Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
105 of 124 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
FULL GAME REVIEW!, 14 Nov 2008
Fun:5.0 out of 5 stars
It's a very difficult job following on from one of the greatest title's ever to grace the gaming world (Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare), but Treyarch and Activision have produced a master-class, which follows on proudly from it's predecceser.
CAMPAIGN:
The game's campaign splits time between two different fronts. For half the game, you'll play as an American Marine taking on Japanese forces as you push from their forward island bases all the way back to Okinawa. The other half puts you in Russian boots as you strike back against the Germans, pushing them out of the motherland and sieging Berlin. Like the previous game, the campaign jumps back and forth between the two perspectives.
The campaign provides a good amount of first-person shooter variety, but it excels when the levels are wide open and all hell is breaking loose around you. There are more than a few moments where you're charging against an entrenched enemy, and the game does a good job of making these moments feel appropriately chaotic. You'll also see the requisite vehicle sequence and some up-close indoor battles. Overall, a quality single-player campaign which will keep you going for hours.
MULTI-PLAYER:
Once again, the Call of Duty multi-player has the ability to leave you playing for hours on end without losing interest, and drooling for more action. In what feels like no time at all, you could check your score and find that you have played it for 5 hours or something!
Some of the major changes include:
- Rank 65 before Prestiging.
- Tanks available for some maps.
- 3 kills (Plane Recon), 5 kills (Artillery), 7 kills (Dogs).
- Different Perks and Guns.
- Different game modes/maps.
Overall, the World at War multi-player has stayed in touch with COD4, and is still very enjoyable to all who play it, resulting in hours on end of playtime. The new additions are very clever and there is just something about COD online. It can't be rivalled. There seems to be a touch of genius about World at War, and still you will find yourself desperately trying to climb up the ranks and get to Rank 65 on the 10th Prestige! It is just brilliant!
VISUAL/GRAPHICS:
Fire seems to be a big visual theme in World at War. Large portions of the campaign are devoted to running around with a flamethrower and burning as many Japanese soldiers as possible. You'll run through burning buildings. And if you play long enough, you'll be able to unlock that flamethrower for use in multiplayer. The fire effects, thankfully, are good enough to warrant their featured position. The flamethrower snakes around as you wave it and burns up most nearby grass and trees as you go. Creeping through dark, but still-burning buildings shows off the game's terrific lighting, as the soft glow of the flames reflects and flickers onto the nearby walls. All of the lighting, is done extremely well, and playing this on a HDTV will be truly stunning.
In conclusion, I think it's safe to say that everyone will agree on World at War being an extremely good FPS that had ticked all the right boxes. However, there will be divided opinion on whether or not it's better than last years masterpiece. My advice...buy World at War now, but keep COD4. World at War is extremely well made and should be bought by anyone who is as fan of the COD series, but COD4 is just too good to throw out or trade in and should still be kept for all the right reasons.
Hope my review was helpful and feel free to leave any comments.
|
|
|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Call of Duty : World at War, 10 Dec 2008
Fun:5.0 out of 5 stars
Just completed the new(ish) Call of Duty game, and thought I would just share my thoughts and possibly help out anyone who was still doubting if they should buy this game or not.
It seems all I've heard recently, is people moaning about the fact Treyarch developed this game instead of Infinity Ward (who did COD4). To be perfectly honest, and I know you COD4 boys will most likely disagree with me, there isn't any difference. If you put both of them side - by - side and said to a mutual party, "Which one was better?" I doubt you would get the answer msot people would expect. It is run on the same engine as COD4 so how can there be a huge difference?
Yes, yes, yes, it's set during WW2, but is COD4 set in a more familar enviroment really that bad? Is having two great FPS, really terrible? If you like a more modern approach, go for 4, if you enjoy going back in history go for 5. Or do what I have, and just go for both! As they are two fantastic games.
But please don't moan that it's set in WW2, because surely you know this before you buy it, and if you don't like it, don't buy it! Simple.
Regarding the WW2 theme, it's not the same as your standard WW2 shooter. The missions are different and refreshing, from going through the pacific with a flmaethrower, not knowing when you'll be attacked, or from what direction, to storming the Reichstag in Germany and snipering German commanders.
It's realtively short, similar to COD4, but fun and extremely engrossing.
As you probably all know, COD comes into it's own with multiplayer.
Not just online, as this (unlike COD4) includes a Co-op campaign option, always fun with friends.
Online play is great, and if you have ever played COD4, you won't be gettign any real suprises. Oh, except there are tanks on some levels....
All in all it's a fantastic addition to the COD series and if you're a fan of FPS, this is definitely one to add to your list.
|
|
|
36 of 52 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A solid shooter, but nothing on Infinity Ward, 24 Nov 2008
Fun:3.0 out of 5 stars
Treyarch have a thankless job developing for the Call of Duty franchise. Following from series creator Infinity Ward, their games rarely match the quality or innovation. Sadly, World at War is no exception.
The unprecedented success of Modern Warfare meant Treyarchs decision to return to WW2 took everyone by surprise. To their credit, it isnt the disaster many feared, and they have managed to provide a fresh perspective on a creatively exhausted period in history.
Revenge is the central theme in World at War; the American campaign a response to the Japenese attack on Pearl Harbour, and the Russians march on Berlin is vengeance for the decimation of their homeland. This gives a perfect excuse to create morally compromising situations similar to COD4. Both the Russian and American characters are narrowly saved from certain death.
The game is solid enough. Clearly lots of effort has been made to preserve what made COD4 so memorable. Presentation is near identical, with similar menu screens, and online options. The achievement system has been expanded, as well as minor additions.
Co-op mode is the best new addition, one of the only things lacking in Infinty Wards classic.
On the other hand, vehicle sections (both in single-player and multi), only serve as a reminder why Infinity Ward leave them out. The controls are a clunky mess, and their inclusion feels unnecessary.
Use of the Call of Duty 4 engine assures solid visuals. However, the U.S campaign is set in the jungles of the Pacific, and here the textures are surprisingly average. Likewise for the flamethrower, although lots of fun to use, the fire effects (hyped as the most realistic ever) are very underwhelming, even in 1080p. Environments and objects suffer from a a strange white outline. Interaction between characters isnt entirely convincing, although the death animations are suitably dramatic. Smoke effects are solid, adding a sudden and very real sense of menace. The lighting is also excellent, as are the explosions from grenades.
The much hyped enemy tactics are mainly part of scripted sequences, rarely affecting gameplay as originally promised. Treetop snipers did take me by surprise however. Invisible trigger points are everywhere, and enemies seem to infinitely respawn until the squad have advanced. Granted, COD4 did the same, but it is much more obvious here, cracks are certainly beginning to show in the game mechanics. In addition, not every surface can be climbed over, leading to unintentionally awkward moments in gameplay.
Levels also have the tendency to end abruptly, without getting chance to savour the victory. A small point, but highlights the slightly rushed execution.
Sound is solid throughout. 24's Kiefer Sutherland gives a faultless performance as Sgt. Roebuck, improving the American levels significantly. His angry growls fit perfectly with the surroundings. Roebuck is almost as memorable as Captain Price. A massive achievement, but almost every other character is a bland, forgettable waxwork. Music is good, but some heavy metal selections jar awkwardly with the 1940's setting.
Its been said COD:WAW should be treated lke an expansion pack rather than the next instalment. A refinement instead of an overhaul. This would explain why '5' has been removed from the title. It certainly looks and plays like an expansion pack, so why not price it like one?
World at Wars release proves beyond all doubt that Call of Duty is a huge cash cow for Activision. Whilst most fans would be happy to wait for a 'true sequel', the popularity of the franchise means this will sell regardless.
A solid, if forgettable shooter. At least its Infinity Wards turn in 2009.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Suitable for 15 years and over. Not for sale to persons under age 15. By placing an order for this product, you declare that you are 15 years of age or over.
The Soviet attack on Berlin features intense street battles
Take on the Japanese navy as you board a U.S. flying boat
World at War features the most realistic fire effects ever
The new ability to swim adds to both the story and multiplayer modes
