Call of Duty: World at War Comments by Alec Meer

Pooh

the co-op has elevated this to a buy for me.

This is going to be totally bad ass! Trust me ;o)

While it may not be particularly fair to compare this to CoD4 already, it is to be expected. And when have Treyarch made anything other than mediocre? They seem to have decent ideas without the decent implementation.

I really hope this is good but I'm 98% certain this will be a step backwards in the series.

I was disappointed at first but after hearing of the pacific setting, seeing the trailer and now this preview I'm pretty excited about world at war.

/ starts cleaning his M1 in preparation......

It does sound great, but it doesn't change how bored I am of the clunky old WWII guns you get... with shitty sights so you can barely see what you're aiming at. Flamethrowers should help alleviate the pain though I guess.

Going to be better than Modern Warfare methinks.

WW2 isn't out of date, moaning about it is.

I'm afraid this will be "yanks storming a heavily fortified beach" for the fourteenth time, only this time it's in pacific waters, although I want to believe it will be good. I love WW2 games.

Co-op, at last! When I played CoD4 I thought the models looked out of place, or rather, that the environments looked so dull compared to the models running around, that it looked wierd. Like there wasn't enough environment detail compared to the objects in it. Um... Anyhooo, hope they fix that.

Sounds promising, and anything with co-op is +1 in my book, from seeing the trailer my hope has risen slightly.

I imagine this will be more along the lines of "Windtalkers" than "Saving Private Ryan," well you get the idea anyway.

Looking forward to it, especially the co op play. As always, will reserve judgement until i've played it myself :)

Wooden barriers are vulnerable and destructible too, which should mean a canny evolution of COD4's shoot-through-the-scenery shtick.

Hit my pet peeve there with CoD 4; I can kill people with ease through concrete walls, but should they ever find a little wooden box or such like, not only will I never kill them through the box, but I also can not even damage the little wooden box as I spray red hot metal death at it! lol

Fair enough if you want to design a level with cover in it, but make the cover something that does not tear at my faith in the game world.

I was pessimistic about this game but to be fair, it sounds promising, especially with co-op. That being said, I'm pretty sure I will give it a miss because of the WWII setting, I just can't stand it.

still not to sure on this!!

ill give it a chance but hope its not a mess up like COD3!!

I think it sounds intersting too. I've never understood why everyone is, and has been for the last 6 monhts, jizzing thmeselves over COD4. Yeah its good, but it's not super immense...i only play the multiplayer because all my mates play it. But yeah this sounds promising, let's just hope it's nowt like the Medal of Honour one /shudders

A controversial game basis I know, but anone else think one way of freshening up the European theatre side of WWII would be to play from a German perspective? Ofcourse the Daily Mail's readership would simultaneously die of heart attacks that now computers games: "the Devil's Seed tm" were turning our innocent children into Nazis, but if TASTEFULLY done, I think the whole fight-in-vain idea would be pretty poignant.

Ofcourse this will probably never be done as Americans seem to only buy games starring gung-ho, yankee doodle type persons

This game sounds like it'll up the tension stakes somewhat, with hidden enemies needing flushing out, constant unseen threats, lots of scenery prohibiting a 'run and gun' approach. If this is how the game will run, then co-op could well be a tactically driven aspect. We shall see I suppose...

but can we play as the imperial army? :F

I'm bored of this war, can we have a new one please?
Thanks.

Treyarch says,

'No.'

I've got no problems with WWII, I still love it as a setting but they could at least try to make it look as good as COD 4.

I'm bored of this war, can we have a new one please?
Thanks.

Too be fair they can't win. If they made it modern everyone would moan they are just copying COD4.... If they set it in an established era, its going over old ground....

Think of it as, like someone has mentioned, Saving Private Ryan. A great film as im sure we all agree, but I didn't hear anyone complaining that they had seen too many WWII films? Bearing in mind the amount of WWII films before it...

Anyone who judges a game (which they have never played, and only seen a small trailer) on the time period its set is pretty much a moron in my books...

I'm still not convinced that COD5 will be anything special even if Treyarch have been working on it for two years because I don't think they're as talented as Infinity Ward. That might sound a bit harsh but the COD series was IW's baby and so far the best games have come from them. I can't see that being any different now but I'm willing to be proven wrong. While COD3 wasn't awful, it was all a bit uninspired and bland, a pale imitation of COD2, plus it was more than a bit buggy.Setting the game in WWII though after the freshness of COD4's setting seems to me to be a mistake as I'm sick to death of that era so much so that the new Brothers in Arms game has been crossed off my list of wanted games too.

Survival Horror?

Mmmm... No thanks.

"every war's irrelevant unless it's the one on terror."

Actually, every war's irrelevant unless it includes the Barrett .50 Cal.

"Anyone who judges a game (which they have never played, and only seen a small trailer) on the time period its set is pretty much a moron in my books..."

Why call people morons for a matter of taste? I don't like the WWII setting so I won't get the game, what's wrong with that? I'm not saying it will suck, I'm saying it's not my cup of tea. Some people don't like Fantasy games, others Sci-fi games, that doesn't mean they are morons!

"While COD3 wasn't awful, it was all a bit uninspired and bland, a pale imitation of COD2, plus it was more than a bit buggy."

Which part of 'having only 8 months to develop CoD3' passed you by? The fact that Treyarch even managed to get any kind of game out in that time, across multiple platforms, shows that they are more than capable. The fact that, for the most part, it was an enjoyable game (especially in MP), shows that they are more than capable of delivering a game better than CoD4, which imho was overhyped anyway.

Why call people morons for a matter of taste? I don't like the WWII setting so I won't get the game, what's wrong with that? I'm not saying it will suck, I'm saying it's not my cup of tea. Some people don't like Fantasy games, others Sci-fi games, that doesn't mean they are morons!

You totally misunderstood... If you don't like WWII fine, but don't then come on here saying the games going to be shit because its set in WWII (not you personally)

/prescribes 1 x moron prescription...

@Fab4 - I don't care whether Treyarch took 8 months or 8 years to develop COD3, it doesn't change my opinion of the game I played which is that it was buggy and exceptionally unexceptional as a game which I paid £40 for!!! Am I supposed to excuse that because they've now admitted they had to rush it out to a meet a tight deadline?!? Sorry but no. If it wasn't finished then it shouldn't have been released, stop trying to make excuses for the developers/publishers! :P

I think everyone is being unnecessarily harsh on Treyarch, Everyone's reactions seem to be coming from word of mouth or just from their reactions of previously rushed games (COD3, Spider-man3). People seem to be forgetting how little time they had been given on CoD3, which I never thought was rubbish in the first place, and now with an extra year of development this could possibly be a good contender for IW, remembering that it is utilising the same engine and that the improvements made will star in IW next CoD.

And if people have any suspicions that this game will end as badly as CoD3 - remember how the Japanese onslaught stopped - H Bomb baby!!!

"If you don't like WWII fine, but don't then come on here saying the games going to be shit because its set in WWII"

Alright fair enough, I realise that was aimed at someone else... Totally agree by the way.

WW2! Yaay!

:I

"The COD series with it's melee attacks, linear level design, scripted arcade gameplay and run and gun multiplayer..."
You say them as if they were negatives!

I dont think CoD's gameplay was ever intended to be realistic. Its the archetypal run and gun shooter...to be played for fun.

Can I carry over my G36 from COD4? :p

Granted, I haven't actually played a WWII shooter since Return to Castle Wolfenstein (only just started playing shooters again for the first time in years), but after COD4 and - later this week - Battlefield: Bad Company, I can't really say I'm too keen on going back to weaponry that old.

Have their actually been any Vietnam War shooters? Then at least we would have the M16 (and AK47 on the other side).

Well, I'll probably buy the game any way - and I guess there's still a good chance I could end up loving the multiplayer (not really all that interested in singleplayer campaigns in shooters - I think I got around 70-80% through COD4).

This indefatigable foe lies in wait, in pits and in trees, not moving a muscle until an unaware Yankee passes.

Been playing a bit too much civ rev Alec? :)

Sounds pretty cool - let's hope the extra dev time allows them to pull it off!

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that the Flamethrower will be one of those weapons you get given for a single specific mission and are then never allowed near for the rest of the game?

modern day war has been done to death, as has world war 2, albeit not from every single perspective. future wars are tricky, as you alienate your audience from the familiar, sometimes literally, with aliens and ray guns.

how about some better vietnam games, or a great war game? hell, how about some american civil war games or brits against the zulus or something? how about a world war 2 game from the germans perspective? they can lose at the end if anyone gets offended by it.

even if the game was shite, simply setting it in a war or from an angle that has not been covered would still generate interest and sell a few copies. at the very least, copycat games would improve the formula and get it right the next time.

willywanka+1

Jungle setting? Fearless, East-Asian guerrilla style adversaries? Traps? Flame throwers?

I reckon they started work on a 'COD: Nam' game, but either got cold feet or were told by Activision to adapt it to a dubya dubya two setting, ie one where the yanks won.

My two cents...

Have their actually been any Vietnam War shooters?

Vietcong series and Men of Valor spring to mind.

Have their actually been any Vietnam War shooters?

BF: Vietnam too

"but it seems unlikely the Russians' path of murder and rape across Germany will be entirely reflected"

You don't have to like the Russians, but it was the Germans that attacked Russia and what the Germans did to the Russians was much worse than what Russians did to Germans.

Treyarch and WWII (AGAIN, FFS !) = no buy.

Thank you.

Just wait until Infinity Ward do a real follow up, cos COD 3 by Treyarch was shite and so will this be.

^ scientific fact.

So the enemies hide in secret compartments, not move until activated, and will run straight at the player.

It's Doom enemy AI in 2008!

Fact:

CoD 3 being not as good as IW's efforts yet still a shit load better than most other shooters = shite

You don't have to like the Russians, but it was the Germans that attacked Russia and what the Germans did to the Russians was much worse than what Russians did to Germans.

And Russia did horrible things to Baltic nations, Ukranians, Poles, Kazakies etc. and most prominently, their own lot. Japs did horrbile things to Americans, and Americans did horrible things to Japs with the H bomb for instance. I don't mean to start any political discussion here, but it was a [i]World War[/i], there is no clear "good" or "bad" when it comes to killing each other on this scale.

Ofcourse the Daily Mail's readership would simultaneously die of heart attacks that now computers games: "the Devil's Seed tm" were turning our innocent children into Nazis, but if TASTEFULLY done, I think the whole fight-in-vain idea would be pretty poignant.

From some perspectives, you alredy got to play as a villain - for many eastern europeans Soviets were every bit as villan-yish as Nazis. I agree that there are a lot of less known, but as interesting as D-Day for instance, places and conflicts where a WW2 game could take place to refresh the setting. Hovewer I am yet to see a videogame that tries to do justice to complexity and ambiguity of some aspects of that war. Thats why I guess I'll hold out on this one. Maybe I'll try Brothers in Arms, but then there is the "America, Fuck Yeah!" thing, and I falter. :|

The dropping of atomic bombs on Japan saved many, many Japanese and American lives.

edit: Not to mention the Chinese and numerous others...

"Russians' path of murder and rape across Germany"

...

knob

I wasn't too interested in this until I heard the words Co op. Will keep an eye on it.

Its such a fantastic game mechanism (splitscreen co op) an average game becomes good just because of this one feature.More developers should use it.