments for the guns. The levels promote TOO many campers. I like the zombie nazi's but it gets boring after a while.

 

[wowcrendor]

CoD4 > WaW

 

[Bat Vader]

Here's my review of Call of Duty World at war. First of all I want to say it is a good game so don't let the rest of the review throw you off. The game starts off with the basic premice Japanese Bad. You Good. Now Shoot at them. No tutorial level for new players. No even hint at to what you are supposed to do. And because, I have the need to play through on Veteran the game devs decide "Well, let's knock this little prick down a few pegs. Think you can play through on veteran. Alright, every enemy has 50 granades and needs to use every one." Now the granade indicator is nice but, when there are five granades you don't have time to get away or throw them all back. It got to the point where I didn't need my own granades I'd do fine throwing them back.
Now controls, if you've ever played a FPS these are fairly intuitive. A for Jump, B for Duck, right trigger to shoot etc. Your character is fairly good on health and speed. But, one part that throws me off is the fact that when you are about to die you can just hide and your health comes back. If they really wanted to Impress me they'd put in a medic system like in the medal of honor series.
Level design is good, and as far as I can see it's accurate. But, the problem is everything is too dark, even with the brightness turned all the way up. Yes I know that war isn't all sunny but, don't the Japanese and Germains have to see also? I mean at least a flashlight would be nice.
Finally, Multiplayer the reason you buy a call of duty game. Plenty of servers mean that you will always find one open. Good levels well designed. Except for maybe Roundhouse, It's way too small for a tank. That brings me to this, I love the tanks, they give a whole new group dynamic you didn't get with the helicoptors. Speeking of which I could have done without the dogs, they get really annoying especially because, of their immense damage.

But, all in all apart from a few flaws Call of duty is a good game I give it a 4/5 and maybe a thumbs up sticker.

You sound like the Angry Video Game Nerd. COD: WAW = awesome game.

 

[walker.au]

It was fun amusing.. finished much 2 quickly on normal.. if on sunday night I lean back in post gaming bliss, it was too quick..
nazi Zombies are amusing.. and it is quick relief instead of attacking a whole level.
Modern warfare 2 comes in November... it will be mind-blowingly awesome.
3/5 not as good as COD4... certainly no HL2

 

[sneak_copter]

2/5. It's incredibly annoying, the allies are idiots, the enemy can shoot you from 100ft away, and the story is unoriginal. They just made another WW2 game, but more annoying.

Are you talking about Killzone 2...
Oh yeah, that other guy already did it.

Anyway, it gets a 2/5 from me.
You should have mentioned the instant death that comes from behind in the levels. Dying from unknown threats is not good design.