AnotherSchmoe wrote:I'm at 8% downloading mine now, just got my code about 10 minutes ago! Can't wait, MUCHO RESPECT to Treyarch, this game looks amazing from everything I've seen so far. When I first heard that Treyarch was making CoD5, and in WW2 again I was a sad, sad panda. But in the last month or so my views have been drastically changed!
superledger wrote: AnotherSchmoe wrote:I'm at 8% downloading mine now, just got my code about 10 minutes ago! Can't wait, MUCHO RESPECT to Treyarch, this game looks amazing from everything I've seen so far. When I first heard that Treyarch was making CoD5, and in WW2 again I was a sad, sad panda. But in the last month or so my views have been drastically changed!Just be prepared to be shocked. You'll feel like a lone soldier ina strange place. It feels quite real.Once you get used to it a bit, you'll recognise it as being a beautiful creation. I dont get the COD4 v WAW debate. It's apparent that they are VERY different games. There'll be room for both games in the lives of true COD fans.Poeple may miss aspects of the Modern era but there's no doubting that, technically, this is a much superior game to COD4.have a ball.
AnotherSchmoe wrote: superledger wrote: AnotherSchmoe wrote:I'm at 8% downloading mine now, just got my code about 10 minutes ago! Can't wait, MUCHO RESPECT to Treyarch, this game looks amazing from everything I've seen so far. When I first heard that Treyarch was making CoD5, and in WW2 again I was a sad, sad panda. But in the last month or so my views have been drastically changed!Just be prepared to be shocked. You'll feel like a lone soldier ina strange place. It feels quite real.Once you get used to it a bit, you'll recognise it as being a beautiful creation. I dont get the COD4 v WAW debate. It's apparent that they are VERY different games. There'll be room for both games in the lives of true COD fans.Poeple may miss aspects of the Modern era but there's no doubting that, technically, this is a much superior game to COD4.have a ball.Oh, no doubt! I didn't mean that I didn't like the WW2 era games, I LOVED the original CoD. I was just disappointed in Treyarch's outing with CoD3. So initially I was very skeptic (before there was gameplay footage etc.) but I am super hyped now, looks FANTASTIC from everything I've seen, will definitely be getting this game. Download at 16% now!!! LOL see you guys soon.
UFOGoldorak wrote:By far the worst spawn system in any game i've ever played to date.. Some of the replays are absolutely chocking to watch, they might as well save everyone time and just award the other player a kill without it spawning me. Other than that, good game.
UFOGoldorak wrote:By far the worst spawn system in any game i've ever played to date.
Agreed
The spawns need a fixin'.
Call of Duty:WW is a great game.
The weapons are very balanced, each weapon has it's power and weakness. The sniper is easy to use and the bolt-action rifles are good for long-range only. The variety of grenades are pretty good, they have added a Flare, which is where you can light up a whole section of a night-time map and give the location away of the enemy. The frags seem to have a less damage radius and the molotov cocktails are deadly.
The vehicles seem pretty useless to me, there is only one map in the Beta you can use a vehicle (tank). It's hard to control and when you're in it, you practically have a target on your head the whole time. You can always see where the tank is on your radar, so when you're in the tank, it's hard to find someone, because everyone hides (unless they have an Rockets). The tanks are fun, but if your want fast kills without driving around for five minutes, I wouldn't recommend getting into one.
The kill streaks are good too, here's a breakdown of them
The maps are very detailed and think they're great.
Makin: My favorite map, I usually get 200-300 points on this map every game. It's the small map in the beta and it has different variation all through the map; one half is maze-like and the other half is open with many buildings to protect you from a surprising air-strike. It's a night-time map, which really does affect seeing someone instantly, the players really blend in with the environment.
Castle: This is a also a great map. It's the medium sized map in the beta. It's mostly like a "protect the high ground" map with many open areas and trenches. There are about three entrances to every building, so if you're planning to get countless sniper sprees on one spot, I wouldn't count on it.
Roundhouse: This is a great map for snipers and bolt-action guns. It's the large map in the beta. It has many high sniper spots and this is the map with the two tanks.
Capture the Flag and War are the two new gametypes that were not in CoD4. War is a great gametype that can last pretty long and it' my favorite gametype in the beta. CTF is standard CTF, there is a flag at each base, and you must grab the flag and bring it to your base. Team Deathmatch, Free-for-all and Mercenary Team Deathmatch also made a return in the beta.
The spawn points are annoying, sometimes, it will bring you in the middle of the fight and by time you know where you are, you're dead.
The perks and barracks are much like CoD4, but with some differences. It has new and different perks, one for example is where you can revive your teammate if he is in Last Stand mode and many others.
CoD : World at War beta is good.
The end.
My review
this game is awesome and I drank way to much beer and stayed up way to late playing it
Alvis2021 wrote: My review this game is awesome and I drank way to much beer and stayed up way to late playing it
LOL + =
WadeoV2 wrote:CoD : World @ War betta ar gud. teh edn.
CoD : World @ War betta ar gud.
teh edn.
Who has won when we're all dead?
I TV Casualty I wrote:People that quote themselves in their sig usually end up being arrogant, pompous jerks.
Aegis of Sparta wrote:My review of Call of Duty: World at War.Call of Duty 4, with improved sounds and graphics, and WW2 weapons... oh... and vehicles... that's about it.
Just my opinion, but the game (beta) feels cod4 copycat, overdone, it's a WW2. Like those signal flares are supposed to be flashbangs, and poison nades stuns. First time i picked up a Thompson with that silly sight i just started laughing when i took aim and saw that stupid thing on it. Small maps so full of stuff they feel like labyrints. Campers galore when these awfull people get the game on their greasy fat fingers, just imagine that dark map in hardcore. All these perks and silly attachments just to kiss some cod4 fanboy ***. Hit detection BLOWS. Instead of fixing the horrible hit detecion they threw in all this unnecessary crap. Garbage hit detection = Garbage shooter.
Martyrdom will be there.
darkstlkr wrote:Just got my code this game will kisk major @55
Where did you get your code?
Greeny400 wrote: darkstlkr wrote:Just got my code this game will kisk major @55 Where did you get your code?
Cod4 vip signed up at cod.com and they said I was a vip
WadeoV2 wrote: CoD : World at War beta is good. The end.
glad 2 hear it
Neillydun wrote:I have to agree with an earlier poster, it is basically a reskinned version of CoD4, with all the faults of CoD4 as well. It looks like absolutely no development was made on the networking side of the game. It still has:No Host Migration Lousy Hit DetectionPoor Matchmaking (even when using the Local option)With regards to matchmaking, I'm sorry but a ping test is only valid for determining two things. 1) That a machine is available, and 2) measuring a round-trip time...i.e. giving an idea of your location to host. It says absolutely nothing about how a host will perform when handling actual game traffic. I saw quite a few times last night that hosts were picked that could not support this traffic, causing major lag during things like airstrikes, etc.This failure in matchmaking also impacts on the hit detection, which from all available evidence is still server side. Which would be fine, if the servers were actually capable.Finally, these failures in networking, are, imho, the reason why juggernaut is so annoying, even when using stopping power. What you have basically implemented/copied is a lag multiplier. One thing that could improve the situation is to do a bandwidth test for each user. Either a one-off measurement or every time they make a connection to the matchmaking servers (When they select Xbox Live from the menu), and using this as a metric in combination with ping, do determine a suitable host. Ideally, you should have stuck with the P2P model you had in CoD3, and developed it further, and do away with the single host problem altogether.It would be an understatement to say I'm disappointed.
DARIUS112 wrote:Do they have a crayon setting so I can explain things better for you?