Whats wrong with COD: WAW?

[Insanum]

Well - COD4 was new, Its was a step forward (as has been said) in the CoD Genre.

I had a feeling CoD4 would be big because when it was first announced i hated the principle "CoD is about WW2! Its going to fail!"...And it proved me wrong.

However CoD5 just seems to be like a fancy CoD3 (which was awesome incidently), The Dogs are... possibly the most annoying creation on the face of gaming (after the blue shell of death) and yet still, when you can play it well, its very good fun.

Anyone else notice that you rarely win by a short amount, You either Own or be Owned.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

Don't be a total jackass.
Check out my PSN, and look at the trophies I have for it. *Owned*
The maps are simply shit. No two ways about it, why else are there the grenade barrages at beginning of games? And the graphics are shit. Not exactly Resistance 2 or Killzone 2 by a long shot.
And the multiplayer is broken because the higher level you are the better guns you get. Better guns means more kills. More kills means dogs. That's flat out retarded.

Ok, sorry for being a jackass, just got caught up in the moment.

Some of the greatest maps in Counter Strike allows grenade barrages at the beginning of games (dust, dust 2, aztec, etc), doesn't make them any less epic. Nothing is exactly KZ2 by a long shot, imo. But some will argue that it looks good, especially since this is a WaW vs COD4 thread, in which case, the graphics are pretty much similar, thus a moot point.

I don't see that higher levels give better guns. Higher level gives different guns, but I still prefer lower level guns, just like COD4.

For me, it's not as evolutionary as COD4. WaW is just playing it too safe, so it seems like a reskinned COD4 with minor tweaks. But still, I loved COD4, so more of the same but a little bit better is welcome for me.

 

[Thegoodfriar]

TANKS!

 

[Thegoodfriar]

Oh and the massive amount of glitchy, unprofessional work of Treyarch.

 

[Coolness]

It's a re-skin of CoD4, multiplayer wise. Yes, different guns...whatever, not that different. Very minor fixes like the handling of the knife.

Campaign is everything you could expect a WWII shooter to be. Considering the bar for such a genre is so low, I thought the campaign was average.

It's not terrible...more of a step sidewise from Cod4, which is superior in my opinion.

 

[TaborMallory]

Really? Seriously???

Call of Duty 5 was nothing more than Call of Duty 3 with pretty graphics and a zombie mini game.

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

Because the only thing about the game that hadn't been done before was nazi zombies, and that borrowed heavily from left 4 dead.

 

[Tdc2182]

It was to much of a copy of cod4. And it felt to much like cod3, which was a horrible game. The flamethrower is annoying, because it takes no skill, and wtf did they put a tank in the game

 

[PoToGo]

Why do people have this huge hatred for this game all of a sudden. Pretty much every one is saying is rubbish but I dont see whats wrong with it. Yes cod 4 is better I don't deny that but its still a great game.

Fanboys heard it wasn't made by Infinity Ward, and since Treyarch didn't do so well on COD3, it's rubbish. I was under the impression that WAW was running the same engine as COD4. Shouldn't really be any graphical difference.

I think the most ligitimate reason would be that it went back to WWII. I'd rather have a P90 myself.

 

[Captainguy42]

No innovation, it's just a COD4 WWII total conversion mod, with a Zombie Mod tacked on.

 

[quack35]

Its A.C.R.O.N.Y.M. I.S. T.O.O. L.O.N.G.

 

[Turtleboy1017]

Hell, when I played CoD WaW I could have SWORN I was playing CoD 4... Are you telling me those were two different games?? So that's why the scenery was so different...

 

[CoziestPigeon]

Because the AI is awful, the maps are linear, the multiplayer is broken, the graphics suck and the entire game feels like a giant step backwards in the FPS genre.
It does nothing well but a lot of things badly.

AI is ok. Maps in COD games are always linear. Multiplayer is broken (stupid tanks). Graphics is as good as COD4, if not better (which is pretty good). It did everything well, but 1 thing badly, but it's so bad, that a lot of people now hate it (stupid tanks). And dogs>helicopters at least to me.

If you're going to criticize a game, at least pretend you've played it.

Yeah, no. The AI is pretty retarded, the maps are extra linear, such as half the levels being in trenches, meaning you follow this one narrow path. The graphics ARE (not is) are nothing new, definitely not better.

But the dogs are more fun than the helicopter, only because you can kill the dogs easily.

 

[Insanum]

I'd Disagree about dogs being easier to kill than the chopper, Although the chopper was (on occasion) a ***** to hit with an RPG.

Anyone think if they'd released WaW then MW then this'd be a completely different thread?

 

[TundraWolf]

If you want a good WWII FPS, go play Call of Duty 2.

World at War was decent, but it was just a clone of Modern Warfare, in every sense of the word. The multiplayer perks were awesome in MW, and it's good to see that they carried them over through the series, so I have no quarrel with that. But there are quite a number of things about the game itself that make me cringe whenever I see it.

One of the things that really bugged me was the needless addition of the Death Card things. Yeah, exploration side-quests are a standard part of games these days, but, in my opinion, they have no place in a WWII shooter. Especially not one that ends up being as frantic as Call of Duty. "Jesus, five Japanese soldiers! Duck into cov-- What the hell?" Seriously.

Overall, the story was very flat. Now, yes, I know the WWII story has been done to death. We all know how it ended, and we have all single-handedly been the cause of the Allied victory about fifty times over by now. However, if you look back at how the Call of Duty franchise has delivered it's story in the past, you can only sort of stare in shock and awe as World At War gives you a completely bland retelling of the story. There's no big shocks, really, nothing that grips you and compels you to continue playing, other than the desire to finish the game.

The graphics are a step backwards, at least when compared to Modern Warfare. Yeah, the flamethrower effect looks sweet, but have you actually ever stopped to watch the trees and grass burn? It looks pathetic. Admittedly, no fire effects can look as nice as Far Cry 2, but they could've at least touched it up a bit.

Seriously, though, they cut a lot of corners in the development of the game, and I can explain it all away with two words: Kiefer Sutherland. Yep, Mr. Jack Bauer, while a welcome (if not confusing) presence in an otherwise bland game, is the reason that World At War isn't as polished as it's predecessors. I don't know how much they paid him, but the other Call of Duty games got along amazingly without big-name actors voicing characters (with the exception of Jason Statham in the original, but that was before he was famous), so it was obviously too much.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

The gameplay is exactly the same as COD4.

Same engine, yes, but the gameplay is not the same. The guns feel different (which is fine), tanks are cheap (and I use them to great advantage), running is slow and clunky, grenades (thrown and rifle-mounted) are nerfed, shotguns are useless, maps are more campy than ever, etc. etc. etc. They are indeed similar games, but you can tell the difference.

Call of Duty III, which I find the best WWII shooter still to this day.

lulz, I think if there was ever proof that an opinion could be wrong, this statement would probably be it

 

[Egad101]

I'm pretty sure everybody hates on it because saying "It's decent but COD4 was way better" isn't cool. You have to remember that it's cool to hate. All the haters have sexy hair, black shirts and leather pants so don't come in here with your logical reasons for why it's a fun game with some defects that should have been avoided.

 

[Shapsters]

Last I checked, sequels are supposed to improve upon the older game, which this one in no way did.

Also, how does anyone say the graphics are the same as 4? I don't think it is even close, I think CoD4 has much better graphics.

EDIT-And the veteran difficulty!? Was that even supposed to be beatable?! I really think that was stupidly hard, you were trapped way to much with a barrage of grenades and one bullet to kill you. With the difficulty level that it was there was way to much get cornered and fight your way out moments.