Respectful title, however...

#1 Edited by Wallzii (178 posts) -

I was never that interested in Call of Duty 5: World at War when is was announced or even when details about the game emerged into the media. I never had the desire to play another World War II shooter, and I definitely knew I wasn't going to buy it. One night a friend and I decided that we would lay low, drink some beers, and rent a co-operative Xbox 360 game. Of course, Left 4 Dead was no where to be found, so the next game that came to mind was the only title in the acclaimed Call of Duty franchise to offer co-operative play, Call of Duty 5: World at War.

The game started out well, with good pacing and entertaining gameplay (I honestly thought I couldn't spend another five minutes playing a World War II game, however the co-operative experience obviously changed that). We started on hardened;  the difficulty fealt right, it wasn't too easy yet not rediculously hard either. Everything was smooth sailing until we tried to load our game from our previous progression point.

This is when I was infuriated; I was actually mad (mind you, the beer definitely had something to do with my anger level). This has seriously got to be the most flawed design choice in any video game I have seen in a very long time. No, it isn't a poor gameplay mechanic, it isn't rediculous art style or some other subjective matter like that. This is a design flaw, through and through, no matter what perspective you have. In all honesty, how could anyone decide that co-operative gameplay would not be saved? This kind of decision is a poor enough one that, once affected by it, you literally do not want to play again out of disappointment. A design decision, being so terrible, that once it affects you, you simply cannot have any desire to repeat what you had just done, in attempt to further your progression through what once was a compelling experience.

My last statement may sound harsh, however it is true. You do not offer improvements in a game in the "one-step forward, two-steps back" mentality. Do not introduce a feature that is amazing in concept and application, yet lacks the foundation of proper implementation.

With that said, had this been remotely advertized by anyone previous to launch that co-operative offline multi-player had no ability to save progress, I would have not rented the game in the first place.

The single-player campaign on it's own, however, is done well. The presentation is great, the atmosphere (keep in mind my lack of first-hand World War II experience) seems dead-on, and until this major hurdle was introduced to me I was having a great time with this title. Good job Treyarch, you almost had it.

#2 Posted by KindGalaxy (429 posts) -
#3 Posted by Optiow (1745 posts) -

Woh!
Is it really that bad! I heard it had some design flaws, but if that is the 360 version, what will the Ps2 verion be like?!
I heard it is really bad. But I am a Call of Duty fan, so I will have to try it myself.

#4 Posted by Gizmo (5389 posts) -
Optiow said:
"Woh!
Is it really that bad! I heard it had some design flaws, but if that is the 360 version, what will the Ps2 verion be like?!
I heard it is really bad. But I am a Call of Duty fan, so I will have to try it myself."
Ps2 version? Bwahahahahha

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.