Poll: Call of Duty WAW

Recommended Videos

theeconomy

New member
Apr 6, 2009
62
0
0
gof22 said:
theeconomy said:
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.
Yea umm I actually said right at the start that I liked it and I gave it a 4/5 soo think you read someone else's review. Oh and zombie mode I totally blanked. Great! Lots of fun to play with friends.
 

dcheppy

New member
Dec 8, 2008
331
0
0
Reviews don't need numbers, especially user reviews. It's a pet peeve of mine. Numbers are for professional critics to please their editors. These scores only attribute to the dumbing down of opinion. Let your opinion stand for yourself. I get tired of writing these little mini-rants on scores, but lets just imagine for a second you didn't have a score at the end of your review. All of a sudden you'd have to explain why you liked it and why, and not just complain about the aspects you didn't like. All of a sudden you have a review, not a rant with a score.
 

TaborMallory

New member
May 4, 2008
2,382
0
0
I would have given it 2/5 for being a prettier Call of Duty 3, but the nazi zombie mini game gave it an extra point.
 

Spyalt

New member
Apr 11, 2009
199
0
0
Hmm I have to disagree with you about the tanks. Personally I'm glad roundhouse is small because it makes it easier for those of us not in a tank to kill it.
 

NeedAUserName

New member
Aug 7, 2008
3,803
0
0
I gave it three. Mainly because the Russian missions were fun, and something I personally hadn't played before. And the obvious CoD4 multiplayer rip off, was still OK, but not terribly good.

I called it a rip off because it wasn't the same development teams, so they used something strong from the previous game, made by other people and shamelessly added a few guns, took away a few guns and added tanks.
 

Scratcher

New member
Mar 27, 2009
52
0
0
needausername said:
I called it a rip off because it wasn't the same development teams, so they used something strong from the previous game, made by other people and shamelessly added a few guns, took away a few guns and added tanks.
They improved on the quality of maps for multiplayer a thousand fold.
 

Mike_Bennett

New member
Apr 11, 2009
33
0
0
I have a couple problems with multiplayer, it just doesn't feel like classic CoD. Not better, worse.
 

NeedAUserName

New member
Aug 7, 2008
3,803
0
0
Scratcher said:
needausername said:
I called it a rip off because it wasn't the same development teams, so they used something strong from the previous game, made by other people and shamelessly added a few guns, took away a few guns and added tanks.
They improved on the quality of maps for multiplayer a thousand fold.
I personally thought the maps were all awful, except Asylum(?) and Train Yard(?). They were average, but the rest were just bad.
 

Bat Vader

Elite Member
Mar 11, 2009
4,997
2
41
Spyalt said:
gof22 said:
You sound like the Angry Video Game Nerd. COD: WAW = awesome game.
Well aren't you mature.
Thank you for noticing my immaturity, too bad it was what everyone else noticed long ago. I name you henceforth, Captain of thee obvious. Also, I don't care if I am immature or not. Your assumptions don't bother me in the slightest.
 

Spyalt

New member
Apr 11, 2009
199
0
0
gof22 said:
Spyalt said:
gof22 said:
You sound like the Angry Video Game Nerd. COD: WAW = awesome game.
Well aren't you mature.
Thank you for noticing my immaturity, too bad it was what everyone else noticed long ago. I name you henceforth, Captain of thee obvious. Also, I don't care if I am immature or not. Your assumptions don't bother me in the slightest.
It's not an assumption. From your reply I can tell I was right first time, you are an immature troll.
 

Bat Vader

Elite Member
Mar 11, 2009
4,997
2
41
Spyalt said:
gof22 said:
Spyalt said:
gof22 said:
You sound like the Angry Video Game Nerd. COD: WAW = awesome game.
Well aren't you mature.
Thank you for noticing my immaturity, too bad it was what everyone else noticed long ago. I name you henceforth, Captain of thee obvious. Also, I don't care if I am immature or not. Your assumptions don't bother me in the slightest.

It's not an assumption. From your reply I can tell I was right first time, you are an immature troll.
Actually, I am not a troll. I was just stating my opinion. Trolls are people who say first post and s**t. I don't do that stuff. I have given my opinions that is all. Also, the angry video game nerd is a real critic. Look him up pretty funny actually.

Also, no one said anything about me trolling till you came on. Why is it they did not care but you did? It is like you are trying to act like a white knight or something. As stated before your opinions could be wrong. Because I may have trolled on this topic doesn't mean I have on the other forum topics. And to call me immature is another assumption. I could be mature in life but not on the internet, but then again you don't know me in real life and sou you have no real right making opinions.

Just stating my opinions on the subject. Also, if I did troll it wasn't my intent to but since you said it was would you of not have trolled as well?
 

Bat Vader

Elite Member
Mar 11, 2009
4,997
2
41
I do enjoy COD: World at War. It is a very fun and stimulating game experience. The story line draws you in. I have however not been able to play multiplayer with anybody.
 

eatenbyagrue

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,064
0
0
I'm going to take a few pages out of EGM's book on this.

Is it a good game? Yes. Are there any problems with it? Not really. So why'd I only give it a 4/5?

It didn't "wow" me. There, I said. There were moments, yes (the end of "Ring of Steel", and the part in one of the Berlin missions where you're fighting through a couple of buildings and "Dies Irae" starts playing from nowhere), but it just lacked a certain factor that would've made it a 5/5 game.
 

Inco

Swarm Agent
Sep 12, 2008
1,117
0
0
I find it funny how some people can complain about being killed too often online to continue playing World at War, blaming the 'unlockable weapons' and perks as the reason behind it all. Well unfortunately i have to point out that the perks 'camouflage', 'stopping power', 'bomb squad' and others in that range are unlocked fairly early on (maybe 1-2 hours game play for the average gamer for the first 2) and can be fully used to your advantage if you use their qualities correctly. Though at the other end of the spectrum, you have abilities like 'shades' and 'gas mask' which only become useful in specific situations and are basically useless otherwise.

I enjoyed World at War with 'search Local' setting being the best in any game i have played online. So while some of you guys say that you are 'reviewing' games, when you are actually just ranting, i will playing this game on Xbox live and actually enjoying it.
 

gamma526

New member
Apr 11, 2009
39
0
0
I play this game a lot at my friends' houses and all they every want to do is play the setting were you fight Nazi zombies. 3/5 for me.