Poll: Multiplayer Review - CoD World at War

Recommended Videos

wowcrendor

New member
Feb 19, 2009
154
0
0
I feel like way too many people and gaming sites base their reviews on single player. I believe a good portion of people would rather have an in depth look at the multi-player, since there are some of us that could care less about the campaign. That being said, my first review is Call of Duty: World at War.

I got the game on sale for 35 bucks (and that's about the max I would pay for it). After playing it on Xbox Live for a couple hours with my friends, it was fun, but something felt different from my CoD4 experience.

The games feels practically like an expansion to Call of Duty 4. I'll be using a CoD4 comparison as well, since most people that want this game will probably own CoD4. The graphics are the same, except they now have a WWII skin applied to them. There are new guns, maps, and now tanks have been added to the game. Although this may sound like it could be an excellent addition to the CoD series, it just doesn't play out that way (especially with all of the WWII games already out there).

First off, the maps are not very good. They are too open, and don't give you enough hiding spots. Don't get me wrong, they do have a lot of places to take cover, but they just don't feel the same as Call of Duty 4. For instance, take a map called "Dome". Dome is one of the smallest maps in the game, and it gives the impression of fighting in a giant cardboard box with 3 spawn points. Right off the start, I can stand without moving and throw a nade in whichever way I feel an enemy will run to, and kill at least one person. Although this is the smallest map, they all have that type of feel to them. They just aren't what Cod4 supplied us.

They have added a new prestige system, where you can unlock up to five bonus slots for gun customization. This would be a great idea, but there are only three guns I actually use for this game. The STG (almost like an M4), the PTRS-41 (sniper rifle), and the MP40. I would have went as far to give up my other two slots if it was possible. If this was CoD4 on the other hand, I would love this feature. I could easily fill up all 10 slots with customized guns, and still have even more ideas for gun customization.

Tanks are another big feature added to the game. The first time I was in a tank, it reminded me of the good ol' BF1942 days. I got to drive around blowing people up, and to be honest, they aren't that over-powered thanks to satchel charges (the equivalent of C4's). A couple satchel charges have the ability to take out a tank, or severely damage it when used right. You can also take out tanks with bazookas, but you need to put quite a few hits into a tank for that to happen.

The worst part by FAR about this game is the spawn points. These are some of the worst spawn points ever put into a video game I have ever seen. You can be shooting someone with your team at one point, and two seconds after you kill them, they have gotten behind you and head-shotted you. I believe the main cause of these spawn points is all of the factors put together. Bad map design, mixed in with fast paced killing and the occasional tank seems to have just made the spawn points almost unbearable.

Overall, this game isn't bad, but it feels like they took a step back from CoD4 (yes I know it was a different developer, so that also contributed to this since they made the game). It's a fun game from time to time, but definitely not the powerhouse online shooter that CoD4 was. If you can find this game on sale somewhere, then it might be a good buy, but I would go against paying full price for it.
 

cannot_aim

New member
Dec 18, 2008
392
0
0
I think that you should look at both in a review because a game shouldnt just have a good multiplayer. If the multiplayer is good they should put just as much effort into the single player and vice versa.

I really liked the single player and multiplayer of CoD 4 and really hated the single and multiplayter of CoD WaW. I dont know why but it seems like treyarch just didnt put much effort into either and they also went back to WWII which was a bad idea. The market is full of WWII games and treyarch did nothing to make it stand out. They took CoD 4 and just tried to make another game with minimal effort.

CoD WaW really just seemed like a cheap clone of CoD 4 but worse in every way.
 

yourbeliefs

Bored at Work
Jan 30, 2009
781
0
0
I found the multiplayer in CoD4 and WaW to rub me the wrong way. While I didn't think it was BAD in any way and while I could definitely see people eating the multiplayer scheme up like crack, the idea of rewarding players within a game by giving them more tools to push the other players back even more was not appealing to me.

Back to the subject, since it is really part of the package, I think that multiplayer should not be a separate review. It's become so standard amongst certain genres nowadays that simply NOT having one will often cost you some points, unless you make a game who's single player mode is so great that MP wouldn't add much (ie Bioshock, although I still think that a MP component would have been nice if the plasmids were balanced properly.)
 

wowcrendor

New member
Feb 19, 2009
154
0
0
Thanks for replying. I just feel like some games have a huge edge in one category over the other (single player - multi player). If a game has an amazing multiplayer, but just an average rating since it's single player was decent, I would like to be able to sort it out in a separate category. You could have a SP rating, and a MP rating. This way you could check both scores and judge if the game is right for you.
 

Valiance

New member
Jan 14, 2009
3,823
0
0
Your review seems pretty spot on, but I'm surprised you didn't mention dogs. Lol.

It's a good idea to have both, if you ask me, because multiplayer gives many players an incentive to keep playing the game. Also, easy user-modification usually helps too, but I suppose you can't really review a game based on mods for it, but the modding/mapping community for games like Starcraft are really what kept it alive so long. Pro players these days wouldn't be caught dead playing on a Blizzard map.
 

wowcrendor

New member
Feb 19, 2009
154
0
0
Valiance said:
Your review seems pretty spot on, but I'm surprised you didn't mention dogs. Lol.

It's a good idea to have both, if you ask me, because multiplayer gives many players an incentive to keep playing the game. Also, easy user-modification usually helps too, but I suppose you can't really review a game based on mods for it, but the modding/mapping community for games like Starcraft are really what kept it alive so long. Pro players these days wouldn't be caught dead playing on a Blizzard map.
Ah, Thank you for reminding me about that. Dogs I didn't find to be that bad honestly, my problem was the artillery took literally 20 seconds before it started falling. The enemies were gone by the time it would fall.
 

Avatar Roku

New member
Jul 9, 2008
6,169
0
0
yourbeliefs said:
I found the multiplayer in CoD4 and WaW to rub me the wrong way. While I didn't think it was BAD in any way and while I could definitely see people eating the multiplayer scheme up like crack, the idea of rewarding players within a game by giving them more tools to push the other players back even more was not appealing to me.

Back to the subject, since it is really part of the package, I think that multiplayer should not be a separate review. It's become so standard amongst certain genres nowadays that simply NOT having one will often cost you some points, unless you make a game who's single player mode is so great that MP wouldn't add much (ie Bioshock, although I still think that a MP component would have been nice if the plasmids were balanced properly.)
I see your point in the first paragraph. The beauty of that in CoD4 though, was that all the best guns (with the exception of my favorite, the G3, which is unlocked at level 25) were unlocked at the very beginning, or level 11 (the M4) on the outside. All the guns you got later were just more specialized, not better. A noob with an M16 would havve just as good a chance as a veteran with a G36c.

That isn't as true in W@W though. You start with two reasonably good guns (in my opinion, the SVT and BAR), but the best are unlocked later (STG, PTRS, PPSH). I did like the ability to make more custom slots though, as I could then have one slot for each class of gun plus an unscoped sniper (I tend to do challenges in a rotation, getting one attachment for each available gun in a given class before moving on within that class).
 

Brown Cap

New member
Jan 6, 2009
714
0
0
A lot of games lately have focused mainly on multiplayer design rather than the actual campaign or plot.
 

wowcrendor

New member
Feb 19, 2009
154
0
0
I should have made my poll contain the option "Single player and Multiplayer reviews seperately." I think it would be nice to have two overall scores to which you could choose your preference.
 

wowcrendor

New member
Feb 19, 2009
154
0
0
Pyromania192 said:
Your review feels incomplete at best, and like half a review at worst. While I think Multiplayer reviews have their place, I personally would want to see a really in-depth look at the multiplayer if your not going to mention the Campaign.

Your points you bring up about the maps being bad I couldn't agree with more. This game could have been made DLC.
Thanks for your opinion. This was just my first review, so I've learned from it and hope to build on that.
 

SLy AsymMetrY

New member
Feb 23, 2009
257
0
0
A game like CoD needs to have an in-depth review of both the campaign and multiplayer. One or the other is just half the story. Most people would agree about the spawn points but I hated the tanks alot more.
 

Lukeydoodly

New member
Sep 9, 2008
839
0
0
...And the games wonderful feature of not kicking out nubs with high pings.

lag=win amirite?

1 guy can take a tank solo, easy. The MP40 can snipe and does more damage than LMG's.
 

XJ-0461

New member
Mar 9, 2009
4,513
0
0
I think that reviews focusing only on the multiplayer mode would be a bad thing, just as reviews focusing on the single player mode would be. A good review would be one that mentions both evenly.
 

wowcrendor

New member
Feb 19, 2009
154
0
0
SLy AsymMetrY said:
A game like CoD needs to have an in-depth review of both the campaign and multiplayer. One or the other is just half the story. Most people would agree about the spawn points but I hated the tanks alot more.
Someone that doesn't play the campaign could care less if they had a review for the CoD campaign or not. I am one of those people that isn't big on single player, and would only like to know about the online experience. That's why I believe you don't "need" an in-depth review for both.
 

LEEROY59

New member
Mar 10, 2009
21
0
0
I did have high hopes for this game, but after playing to my almost 3rd prestige almost all joy for this gam ehas been lost. It is a signifigant step down from CoD4, even with the engine and things like that already worked out for it.
 

phar

New member
Jan 29, 2009
643
0
0
Multi review is nice. Not many reviews you read go through it so you could have a nice niche there.

Might want to state what platform and location your in for the review. Becasue someone playing it on 360 in the US will have a totally lag free experience while someone playing 360 in Aus will have constant ping of like 500 for most games (WaW has a local search option :) )