totalpardo wrote:

 Rokossovsky wrote:

 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.

You think the graphics and sound improved???

i agree with your sarcasm.  however, i will hold off on totally backing your opinion until i see all the maps.

Yeah, for some reason it just seems better than COD4 with graphics and sound.

---

Let's Go Chicago!
Let's Go Boise!
Let's Go Portland!

 I TV Casualty I wrote:

 Flak Falcon wrote:

 A Funky Milkman wrote:

 Flak Falcon wrote:

 A Funky Milkman wrote:

9/10.

-1 for silly spawns and useless bolts unless scoped.

-Funky

Wait the bolts magically do more damage when you put a scope on them?

When you scope when you have the scope on the bolt, yes.

-Funky

That makes no sense...

It does. He just used the first instance of "scope" as a verb instead of a noun 

No I understood what he said, I'm saying it makes no sense that putting a scope on a gun magically makes it more powerful.

---

And then there was silence...

 Flak Falcon wrote:

 I TV Casualty I wrote:

 Flak Falcon wrote:

 A Funky Milkman wrote:

 Flak Falcon wrote:

 A Funky Milkman wrote:

9/10.

-1 for silly spawns and useless bolts unless scoped.

-Funky

Wait the bolts magically do more damage when you put a scope on them?

When you scope when you have the scope on the bolt, yes.

-Funky

That makes no sense...

It does. He just used the first instance of "scope" as a verb instead of a noun 

No I understood what he said, I'm saying it makes no sense that putting a scope on a gun magically makes it more powerful.

Ah. I agree. I think that has confounded most Beta players... myself included.

Choo choo quote train.

---

 I TV Casualty I wrote:

People that quote themselves in their sig usually end up being arrogant, pompous jerks.

Its damn good!  Will be even better when it goes gold.  This game is  a winner, period.

---

Del mas profundo parte del corazon, solo un grito, Hala Madrid!

 I TV Casualty I wrote:

 ExiledJoker wrote:

Cons-
All guns available to both sides- Now some may say this makes it balanced, but that is utter hogwash. It worked fine in COD2&3 and really gives the weaker weapons no place once you unlock the guns later on.

Did it? Maybe in CoD2, but in 3, the only thing you need to say to refute that statement is "MP44 vs. BAR."

Wait just a second there. Everyone said that the BAR was a better gun. No, not necessarily.

BAR:

Long range > Close range


MP44:

Close range > Long range

People automatically assumed the BAR was better because it had better range. It sucked at close range, as to the MP44 tearing down groups of enemies.

---

Fire, Fear, Fury.

Formally:
Shank 4 Giggles
BnB | Kar98k

8.5/10 so far...to give perspective COD2-7/10, COD3-8/10, COD4-10/10

---

Action Figure Fight League
I need vodka!

 Neillydun wrote:

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.

I strongly disagree, myself and thousands upon thousands of others had major problems connecting to games in CoD3.  Sometimes I would sit for 20 minutes before getting to play a 5 minute game.  In CoD4 / WaW at least I can pick up and play and get into games within a couple of seconds.  And I hardly ever experience any sort of lag whatsoever in these 2 games.

---

http://www.youtube.com/user/AnotherSchmoe

 AnotherSchmoe wrote:

 Neillydun wrote:

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.

I strongly disagree, myself and thousands upon thousands of others had major problems connecting to games in CoD3.  Sometimes I would sit for 20 minutes before getting to play a 5 minute game.  In CoD4 / WaW at least I can pick up and play and get into games within a couple of seconds.  And I hardly ever experience any sort of lag whatsoever in these 2 games.

 

I agree i had insane problems with COD3 and i actually loved that game, but it would give me dbl kill lags where i would shoot someone they would shoot me, i die then after im on the ground it would pop the stat that i killed him and i would get points it did this so much i finally had to give up on it, donno why it was like that.

---

"The Internet is a scary place...." -Dr. Phil

 EDtheSAVAGE wrote:

 AnotherSchmoe wrote:

 Neillydun wrote:

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.

I strongly disagree, myself and thousands upon thousands of others had major problems connecting to games in CoD3.  Sometimes I would sit for 20 minutes before getting to play a 5 minute game.  In CoD4 / WaW at least I can pick up and play and get into games within a couple of seconds.  And I hardly ever experience any sort of lag whatsoever in these 2 games.

 

I agree i had insane problems with COD3 and i actually loved that game, but it would give me dbl kill lags where i would shoot someone they would shoot me, i die then after im on the ground it would pop the stat that i killed him and i would get points it did this so much i finally had to give up on it, donno why it was like that.

Yeah, I loved the multiplayer portion of CoD3 also but the networking system in it sucked, at least for 50% or more of the people who played it.  In CoD4 / WaW I get put into games within 2-3 seconds of clicking the button usually, and I very rarely experience any sort of lag / hit detection problems.  I'm playing in the U.S.A. btw, if it makes any difference.

---

http://www.youtube.com/user/AnotherSchmoe

8.1 out of 10

---

"NEVER GIVE UP NEVER SURRENDER"

Clan UAC
"united awesome campers"

 zdopeheathen wrote:

8.5/10 so far...to give perspective COD2-7/10, COD3-8/10, COD4-10/10

WHAT!?!?! cod2 was amazing

---

"NEVER GIVE UP NEVER SURRENDER"

Clan UAC
"united awesome campers"

They need to fix the laughably pathetic bolt-action rifles. I seriously shouldn't have to shoot someone centre-mass twice with one of those things to bring them down, only to get mowed down by a shockingly accurate spray of SMG fire immediately after firing my first shot.

So far, this is about a 6 or a 7; CoD 4 set in WWII.

 AnotherSchmoe wrote:

 Neillydun wrote:

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.

I strongly disagree, myself and thousands upon thousands of others had major problems connecting to games in CoD3.  Sometimes I would sit for 20 minutes before getting to play a 5 minute game.  In CoD4 / WaW at least I can pick up and play and get into games within a couple of seconds.  And I hardly ever experience any sort of lag whatsoever in these 2 games.

Which part of "developed it further" didnt you understand? Interconnect problems are not uncommon in a P2P network, but they are solvable, even when playing behind NATs.

Congratulations on experiencing hardly any lag in these 2 games, myself and thousands and thousands of others do. (Did you see what I did there?) Not only do we suffer that, but we suffer petulant and, quite frankly, cheating hosts, who pull the plug on games whenever they are losing or are just about to lose.

Client/server models are only as reliable as the servers they are built on, and servers constructed from the xboxs of the community do not fit the bill in the reliability stakes.

---

In Australia from 10th Nov - 8th Jan :-D

 Aegis of Sparta wrote:

 totalpardo wrote:

 Rokossovsky wrote:

 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.

You think the graphics and sound improved???

i agree with your sarcasm.  however, i will hold off on totally backing your opinion until i see all the maps.

Yeah, for some reason it just seems better than COD4 with graphics and sound.

Well I wasn't being sarcastic, I think I was being upfront with it haha. I think the graphics look about the same as COD3's and the sound is completely underperforming when you compare it to the intensity of COD4.

---

☭

 Fire Fear Fury wrote:

 I TV Casualty I wrote:

 ExiledJoker wrote:

Cons-
All guns available to both sides- Now some may say this makes it balanced, but that is utter hogwash. It worked fine in COD2&3 and really gives the weaker weapons no place once you unlock the guns later on.

Did it? Maybe in CoD2, but in 3, the only thing you need to say to refute that statement is "MP44 vs. BAR."

Wait just a second there. Everyone said that the BAR was a better gun. No, not necessarily.

BAR:

Long range > Close range


MP44:

Close range > Long range

People automatically assumed the BAR was better because it had better range. It sucked at close range, as to the MP44 tearing down groups of enemies.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Don't get me wrong. I loved firing the MP44 from the hip (which somehow seemed to improve its accuracy). But at that range, I'd much rather have the MP40 for the mobility. BAR may have been kinda subpar at close ranges because of its low RoF, but it simply dominated medium and long.

MP44 was a fun weapon though. Nice to use in the more laid-back War matches when you know you have good teammates to back you up.

---

 I TV Casualty I wrote:

People that quote themselves in their sig usually end up being arrogant, pompous jerks.

 LZsteelers wrote:

 zdopeheathen wrote:

8.5/10 so far...to give perspective COD2-7/10, COD3-8/10, COD4-10/10

WHAT!?!?! cod2 was amazing

I played it months after I played COD3 and COD4, it just felt like a step back in the graphics and gameplay department. I still have it, maybe I will finish it someday.

---

Action Figure Fight League
I need vodka!

Some pros:

1. WAR mode is back!!!!
2. WAR mode is back!!!
3. Capture the flag is back!!!!
4. No more helicopters!! (I'll go one one on one against a Dog over a heli any day)
5. Maps are well designed. IMO Treyarch make great MP maps. So far I'm liking the direction.
6. Primary Grenades  x3 has been reduced to Grenades x2.
7. It's very pick up and play friendly if you are familiar with COD4. I instantly felt at home within the game although the maps were new. With most games I'm first trying to wrap my head around the mechanics before I can even really get in to playing the actual game. I didn't experience that here.
8. Bayonets are awesome. I have been praying for these in my sleep.

In between issues: (I would deal with these if I had to)

1. Molotov cocktails feel light and don't appear to do enough damage.
2. Still hate the knife. Why can a guy get shot 3 times and live but I'm toast with one swipe of a knife while I'm running by? I want to meet that ninja. I still think the knife should have to be a weapon you switch to and not click a thumb stick for an instant kill. It's far too Halo energy sword for my taste.
3. Flag taking feels a little drawn out in WAR mode. I only mention this because I had 5 guys on our flag last night and we should have taken the thing. Instead 3 grenades come flying in and smoke us all. Could be fined a tuned a little.
4. Flares feel useless. They look more like Roman Candles laying on the ground that I want to play with rather than avoid. And boy are they ever easy to avoid.
5. none of the weapons appear to have any recoil.

Cons:

1. Single shot rifles are vastly inferior to everything. If I shoot someone medium range in the chest and they don't drop there is a problem, especially when the knife will kill me with one swipe. I don't think they should be an easy kill but rather an effective long range weapon. IMO they need fixed.
2. Tanks are fun but a pain to take down. I may not have found that sweet spot yet but got in 2 really nice shots with a bazooka while another guy hit it with 1 and we still needed a 3rd guy with a satchel charge. Seemed excessive at the time.
3. Spawn points are often times HORRIBLE. I found myself spawning in the most ridiculous spots. Mostly out in the open completely exposed in an area far from my teammates. I was killed a number of times this way. You really need to be prepared when you spawn.

If I had to rate it as-is I would say 9.0-9.5 with COD4 being roughly the same score.

---

Senior citizens, although slow and dangerous behind the wheel, can still serve a purpose. - Lloyd Christmas

I'm sorry but I have to give this game a 7/10. It doesn't really do anything different when compared to CoD4 and CTF mode is horrible on this game. Guess I'll keep playing CoD3 and wait for CoD6.

 BECOMING ZOMBIE wrote:

I'm sorry but I have to give this game a 7/10. It doesn't really do anything different when compared to CoD4 and CTF mode is horrible on this game. Guess I'll keep playing CoD3 and wait for CoD6.

Yeah, but Madden 09 is breaking some new ground there, right? How should it be different anyway? How on Earth could Treyarch please the masses? Changing the game would have the same results than if they didn't change the game, people would still complain. Next year Madden needs to have hover boards and Godzilla or I'm not playing it until Madden 2011.

---

Senior citizens, although slow and dangerous behind the wheel, can still serve a purpose. - Lloyd Christmas

 BwA Spectre wrote:

Its damn good!  Will be even better when it goes gold.  This game is  a winner, period.

You're going to have to explain to me how a game 'going gold' makes it better? "Going gold" reflects its sales not its playability. Games don't automatically improve when they go gold or platinum.
Perhaps you mean that more players will be online? But that also doesn't make the game 'good.'
The game is going to sell simply because of the COD brand anyway.
I'll reserve my final judgement until the retail version is released, but right now having played the beta - it does not beat COD4 and will likely not outsell it. COD4 is a tough act to follow.
I think its clear Infinity Ward is the better developer.

 ParanoydAndroid wrote:

 BECOMING ZOMBIE wrote:

I'm sorry but I have to give this game a 7/10. It doesn't really do anything different when compared to CoD4 and CTF mode is horrible on this game. Guess I'll keep playing CoD3 and wait for CoD6.

Yeah, but Madden 09 is breaking some new ground there, right? How should it be different anyway? How on Earth could Treyarch please the masses? Changing the game would have the same results than if they didn't change the game, people would still complain. Next year Madden needs to have hover boards and Godzilla or I'm not playing it until Madden 2011.

Lol, yeah madden might be the same every year, but atleast I know I won't be dissapointed. I'm just saying that CoD3 was awesome and the CoD4 was great for awhile, but I got bored of it. CoD5 is almost the same game and although it is fun, it isn't fun enough to actually make me want to keep playing for hours.

I'll second the spawn issues. Too many times you spawn, start to get your bearings, die. Spawn again.

The bolt actions do seem a little weak, but that's just balance with the other weapons. Some tweaks all around here I think. Hopefully this is something that will happen as the beta goes along till a good balance is found.

 

Dogs. Give me the heli from CoD 4 anyday. With the heli you can hide from it. Not so with the dogs. Rather than the current time limit I think it would be an improvement to just put out a set number of dogs. There is still the chance of getting multiple kills but it wouldn't be quite so dominating. One of the main things about the dogs is that they come from all angles so the distraction for the enemy is likely to allow you to get more kills anyway.

 

I'm not sure about the weapon choices regardless of nationality, but that's the same a CoD 4 so whilst it feels a bit more wrong in WaW its not exactly new. What would it take to have similar weapons available based on nationality and group the challenges together? Perhaps there is the possibility of a 'hard core' match type here where you are restricted to the correct nationalities weapons.

 

I like the tanks. They aren't hugely effective, but provide a distraction. With good team work the distraction of the tanks could provide for some interesting tactics.

 

There are other things but I think that they are based on a lack of familiarity with the maps rather than anything else.

 

One last thing War Mode FTW

 BECOMING ZOMBIE wrote:

I'm sorry but I have to give this game a 7/10. It doesn't really do anything different when compared to CoD4 and CTF mode is horrible on this game. Guess I'll keep playing CoD3 and wait for CoD6.

 

Me too. Can't wait until CoD6 made by activision

 BECOMING ZOMBIE wrote:

 ParanoydAndroid wrote:

 BECOMING ZOMBIE wrote:

I'm sorry but I have to give this game a 7/10. It doesn't really do anything different when compared to CoD4 and CTF mode is horrible on this game. Guess I'll keep playing CoD3 and wait for CoD6.

Yeah, but Madden 09 is breaking some new ground there, right? How should it be different anyway? How on Earth could Treyarch please the masses? Changing the game would have the same results than if they didn't change the game, people would still complain. Next year Madden needs to have hover boards and Godzilla or I'm not playing it until Madden 2011.

Lol, yeah madden might be the same every year, but atleast I know I won't be dissapointed. I'm just saying that CoD3 was awesome and the CoD4 was great for awhile, but I got bored of it. CoD5 is almost the same game and although it is fun, it isn't fun enough to actually make me want to keep playing for hours.

(see red)

 

LMFAO!!..if I were drinking something..it would have come out thru my nose

hey -I for one- dig the fact that it plays just like CoD4

I mean basically..it does..it's kinda like when they came out with the new map pack..you knew HOW to play but now you had new stuff..I find it to be NO DIFFERENT than CoD4..was playing 4 in the morning..got my code to CoD5/WaW at noon and downloaded and played all afternoon..and there was really NO learning curve..except for the new maps and trying to figure out the strengths and weakensses of each gun

they button set ups were the same.. the tactics were the same..and I LIKE THIS

and since it was game of the year a whole lotta others must have liked it too

why fix it if it ain't broken

 KingofallDans wrote:

Me too. Can't wait until CoD6 made by activision

You mean Infinity Ward.

 ParanoydAndroid wrote:

Some pros:

1. WAR mode is back!!!!
2. WAR mode is back!!!
3. Capture the flag is back!!!!
4. No more helicopters!! (I'll go one one on one against a Dog over a heli any day)
5. Maps are well designed. IMO Treyarch make great MP maps. So far I'm liking the direction.
6. Primary Grenades  x3 has been reduced to Grenades x2.
7. It's very pick up and play friendly if you are familiar with COD4. I instantly felt at home within the game although the maps were new. With most games I'm first trying to wrap my head around the mechanics before I can even really get in to playing the actual game. I didn't experience that here.
8. Bayonets are awesome. I have been praying for these in my sleep.

In between issues: (I would deal with these if I had to)

1. Molotov cocktails feel light and don't appear to do enough damage.
2. Still hate the knife. Why can a guy get shot 3 times and live but I'm toast with one swipe of a knife while I'm running by? I want to meet that ninja. I still think the knife should have to be a weapon you switch to and not click a thumb stick for an instant kill. It's far too Halo energy sword for my taste.
3. Flag taking feels a little drawn out in WAR mode. I only mention this because I had 5 guys on our flag last night and we should have taken the thing. Instead 3 grenades come flying in and smoke us all. Could be fined a tuned a little.
4. Flares feel useless. They look more like Roman Candles laying on the ground that I want to play with rather than avoid. And boy are they ever easy to avoid.
5. none of the weapons appear to have any recoil.

Cons:

1. Single shot rifles are vastly inferior to everything. If I shoot someone medium range in the chest and they don't drop there is a problem, especially when the knife will kill me with one swipe. I don't think they should be an easy kill but rather an effective long range weapon. IMO they need fixed.
2. Tanks are fun but a pain to take down. I may not have found that sweet spot yet but got in 2 really nice shots with a bazooka while another guy hit it with 1 and we still needed a 3rd guy with a satchel charge. Seemed excessive at the time.
3. Spawn points are often times HORRIBLE. I found myself spawning in the most ridiculous spots. Mostly out in the open completely exposed in an area far from my teammates. I was killed a number of times this way. You really need to be prepared when you spawn.

If I had to rate it as-is I would say 9.0-9.5 with COD4 being roughly the same score.

hey good review..and yeah I especially 2nd that emotion in re the knife..on numerous occasions I've gotten good clean shots on guys only to have then close the distance and magically and INSTANTLY (how does THAT happen?..I mean I could still fire for several seconds as I slowly bleed out..right?) kill me.

I wish..I wish..I wish..they would fix this.and rethink the whole Martyrdom crap (just say No!) 

 OUTLAW TRACKER wrote:

 BwA Spectre wrote:

Its damn good!  Will be even better when it goes gold.  This game is  a winner, period.

You're going to have to explain to me how a game 'going gold' makes it better? "Going gold" reflects its sales not its playability. Games don't automatically improve when they go gold or platinum.
Perhaps you mean that more players will be online? But that also doesn't make the game 'good.'
The game is going to sell simply because of the COD brand anyway.
I'll reserve my final judgement until the retail version is released, but right now having played the beta - it does not beat COD4 and will likely not outsell it. COD4 is a tough act to follow.
I think its clear Infinity Ward is the better developer.

Going gold means its ready for shipping/retailing! Youre probably confused with music terms.

---

Del mas profundo parte del corazon, solo un grito, Hala Madrid!

Remember, betas are put out to be tested and to get feedback. Many of these issues should be resolved. I dont recall 1 beta where it was exactly like the final game. I also think many people dont like his game cause its treyarchs. I for one, think its totally appropriate to be identical (relatively) to cod4. Expecting total originality? Look outside of the COD realm. Expecting tight gameplay, audio, sound, experience, with new storyline/campaign, new maps, weapons? then I think most will be very pleased. Remember, this isnt a comp to see who is original. It's not a "ooooh, youre a copy cat" thing. It was meant to be similar to cod4. It's a cod game.

---

Del mas profundo parte del corazon, solo un grito, Hala Madrid!

Whoever is saying COD4 and WaW are very different games must be blind, they play exactly the same. Different weapons and different settings, same gameplay. I like the new modes (war, ctf), new perks & vehicules I could live without, weapons seem weak, audio is very annoying. Still a good game but I think I'll stick with COD4 and wait for COD6 next fall.