Back to the old war.

Anyone reading this knows that Call of Duty 4 was amazing - a huge leap forward for the series and honestly for games in general. Most of those same people will have been stunned to hear the announcement that World at War was going back to World War 2. Those people were right to be worried.



I don't care if it is set in Japan. World at War is a really standard World War 2 game and I was sick of it before the end. The flamethrower is great and so is hearing Keifer Sutherland scream obscenities about the Japanese. It's certainly not 'bad', I just didn't really enjoy it and found almost nothing memorable at all about the entire campaign. COD4's story progession was one of its strongest points. CoD WaW shares the same problem every WW2 game does, you just shoot enemy soldiers for 8 hours and then the war ends. I'm not going to write any more about it. This is not a negative review, it's a good game, it's just a giant leap backwards.
7 Comments
8 Comments
Posted by Shaunage

Anyone reading this knows that Call of Duty 4 was amazing - a huge leap forward for the series and honestly for games in general. Most of those same people will have been stunned to hear the announcement that World at War was going back to World War 2. Those people were right to be worried.



I don't care if it is set in Japan. World at War is a really standard World War 2 game and I was sick of it before the end. The flamethrower is great and so is hearing Keifer Sutherland scream obscenities about the Japanese. It's certainly not 'bad', I just didn't really enjoy it and found almost nothing memorable at all about the entire campaign. COD4's story progession was one of its strongest points. CoD WaW shares the same problem every WW2 game does, you just shoot enemy soldiers for 8 hours and then the war ends. I'm not going to write any more about it. This is not a negative review, it's a good game, it's just a giant leap backwards.
Posted by TomA

I like World at War more than 4.I'd rather play a real conflict than a fictional one based on a political scandal and a hunt for more oil.However,the main reasons why I like World at War better are 1:I am a 20th century history buff(especially WW2),and 2:WaW builds on things from CoD 4.So I guess you could say that I like the mechanics that were established in 4,but the setting of WaW.It's also worth noting,that I have only played a couple of WW2 games in my time,so it's still quite fresh to me.Also,I don't get why people complain about the setting of WW2 so much,when the setting of modern conflicts has been used just as much if not more than WW2.What would make WW2 games more fresh and interesting is if they put a more crazy,fictional,sorta what if,secret technologies,alternate history thing into more WW2 games.Like have a robot army of Nazis with lazerz,or have you travel in time to WW2 and change everything,or have you infiltrate a secret base with aliens and secret Nazi technology that we still don't have today.Or have Nazis be aliens,or i don't maybe,SHOW HITLER!!! Seriously the only game I've seen Hitler in is Bionic Commando Rearmed(and he wasn't even called Hitler).Anyways I like to rant about game ideas,but I think that would make the whole setting of WW2 alot more interesting.All in all,i'm still way looking forward to CoD 6 this year:)

Posted by Optiow

I like historical games like WW2 shooters over modern weapon games.

Posted by ieatlions

any insult to WAW is insulting COD4 since WAW is basically  a reskined version

Posted by Origina1Penguin
TomA said:
"I like World at War more than 4.I'd rather play a real conflict than a fictional one based on a political scandal and a hunt for more oil.However,the main reasons why I like World at War better are 1:I am a 20th century history buff(especially WW2),and 2:WaW builds on things from CoD 4.So I guess you could say that I like the mechanics that were established in 4,but the setting of WaW.It's also worth noting,that I have only played a couple of WW2 games in my time,so it's still quite fresh to me.Also,I don't get why people complain about the setting of WW2 so much,when the setting of modern conflicts has been used just as much if not more than WW2.What would make WW2 games more fresh and interesting is if they put a more crazy,fictional,sorta what if,secret technologies,alternate history thing into more WW2 games.Like have a robot army of Nazis with lazerz,or have you travel in time to WW2 and change everything,or have you infiltrate a secret base with aliens and secret Nazi technology that we still don't have today.Or have Nazis be aliens,or i don't maybe,SHOW HITLER!!! Seriously the only game I've seen Hitler in is Bionic Commando Rearmed(and he wasn't even called Hitler).Anyways I like to rant about game ideas,but I think that would make the whole setting of WW2 alot more interesting.All in all,i'm still way looking forward to CoD 6 this year:)"
You need to play the Wolfenstein games, especially Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
Posted by TheGTAvaccine
ieatlions said:
"any insult to WAW is insulting COD4 since WAW is basically  a reskined version"
No, it isnt. It doesnt have the story that CoD4 has, it doesnt have the same multiplayer mechanics, its full of bugs and glitches, and is a piece of shit. It's NOTHING like CoD4, save for the controls and visuals perhaps. (which still happen to be shittier in WaW)
Edited by jhosaphat

@ ieatlions : a little too general don't you think?

Posted by Everyones_A_Critic

I agree with everything you said. WaW isn't a bad game by any stretch, but I think Infinity Ward was truly robbed here. It is painfully obvious what Treyarch did by themselves and what they just ripped off of Infinity Ward. The multiplayer, slick and addictive as usual. The maps? Well, aside from about 3 of them, they pretty much suck. Also, tanks are a very unwelcome addition to the series (yeah, I know CoD 3 had them but let's be frank here, FUCK COD 3) because of their super-high health and all around frustrating qualities (seriously, Roundhouse would've been perfect without tanks). The campaign is generally well paced, but as you said, no matter where you put it, it's still fucking WWII. The Russian campaign can be quite epic and fun at times, but the American one is noticeably inferior. Treyarch knew damn well that everyone (myself included) would buy their game no matter what because CoD 4 was so good, and that every casual gamer would get the game for Christmas because they don't know any better (or just have what some might call "standards".). IW is a developer with so much potential, but it's become painfully clear that Activision is intent on driving every one of its franchises into the ground until it stops breathing or people stop buying it. They just HAVE TO have a sequel out every fucking year, because obviously CoD 4 has nooooo staying power, obviously... From the staff rap hating on Treyarch at the end of CoD 4, to the beta build version of CoD 4 being called CoD 3, there's clearly bad blood between these two developers. Hell, I even remember that one guy getting pissed because Treyarch fucked up and made bolt action rifles 2 hit kills (10 if you're using the Arisaka). CoD 4's immense popularity was a blessing and a curse for two reasons: 1.) It showed the franchise still had a bright future ahead of it and (and this is the curse part of it) 2.) It gave the series new, casual players who will buy everyhing with CoD on it from now on. This allows shitty developers like Treyarch to pump out carbon copies every other year and have people still buy it...

I should probably end this rant by letting Toma know that there's a big white bar at the bottom of his keyboard that he should hit before starting a new sentence.