I started playing this game with fairly high expectations. I was expecting something similar to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Oh, crushed hopes, thy name is Call of Duty: World at War.
As I started the single player campaign I immediately noticed Kiefer Sutherland's voice. Nice touch. Then I noticed the pretty and well done intro/loading videos, which cleverly mix computer animation with genuine World War II footage. The intro video resembles the Modern Warfare intro videos. With this in mind I was bracing myself for a good experience.
The game starts by putting you in a hut, watching one of your comrades being tortured and then killed, by a Japanese officer. As he moves in to kill you the cavalry arrives. Or rather, Kiefer Sutherland and his entourage. So far so good, I think to myself. Nothing like a jailbreak. That's about as good as it gets though (except one level I'll mention later). Everything after that is repetition, trial and error, obviously scripted events, invincible enemies and subpar soundtrack and effects. The graphics are nice, but a year after Modern Warfare I was expecting the engine to be spruced up a little.
Most levels in the American campaign are quite similar. Either you get jumped by Japanese banzai troops hiding in holes in the ground, or in trees, or you're assaulting a fortified position by flanking it to the best of your ability. This is where the scripting is quite obvious. If you stay in one position, taking out enemies, they respawn infinitely until you advance to a certain point. Another case of 'scriptitis' is especially evident in one part of the Russian campaign where a German soldier with a flamethrower appears, and you can't kill him because he's part of an in-game event, that has to happen. It took me about five tries to realise I couldn't kill him. Stupidity on my part or not, these kinds of things seriously pulls you out of the experience and is just frustrating.
The Russian missions are more fun and varied, although that doesn't take much. The first level is a total Enemy at the Gates ripoff. The rest of the campaign has sniping, clearing of buildings, a pretty dull tank mission and a massive shootout at the Reichstag in Berlin.
The sounds are ok for the most part. Unless you're near a tank, or use a pistol or if the enemy shooting at you is more than 40 yards away. A tank fired off a round being no more than 3 yards away from me. I would expect that to give me a slight case of shellshock, but no. It was more like foomp, than anything else. The pistols sound like kids' toys, and you can't hear the gun of a person shooting if he's too far away. Which is odd, because in this game you're never more than 50 yards away from anyone at any point (except for the beach landing part). Also, the enemy can stick their guns through walls sometimes.
The music is less than good. Assaulting a Japanese position in the 1940s shouldn't bring on heavy guitar riffs. Other than that the music is quite unspectacular.
Graphics look like you might expect from the Call of Duty 4 engine. Which is less than I expected. It looks good, in 2007. Standard graphics, is the term I'm looking for. The intro/loading videos are, as previously mentioned, good looking, but crash horribly with the style of the game.
The storyline is pretty vague and doesn't really capture you at all. Even when something unexpected happens it's all rather ambivalent.
So far it looks pretty bleak for Call of Duty: World at War. But there is one more good thing about it. Remember that level I mentioned in the first paragraph? It's actually really good. It's sort of like a mix between the Gunship mission in Modern Warfare and the Bomber level in Call of Duty: United Offensive. It puts you in an amphibian airplane, scouting for enemies, and the captain has you running around closing hatches, firing guns at Zeros and boats, and pulling up survivors from American sinking ships.
The multiplayer is pretty much what you would expect from a sequel to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Actually a bit less, seeing as it's pretty much the same, except different weapons and levels and the fact that it's all been done before.
Call of Duty: World at War puts you in a bit of a predicament. It's quite short, which can be good or bad. Good, because the game is quite boring. Bad, because maybe if it was longer the developer would have to come up with some more original levels and the game could've been much better. If you want a current generation WW2 shoother, go buy Brothers in Arms.
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Zombies Terminus Island map is recreated for World at War and it looks scarier than the original version!
Huzaifa from eXputer: "2008 was home to the likes of Call of Duty: World at War, Dead Space, GTA 4, Far Cry 2, Left 4 Dead, and many other hits, which is outright remarkable."
Here here
Those that were around before 2000's i am sure are like me that think we entered a world of non readers or those that follow without question.
I can not wait to see fallout 3 a goty game even though it was about water with non content until you add the dlc/updates then you got the performance/crashing
1998 - the best year in gaming! Metal gear solid, crash bandicoot 3, medievil, half life, ocarina of time, thief, tenchu, resident evil 2, Spyro, tomb raider 3, oddworld abes exodus, banjo kazooie.
It was a different breed of a gaming era. You’ll never understand what it was like back then. The aura of gaming, it was different!
I second this. Gaming was a lot more varied and fun than it is today. I'm 35 so getting on compared to some here but I got to see all the changes from NES up to now but I've never felt so disappointed in any generation than I have this current gen. I was expecting more from this generation rather than prettier versions of games that came before it. Game mechanics have become so refined that alot of games feel the same and has done for a while now.
Maybe it's time to have a break for a while. I love gaming but I don't feel I get much fun in the traditional sense out of it anymore.
Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil 2, Abe’s Exodus, and Ocarina of Time are the only things from that list that I liked.
Here’s the 2023 game releases that I personally liked… and big releases that I didn’t care for:
- Dead Space Remake
- Wo Long Dynatsy
- Resident Evil 4 Remake
- Diablo 4
- Fire Emblem Engage
- Hogwarts Legcay
- Street Fighter 6
- Hi-Fi Rush
- Like a Dragon: Ishin
- Octopath Traveler 2
- Final Fantasy Pixel Remasters
- Final Fanatsy XVI (actually ended up not liking this, but it was still a big deal release)
- Baldur’s Gate 3
- Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon
- Lies of P
- Mortal Kombat 1
- Marvel’s Spider-Man 2
- Starfield (Ended up hating this one, but big release)
- Super Mario Bros. Wonder
- Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom (I’m an old-school Zelda fan, but didn’t really enjoy this game)
- Alan Wake 2
I mean, honestly I’ve never seen a year of major IP releases like that, ever.
Isn't it just a generational thing realistically.
I've been gaming since way back and I some of my favourite games go as far back as the late 80s for me each generation has a year or two of game changing releases one after another before an inevitable dry spell.
I kind of agree gaming had a different feel games hit different because we didn't have the internet nothing got spoiled and you really had to put in the effort to beat a puzzle which could set entire groups of people looking for a solution. But most importantly games were experimental and not as cookie cutter as today even basics like controls were not universal today r2 is shoot l2 is ads garunteed you can't deviate from that in a shooter back then it could of been square, R1 or R1 and circle nothing was standard.
But as time moves on a new generation picks up their controller they are going to be interested in different things that PS1 demo disc with the t Rex blew our primitive 16 bit brains back on launch but to kids today it's laughable.
The new gen of kids coming into to hobby seem to value different things to us there seems to be a huge focus on online play, streamers, gaming personalities, and social experiences, convience of digital downloads. To me I value none of that but that's ok like my parents not liking the band's I would listen to its just the natural cycle.
Just about every year in the 7th generation was great and something we most likely won't experience again.
2009 for example had Assassin's Creed 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dragon Age: Origins, Uncharted 2, Halo 3: ODST, Killzone 2, Borderlands, Bayonetta, and Demon's Souls to name a few.
It still amazes me we got over 7 rockstar games ps2/ps3 but 3 for the ps3/ps4/ps5
Dragon age 1-3 and mass effect 1-3 in 7ish years what a generation.
A very devoted fan of Call of Duty: World at War racks up incredible in-game stats while playing regularly for the past 15 years.
Actually it is very easy to up the number of hours you have been playing a game. Basically all you need to do (assuming you have a PS4 or 5) is to place the console into stand-by without exiting the game, so if you do this a one hour gameplay actually becomes a 24 gameplay or longer.
There's someone on my friend list that has more than 6200 hours on Uncharted 4.
7k hours over 15 years isn't that crazy. The fact that he's been playing the same game for 15 years is more impressive.
Nailed what is the Spectrum... For good and bad, Quality or Quantity..Or the unreasonable to reason for. ;)
Of course you will hit a ridiculous stat after 15 of anything.
My main character for Everquest had over 500 days played in the first 6 years of the game. I was young then and had a lot of time on my hands. I don’t think I could duplicate that again until I retire and not sure I could match it if I tried.
500 days in 6 years is nothing lol, you do realise how many days in a year right ?
I might be getting the maths wrong here, I think 500 days in 6 years works out at an average of just over 6 hours every single day. For 6 years. That’s pretty serious
Edit: wrote this early this morning, I understand it's lots of hours now lol at myself 😂🤣😜
If thats the score you give the single player, than I agree.
Multi player is immensely better than single player though. On some maps, its a blast playing around with perks and weapons.
There are massive issues in the online though. Like the same shiat maps popping up everytime and ruining your fun while the good maps are elusive (why cant they fking fix this shiat!). It just sucks playing Hangar ("Indo slum"), War Castle, Makin and Courtyard all the time.
Zombie mode is a nice coop but meaningless as it is endless waves. They need to patch or make expansion pack that builds around this. Escape from zombies in Downfall map? Fking awesome. Or seelum with plenty of zombies running at you and some other monsters and bosses hidden in the map.
Treyarch can totally PWN valve and Left4dead if they know what they are doing. Just a tip here.
Read my user review COD World at war for more.
This review is a joke. Trash CoD:WaW then recommand Brothers in Arms.
WoW. I guess another review from a Treyarch hater.
Plus no mention of CooP, Zombies or any details on MP other then
"The multiplayer is pretty much what you would expect from a sequel to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Actually a bit less, seeing as it's pretty much the same, except different weapons and levels and the fact that it's all been done before."
This review is weak. I give this review a 2/10.