Features

Ant10708 · #26

Bought it today. Very fun so far. Haven't gotten into the single player campaign yet.

Dimnos · #27

Campaign is good. Its not AS intense as 4 but pretty damn good. What rank did you get to in multiplayer?

MattJack · #28

How does it compare to 4? DETAILS PLZ.

I'm debating on this or Left 4 Dead.

Dimnos · #29

Compared to 4... Definitely not better than 4, but still pretty damn good. Like I said, the campaign isnt as intense. In 4 you kind of get sucked into the game and feel like you are part of a unit where you get to know your allies, in WaW not so much. It feels easier than 4 however it does have its moments where they are just kicking your ass. I havnt really tried multiplayer yet, I plan on doing a bunch of that tonight. Its really fun, I would highly recommend getting it if you like the Call of Duty series. However if its between this or Left 4 Dead..... I might have to say wait for Left 4 Dead, especially if you have CoD 4, but you might want to see what Ant has to say about the multiplayer.

MetalMilitia · #30

Here is my "review" I posted somewhere else (and some of it here):

First things first - I like WW2 games. I like the setting, the weapons and the history behind it all. The fact that the CoD franchise has gone back to this setting is no problem for me whatsoever.
Secondly I like shooters in general even the ones some people consider to be a bit crap (MoH: Airborne, MoH:PA all that good stuff).
Thirdly I have no problem with Treyarch. A lot of people have been bitching because Infinity Ward aren't developing WaW. I don't care - if the game's good, the game's good.

This game however is a bit of a problem for me - being that in playing about a hour of it I'm ready to delete it forever and salt the area of my hard drive it inhabited lest it ever appear there again.

Firstly the good things. The graphics are pretty good, stabbing people is quite cleverly done, the scripted sequences are okay-ish and co-op is a good addition - even if I haven't tried it I appreciate its existence.

Now the bad things.

1. Invisible walls. Enough said. Actually no, not enough said - STOP USING f**king INVISIBLE WALLS IN GAMES. For example at one point I was obviously supposed to attack an enemy camp. As luck would have it there was a watch tower just outside the camp which would've been a perfect spot from which to snipe... if there wasn't a 1 ft high collection of stones blocking me from getting there which you couldn't jump over.
Once I got into the camp I had the audacity to try and walk inside a building with an open door to retrieve ammunition or whatever. No such luck, there was an invisible wall covering the door.
I get that they can't just let you f**k off into the jungle but invisible walls are so lame, particularly when they're used EVERYWHERE. If you don't want me going inside a building - put a door on it, not some magical forcefield.

2. The AI is retarded. The AI is L4D is orders of magnitude better and it's SUPPOSED to be stupid.

3. The weapons sounds are pathetic. Things like the Garand sounding NOTHING like it's supposed to I could forgive as only war nerds would probably pick up on this. Having everything else sound like airsoft guns is unforgivable. CoD has always had rather dodgey weapon sounds but these are just terrible.

4. Running out of ammunition all the time. I don't know if I'm just doing something wrong, but I run out of ammo all the time in this game and have to pick up the jap rifle which sucks. A more minor point but irritating none-the-less.

5. The way the gun just hovers motionless on the screen. Again, people might call this nitpicking but it's so shoddily done I can't help but focus on it. How hard would it have been to just add a bit of bob?

6. The characters are annoying and have generic war-sounding names like belawski. I'm finding it difficult to articulate what annoys me so much about the characters. I think it has something to do with the way the game is constantly trying to tell me how bad war is as if I had no idea. The characters are always stating the obvious as well - get attacked by hidden solders someone will shout "THEY WERE JUST WAITING FOR US!", yeah no s**t that's generally how an ambush works.

I don't know - maybe the game gets awesome after the first hour but so far I'm not impressed in the least.

Dimnos · #31

The invisible walls are a bit of a pain. They should have just put a dilapidated wall or rock cliff instead.

I havent had much of a problem with the AI. I did hit one spot on the first or second mission where they would keep running out in front of me right as I was taking a shot, but it was kind of a choke point.

I dont have to much trouble with ammo but when I do I find the type 100 jap gun to be a good ass kicker. However I am the type to just tap the trigger even with a fully auto weapon.

The characters I think are the weakest part of the game. I just dont find myself giving a crap about them like I did in 4. And I cant help but lol every time I hear Jack Bouer.

I do have to say I am one of the people who think the whole WW2 thing has been over played, but It doesnt hurt this game. I was also worried the WW2 weapons would be boring or just crappy compared to the weapons in 4, but there not. They did a good job of adding a variety of weapons from that time.

Ant10708 · #32

I like the multilayer a lot aside from the additions of tanks.

That is Jack Bauer? I fucking told my friend that and he denied it.

Dimnos · #33

Totally Jack Bauer, and Gary Oldman does someones voice as well. I beat the campaign last night, I thought it was rather easy and short. Started playing the multiplayer. Like Ant said the tanks are kind of lame, but aside from that it rocks. Just as good as CoD 4 only with the WW2 weapons and dogs in place of the chopper. I dont care what people say, the dogs kick ass. Its hilarious to come around a corner and see a couple of guys running in circles trying to shoot the dogs. You get a recon plane in place of the UAV, but it works the same. As well as artillery instead of the air strike. The WW2 era weapons help to cut back on all the run and gun that was in CoD4. I also played the Nazi Zombie game you unlock after beating the campaign. It was kind of fun solo but I bet it would be much better with a few other people.

pac-man · #34

So, is it worth checking out if I'm fine with CoD4? I'm either buying this, MK vs. DC Universe, or Left 4 Dead.

Dimnos · #35

Well worth renting to see if you want to buy it.

Karmapolice · #36

I don't think the tanks are lame since I kill more tanks than the tank kills me. They maybe overpowered but they're slow as hell which makes them sitting ducks to my bazooka. taking down a tank is way easier than taking down a chopper. The low ammo counts helps cut down pray and sprayers in the game. The dogs make a good replacement to choppers imo, it's easier to shoot but unlike the chopper you can't just simply hide out of sight for those canines will hunt you down. The Artillery has more "stunning" effect than airstrike which makes it harder to run away from.

I love the game but I can't tell which one is better when it comes to MP ( COD4 SP is better and that's a no brainer). That's why I'm switching between COD4 and COD:WaW every now and then.

Which era do you think the 6th COD will be in? I'm hoping for a Vietnam COD.

VaporTrailx1 · #37

I'd be up for Korea or fight the Warsaw Pact in 1982. But then again, the second idea would practically be COD4 with new different uniforms and certain high tech equipment removed. Helicopters, tanks and most guns would be the same except youd have the CAR-15 instead of the m4 most likely. But that would'nt matter since Call of Duty 1, 2, 3 & 5 for the most part all have the same weapons and equipment.

pac-man · #38

I'd be all for a Vietnam Era COD.

DeadKennedys · #39

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetalMilitia

6. The characters are annoying and have generic war-sounding names like belawski.

Don't you hate that? "JOHNSON, GET ON THE MORTAR!"

Let me guess, your squad consists of 1) you 2) the grizzled/foul-mouthed sergeant 3) the brash handsome private 4) the fearful private 5) the southerner 6) the by-the-books sergeant, and 7,8,9) A few cannon fodder Belawskis that get replaced every mission

"THEY'RE SHOOTING AT US"

Dimnos · #40

As far as the multi player goes, I think WaW is better than 4. For all the reasons Karma said. Limited ammo and all around slower weapons cut down on the run and gun, dogs are better than choppers.. etc. And yea the tanks are easy to take out. If you just run on on them they cant do anything. I have even seen people run up to them and just use them as moving cover until they guy inside become frustrated and just got out to try and gun them down himself.

As far as the setting for the next CoD... I think another near future fictional conflict (like CoD 4) would just be better. Vietnam and Korea sound like good ideas but they usually never pan out to be good games.

Characters for the most parts are just you and the Sarg. everyone else is a no name s.o.b. that you can kill yourself for ammo

Dimnos · #41

So has anyone else tried doing the campaign on veteran yet?

Ant10708 · #42

Nope, still going through on Hard

Dimnos · #43

So... In CoD 4 campaign, the enemy had a limited number of guys right? I recall being able to camp a spot and keep killing enemy soldiers and eventually they would just stop coming and would all be dead. Im not sure that is how it works in this one. I am stuck on the 2nd to last mission where you are storming the outside of the Reichstag and you have to destroy the 4 cannons. I have been able to take out the first two but I cant even get back to the last two. I decided to just stay back and snipe then off but I think they just keep spawning in the back and coming to the front. Can anyone confirm that the enemy does or does not have a fixed number of troops?