gunslinger's Call of Duty: World at War (Xbox 360) review

  • Score:
  • gunslinger wrote this review on .
  • 0 out of 1 Giant Bomb users found it helpful.

The Mage Man 9 Of Shooters

 Do you enjoy eternally respawning enemies? Do you like enemy AI that can defy the laws of natural physics, and flank you through solid matter? Do you enjoy Ninja Gaiden-style difficuly, even on the Normal level?

  Well then, this game is most certainly for you, then!

  I play many a shooter. I've done the Halos, I've played other Call Of Duty games, and completed them no problemo. But this game... Jeremy H Christ, I have never met a game so ruthless and specific in its requirements for completing a mission in my life. If you don't have just the right weapons on your person, or if you've (God forbid) used up all your special grenades, then you are screwed. You have no choice but to use trial and error to find the way to beat your enemy. Which, I might add, is rather hard when it follows a set path of about 3 different strategems.

  I take, for my most specific example, a certain mission where you acquire a flamethrower at the beginning. Now, this is basic trench warfare, in this mission, so it's relatively simple. Enemy there, burn them to death.
But no no no... At one point, you hit what is described as a Circle Pit Of Death by myself. There are enemies above the trench, with machine guns, ready within a split seconds to mow you down as soon as you enter. Not just this, but enemies at the other side of the circle are throwing infinite grenades at your face, forcing you to play Life-And-Death-Hopscotch. Now, conveniently, the flamethrower has a range that is just too short for you to get a hit on anyone trying to kill you without your leaving the only usable piece of cover. Meaning that your progression through this stage is based purely on luck alone.

  Yet another example of this, is a mission that is typically present in all WWII shooters: taking out tanks. Now, this mission is easy, typically, with the tanks not even looking at you, and you have a near-infinite supply of ammo directly beside you for the most part. Unfortunately, the bozos down at Activision thought they would be able to get a cheap bit of campaign extension out of putting a tank behind a barn that can only be described as being obtrusive. You are forced to go around the barn to take out the tank, leaving you all-dry on the Panzerschrek ammo front, when, what ho! Another tank appears bursting out of a barn! Meaning that it will be impossible for you to take it out with bullets, and also involves you taking a trek that will almost certainly kill you, just to get 2 more rockets, that may or may not take it out, depending on what mood the game is in.

  The multiplayer

  Now, I've had a little bit of experience with the multiplayer, and from what little I've seen, it's pretty unbalanced... Now, as a beginner, you will be forced to go into "Boot Camp". It's been too long to remember if Modern Warfare encorporated this into its multiplayer, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't as bad as World At War's attempt. Any game that you enterwill, invariably, contain one or two high-level avatars hell-bent on picking on beginners that know no better, for quick and easy kills. This, I find, is just beyond unfair, since they will have access to weapons that you'll probably have never played with properly in a multiplayer context, and they'll have perks that will give them a pretty hefty advantage over you. Take for example, the Juggernaut perk, or Last Stand.
  All in all, I think that Activision might have had a good game here, if they hadn't messed up so badly. I've not played the co-op campaign yet, but I'm willing to bet about half my gamerscore that it will be precisely the same game you play through in solo campaign, difficulty settings and all. Because that will be the feel you get from playing the campaign. That it was designed to be played by more than one person. There are instances that can only be completed sensibly with the use of flanking a position while your friend gives you covering fire, or by taking on the enemy on two fronts.

  But hey, just because this is a user review, doesn't mean I can't insert the age-old reviewer's line.

  If you're into that kinda thing, then you'll love it.

Posted by Gunslinger

Corrections: It's meant to say "Mega Man 9 Of Shooters" rookie spelling mistake, there...

And, I don't know why  it's done it, but it's said that I gave it a 4-star review. Nuh uh!
2 stars.

I think there must be a glitch, or something, that meant it gave it the average review score, instead of my real opinion about it

Posted by SkipT

I too gave this game a 2 but it says that I gave it a 4. Seems odd.

Other reviews for Call of Duty: World at War (Xbox 360)

    Call of Duty World at War Review 0

    I love World War II. I love playing World War II videogames so naturally I've played many Call of Duty games. I played Finest Hour, Call of Duty 2, Big Red One, Call of Duty 3, Modern Warfare and of course World at War. Ever since I first watched my friend play Call of Duty 2 on a PC, and then play it on my own Xbox 360 (being the first 360 game I owned), I fell in love with the Call of Duty series. My favorite Call of Duty is Modern Warfare, but Call of Duty 2 is an very close second and I had ...

    2 out of 2 found this review helpful.

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.