Call of Duty: World at War Review

By Dan Whitehead Published 13 November, 2008

Still soldiering on.

Version tested: Xbox 360

So it's come to this. Right at the very start of World at War, you're a helpless prisoner of the Japanese, saved from execution at the last second by a rescue squad of US Marines. Handed a rifle, you begin to exact your payback. As you move from hut to hut, one of the game's many scripted moments occurs. Directly in front of you, a Japanese soldier, his uniform ablaze, bursts out at a fellow US soldier. Should you manage to shoot the assailant quickly enough, and thus prevent your team mate from burning alive, you're awarded your first Achievement or Trophy - Saved Private Ryan.

It's an obvious gag, and a revealing one. World at War, it seems, is not a game concerned with avoiding the obvious. Quite the opposite in fact. For a game that goes out of its way to rub your nose in the grisly underbelly of war (opening, rather tastelessly, with what looks like real archive footage of Japanese military executions) it nevertheless nestles snugly inside the predictable comfort zone already established by over a decade of similar WW2 shooters.

That's not to say that World at War doesn't impress. Much like its predecessor, Modern Warfare, this is an exhilarating and painstakingly designed journey through the smoke, flames and dust of armed combat. It's linear and scripted, as all shooters must be to some extent, but the series has always succeeded by hiding the strings better than most. That success wavers here, but there's still plenty to enjoy for those who enjoy shock and awe more than surprises.

The dual storylines follow Private Miller, an American soldier in the Pacific and the subject of the opening rescue, and Red Army soldier Private Petrenko, pulled from the rubble of Stalingrad by the grizzled Sergeant Reznov, brilliantly voiced by Gary Oldman. It's the Russian story that is most interesting, tracking the Soviets as they push the Germans out of the motherland all the way back to Berlin for the climactic assault on the Reichstag. The American story, on the other hand, feels a bit piecemeal and offers a less than satisfying conclusion.

There are thirteen levels in all, although thirteen set pieces may be a more accurate description. If the early Call of Duty games were aping Spielberg, this is videogaming in the Michael Bay style. Each level seems designed to drop you into an instantly thrilling combat scenario, delivered with maximum speaker-rattling intensity and all the particle effects the game engine can muster. When it works, it's as ferociously thrilling as ever. One level, seemingly unrelated to either story, finds you scampering up and down a US seaplane, manning the various turrets to fend off Japanese gunboats and fighters. At one point, you land on the water and must pull the survivors of a Navy convoy to safety while explosions rattle the fuselage.

'Call of Duty: World at War' Screenshot 1

Good thing there’s a convenient last minute rescue about to take place, or this would be a very short game.

But when it doesn't work, the game can feel disjointed and disconnected. Levels are connected by swooshing animated segues, which are presumably inspired by the opening credits to the George Clooney thriller, Syriana, but it doesn't do enough to explain who your characters are, or why they're hopping from one location to another. That the levels rigidly herd you in the right direction, only triggering the next sequence once you've passed some invisible trigger, only heightens the artificiality of the scenarios.

Call of Duty has never been about freedom, though. It's a theme park ride, and if you keep your eyes in the direction the game is herding you then you'll get the full effect. Try and deviate from the prescribed path and the illusion is broken, with AI team mates who only advance once you've killed an unexplained number of specific enemies, respawning soldiers that only stop appearing when you trigger the next section by moving in the right direction and lots of other tricks of the trade.

Call of Duty isn't alone in disguising its corridor construction with this sort of thing, of course, and there's a lot of skill in the way the game directs your gaze and engineers staged pseudo-spontaneous moments, but it does seem more reliant on these methods than other shooters. We've seen and beaten these tricks too many times before, and while it's easy to be entertained by the dramatic flourishes we're no longer fooled by the construction, especially when playing through the same section for the fifth time thanks to crude sudden death moments and checkpoints just harsh enough to frustrate.

'Call of Duty: World at War' Screenshot 2

This aerial sequence is breathtakingly staged, but appears to have no connection to anything else in the game.

Grenades are a recurring problem, often landing close enough to kill but too far away to be reached and tossed back safely. That your character has a habit of snagging on small objects as you try to backpedal away from the blast zone simply makes these moments even more annoying. The game also brings back the timed reaction tests from Call of Duty 3, with Japanese troopers screaming "Banzai!" and trying to stick their bayonet in your warm fleshy bits. As the levels get wider, and the battles larger, it's easy to be caught from behind by these guys, at which point you have a split second to bash the button to counter their otherwise instantly deadly attack. The timing is fiddly, and the whole concept still feels cheap, especially since your team mates rarely do anything to help.

In fact, the AI in general is spotty. When you're doing what the game wants - carefully dashing from cover to cover and playing whack-a-mole as the enemies pop up from the same places - the computer controlled troops move and fight convincingly. Break from the routine, advance faster than you're expected to, and you'll start to see enemies standing blindly by as you stand next to them, sniping their comrades, or friendly soldiers angrily shooting walls and rocks.

Despite these hiccups, it generally looks phenomenal, providing you're looking in the right places. This isn't a game where physics plays much of a part and it instead uses similar tricks to Burnout - depth of field, peripheral blurring - to make sure you get the most satisfying view of the action as you barrel onwards. There's now a flamethrower weapon, which apparently provides realistic propagating fire. It rarely works out that way though. Flames flicker on items after the gushing inferno has died away, but they soon sputter out like the automated textures they are rather than becoming a living part of a dynamic gameworld. You can also shoot through things like wood and cloth, even though rockets and grenades have no effect on rickety huts or stacks of boxes. As much impact as the gameworld presents on the surface, with its flurries of black smoke and thundering explosions, it's still a very fixed and scripted place to be.

So, ultimately, we've got all the highs and lows that have come to define the Call of Duty experience but made less enticing this time around simply because we're back in World War 2. For all the eye-popping bombast and cinematic presentation, we've played variations on these scenarios dozens of times already, in this and other wartime franchises, and the effect is dimmed as a result. Dashing up yet another beach is no longer the heart-stopping experience it once was. As with the blockbuster movies it so slavishly models itself on, World at War's solo campaign is an undeniable thrill, but a shallow one.

Of course, solo play is only half the story when it comes to Call of Duty, and World at War finally introduces co-op play to the series. Playable online, in split-screen or even via a local LAN network, it allows you to dip back into any of the levels with up to three friends, playing together or competing for more kills. You can also spice up the gameplay by finding Death Cards, helmets on stakes with a playing card tucked into the band. Thirteen of these are tucked away throughout the game, each unlocking a different cheat for co-op play. They're basically the same as the skulls in Halo 3, although the effects are often more inventive. One card ensures that headshots make people explode. Another turns you into a vampire, with constantly dropping health that can only be topped up by making kills. Others make enemies tougher to kill, or makes your soldier more vulnerable.

'Call of Duty: World at War' Screenshot 3

The character models are of a consistently high standard, even if the soldiers themselves lack personality.

Also available in co-op mode is Nazi Zombies, a bonus game unlocked upon completion of the solo campaign much like the score multiplier mode in COD4. Once you get past the rather jarring incongruity of the po-faced sombre "war is bad" captions at the end of the game and the giddy "YOU'VE UNLOCKED NAZI ZOMBIES!" that immediately follows, what you have is essentially a self-contained survival game. You're trapped in a ruined cottage, with barricaded windows. Nazi zombies try and get in, and for every one you dispatch you earn credits. These can be spent on new weapons or to open up new areas of the cottage. It can be played solo, but there's no realistic way that a lone player will be able to cover all the points of entry. The zombies just keep coming until you die, so it's limited in scope, but it's still a real hoot when played with friends and for PS3 owners unable to enjoy Left 4 Dead, it's an acceptable bonus alternative.

Sadly, the competitive multiplayer component still features most of the flaws highlighted in our recent hands on. It's a decent enough spread, offering all the features and game modes that frag-fans expect, but the weapon balancing remains off and with much the same format, yet less consistent firepower, it's hard to imagine it keeping people away from Call of Duty 4 for very long. Also, those bloody dogs. For a series that had attracted such a massive online fanbase, this represented the chance to innovate and evolve the multiplayer experience, further cementing Call of Duty as the online benchmark for console shooters. No such luck. This is your bog standard multiplayer mode, with a perks and levelling system carried over from the previous game. It's the deathmatch equivalent of treading water and, while it will no doubt have its fans, it too often feels driven by obligation rather than inspiration.

'Call of Duty: World at War' Screenshot 4

The final push into Berlin is fierce and tough, but it feels like the climax to a half-told story.

It's easy to be impressed by World at War. It's a game designed for maximum initial impact and, while it wobbles along the way, it delivers precisely the sort of carefully stage-managed carnage that fans will expect. The addition of a robust and varied co-op option helps to mitigate the disappointment of the by-the-numbers traditional multiplayer modes. However, looking back to Kristan's review review of Call of Duty 3 you'll find the exact same complaints being raised two years ago. Corridor gameplay. Outdated features. Flaky AI. They're all still here, albeit masked by even more whiz-bang effects than ever before. World at War certainly benefits from Modern Warfare's beefier graphics engine, but when it comes to the crunch it lacks the crucial innovations - both in gameplay and concept - that made its immediate predecessor so deservedly popular.

8 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (151) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • JediMasterMalik #1 3 years ago

    Not as good as CoD 4 then, as expected. Still, I'm sure it's a great game, probably wait for the bargain bins though.

  • Peew971 #2 3 years ago

    I'll pass this one.
    Stupid Activision... A COD4 Expansion would have been very high in sales along Gears 2. They're just too greedy.

  • clockworkzombie #3 3 years ago

    I am enjoying the single player campaign just wish it were longer I fear I have almost completed it. I have not gone online yet I will finish single player first.

    I would love a Call of Duty game that covered Stalingrad. The Russian Campaign in 2 left me wanting more.

  • caligari #4 3 years ago

    Hopefully my friend has just picked this up from Asda for me - for 27 blinkin' pound coins.

  • MangoBen #5 3 years ago

    Sounds a bit meh. Will probably pick it up 2nd hand in the new year for the single player, complete it and then re-sell it.

    The multiplayer beta wasn't a patch on COD4 for me.

  • Hunam #6 3 years ago

    I guess if they keep making the same game over and over one of them will turn out to be halfway decent.

  • local_celebrity #7 3 years ago

    Such a hypercritical review, and yet it still ends with an 8?

    Lordy. Oh well, at least this confirms everything I suspected about this game. I lost literally days of my life to COD4, but got bored of the beta for this within minutes.

    Pass.

  • Kingofnothin #8 3 years ago

    Not bothered about the single player personally, so the comments about flaky AI and corridor gameplay doesn't bother me at all. The MP beta was good enough for me to warrant buying this, should be fun especially the Nazi Zombie slaughter fest and Co Op mode. Even if its not as good as 4 just got to wait another year till the next one and provided IW don't jump ship I can't wait! I'd much prefer to pass the time than a COD4 expansion and then have to wait 2 years until another full game comes out, really don't know why everyone is complaining!

  • local_celebrity #9 3 years ago

    @Peew971

    Amazing idea, sport. You should be on the Activision board.

    If, instead of this, they'd gotten the whole of Treyarch to do new maps for COD4, that would have been money well spent.

    Now they're stuck with another shitty sequel.

  • BrokenSymmetry #10 3 years ago

    Again, just like the Mirror's Edge review, this read like a much lower score than it received...

  • Oh-Bollox #11 3 years ago

    (opening, rather tastelessly, with what looks like real archive footage of Japanese military executions)

    They are indeed, according to the internet. Funny how mediawatch-uk haven't said a peep. Is this violence okay cos it's historic, whereas fictional violence where no-one gets hurt isn't okay cos it's evil?

  • local_celebrity #12 3 years ago

    BTW, have you noticed how the cover for this game looks distinctly modern?

    Not one Captain Manwaring in sight

    It's almost as if they're in denial.

  • spacenugget #13 3 years ago

    I agree, review was very critical. I never liked Call of Duty, but 4 changed my mind and hooked me for a long time..... I was really hoping for more of the same. dang.

    edit: my spelling sucks yet again
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/08 @ 00:53

  • HMAN #14 3 years ago

    Someone has to say it

    Reads like a 6

  • SparkyDD #15 3 years ago

    Gotta agree that the review sounded more like a 6, guess it was just saying its a great game..but here are the the flaws. Wont be getting as ME is out as is Res 2 soon while LBP arrives tomorrow.

  • UKGN_Zoidberg #16 3 years ago

    Played it a lot, and an 8 is bang on the money.

  • dynarama #17 3 years ago

    8 sir? Totally read like a 6

  • gaselite #18 3 years ago

    I don't disagree with your ultimate conclusion, and it's fine knowing that going in, but I disagree with this:

    So, ultimately, we've got all the highs and lows that have come to define the Call of Duty experience but made less enticing this time around simply because we're back in World War 2. For all the eye-popping bombast and cinematic presentation, we've played variations on these scenarios dozens of times already, in this and other wartime franchises, and the effect is dimmed as a result. Dashing up yet another beach is no longer the heart-stopping experience it once was. As with the blockbuster movies it so slavishly models itself on, World at War's solo campaign is an undeniable thrill, but a shallow one.

    World War 2 is an enduring and fascinating period of human history. Certainly there is scope for a bit more variation in battles explored by WW2 games, but all the same it's a period of history made all the more fascinating by its basis in reality.

    The fact of the matter is, there are far more 'contemporary' or 'futuristic' shooters than WW2 shooters, so to me the whole 'oh my, another WW2 shooter' point feels so horribly laboured.

    What's more disturbing to me is the seemingly tasteless way this devastating conflict is treated. You mentioned the tasteless intro but also the caricature voice acting in the mp beta was a bit of a turn off. Not to mention the concept of things like 'death cards' and 'NAZI ZOMBIE MODE!'. That last one sounds like great fun, but try and treat the subject matter with the dignity it so obviously deserves and be a bit more delicate about it.

    Points about multiplayer's flaws are well made. All the same CoD4 online had myriad idiosyncratic problems yet I kept coming back to it. There's still a lot of value in the game's multiplayer here, as I see it, if you're a fan of CoD online.

    I'll probably buy it today. Have an exam so could do with a post-exam pick-me-up.

  • kingofbergamo #19 3 years ago

    So far what I can say about COD - World at War - I only got it today - is that is not COD4. However, any FPS that has 'Jack Bauer' as its leading character is bound to be exciting!!! The game does not add or take much from COD4 gameplay as it uses the same engine. Meaning, COD5 has a good and solid story mode - flashy scenes, narrated by a great actor, topped up by real footage of the real war that shaped the world that we live on.
    MP its fun! The maps are diverse and much different from COD4. There are some few and minor innovations such as - 'dog attack instead of helicopter (still unsure whether i like it or not), vehicles (tanks) - and a couple of new perks. Now, the big drawback to me on this series: THE GUNS. One of the most exciting points of COD4 is its guns!! Nothing better than an up to date arsenal of guns to choose from. All in all still a great game, probably the best WWII game, but not as good as COD4... :)


  • FenderMaster #20 3 years ago

    No way is this game as good as MGS 4

  • RedSparrows #21 3 years ago

    I find it weird that (in single player terms at least, not played the multi which sounds the same, but with dogs and tanks), it sounds like it follows pretty much the CoD pattern, as expected, and sounds to be well done (a la CoD4), but CoD4 was called phenomenal et al. I know it was a year ago...but corridor shooter....blatantly obvious spawn mechanics/set pieces. Ah well. Not interested in this in the slightest, but fair play to those who enjoy it!

  • SPKRFCKR #22 3 years ago

    I don't think the review read like a 6, nor am I one to bother with that sort of comment. Rather, I think the review was very well written and told us fans of COD exactly what we wanted to know about the game. It seems the main problem with the game is the lack of innovation (the WWII setting AGAIN) and Treyarch's inability to address the flaws of the previous versions ( the 'dumb' AI, the invisible checkpoints etc.). Im going to rent it tomorrow evening, and give the multiplayer a try, just to see how it compares to COD4.

    Also, that 'saving private Ryan' trophy sounds pretty easy to obtain, I wonder if all the others will be as unique. I bet we will get stuck with plenty of 'Completed Level 1' etc. bronze trophies.

  • Kenshin001 #23 3 years ago

    I'm waiting with bated breath for the Japan release. If there is one.

  • Fab4 #24 3 years ago

    "Corridor gameplay. Outdated features. Flaky AI."

    All things that CoD4 had, in spades, yet it still scored better. CoD4 didnt even offer Co-op or Zombie survival. Methinks the reviewer is biased either towards modern weaponry, or IW.

  • makeamazing #25 3 years ago

    I do feel 8 is a fair representation of the game. COD4 felt pretty fresh, while as the reviewer has said WW2 has been done to death (but i still dont mind it). The game is what you expect, scripted fun... If you like WW2 shooter games then its one to get.

  • FooAtari #26 3 years ago

    Im properly fed up of CoD, A new game every year is too much, it should be every 2 or 3 years. But we all now thats not how Activision do business.

  • FooAtari #27 3 years ago

    Methinks the reviewer is biased either towards modern weaponry, or IW.

    Or maybe he is sick of hearing about and playing CoD games.

  • 3william56 #28 3 years ago

    Did Japanese soldiers really run about shouting BANZAI! and trying to stick machine gun wielding Yanks with a sharpened chopstick, or has someone been reading too many Commando/Union Jack Jackson comics?

    Dodgy racial stereotypes FTW!

  • TiredRiver #29 3 years ago

    @ potato_fan

    I completely agree.
    I think alot of Halo hate comes from the people who are shit at it.
    It is the greatest multiplayer game I have ever played. When it is plaed at a high level and you can sit behind someone who is really good it becomes an entertaiment in itself. It is so polished and varied.
    It is the standard to which all Xbox games are now judged.
    Even Gears multiplayer falls way short of the Halo achievement.

  • Fab4 #30 3 years ago

    "Or maybe he is sick of hearing about and playing CoD games."

    If thats the case then perhaps they should consider a career change.

  • WJRA3561 #31 3 years ago

    so 8 more than it should of got then

  • drumbaby #32 3 years ago

    The series moves backwards again....strange.

  • space_ace #33 3 years ago

    back to Berlin for the climactic assault on the Reichstag

    er... ok, where did we play this before?

    bakaro!

  • bad09 #34 3 years ago

    I want this as I love the beta, but it's gonna loose out, far too much to buy already. Anyway, maybe I'll put it down for a Christmas present.

    Oh sorry I shouldn't say that. It's piracy and 2nd hand gaming that affects sales isn't it, nothing to do with the completely retarded all out the gate at once mentality the games industry has ;)


  • ShineDog #35 3 years ago

    Review didn't mention the music. it is godawful.


    It has a very synthesized, modern sound much like a tom clancy game, complete with the occasional screaming electric guitar going DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRnnnnnnn like the checkpoint riff in gears.


    totally out of place.

  • t8yman #36 3 years ago

    I've finished it, and 8 feels about right to me, although I must say the text doesnt say 8 to me.

    The russian/german levels are 100 times better than the south pacific IMHO, and it felt very much like COD2 (and dare I say it - better) in parts.

    There is a lot wrong, ai is very dodgy, and in particular with your own squad, you can be tucked into some pretty sparse cover, and one of your men who has been scripted to use that cover will come and hunch down next to you - pushing you out into the line of fire. Happened frequently to me.

    I played it on hardened and it took about 10-12 hours for me. I know I'm shit, but some of the sections were seemingly impossible until I found the hidden "trigger point" to stop the enemy spawning - thats the mopst irritating thing of all.

    Kudos to treyarch, because its a far better effort than cod3 (which I absolutley loathed) but still falls short of the IW instalments.

  • jenguin #37 3 years ago

    I like it. Prefer it to 4. Co-op campaign is brilliant.

    The review seems like it has been written for an intended audience (Treyarch dissenters) which may well be why it's at odds with the score it provides.

  • morriss #38 3 years ago

    Read like 6 or 7 to me. Basically, a shooter is all about the AI and the freedom in which you're allowed to approach a situation. Itsounds like the game fails at both junctures.

  • aphexstwin #39 3 years ago

    i got turned off cod4 pretty quickly. i was looking for a battlefield 2 clone for the ps3 to accompany warhawk. i was mistaken. unfair perks, inability to kill someone who's charging me in a knife attack, the noob m16 and the biggest one: getting your arse handed to you by the americans who'd had the game for a few days before us brits, ie. no rank restricted rooms. so i left it for a few weeks and went back to the less mardy warhawk. goes back to cod 4 to find literally everyone playing was a prestige rank and i get pwned big time. and no, i dont believe you get better playing better people. its not fun being slaughtered imo

    anyway, this sounds like more of the same. i wish there was a demo for things like this (i know there is for codwaw), it would have saved me some money (cough *gears* cough) but the success of cod4 will be enough for this to sell. unfortunately. that'll keep treyarch involved in another game that wont be as influential on game design as cod 4 was, single player and the early stages of multiplayer, infinity ward owned.

  • bad09 #40 3 years ago

    "its not fun being slaughtered imo "

    Get good at the game then ;)

  • Darren #41 3 years ago

    A fair score IMO after the three hours I played this for last night. Looks great, sounds great, gameplay good, level design not so good. There's too many blatantly invisible walls scattered around for my liking that take you out of the game and come across as unbelievable.

    For example, on the first level there are *open* doorways you cannot enter, steps you cannot go up and pathways you cannot take even though there's no obvious logical in-game reason why apart from the developers don't want you going that way. On the last sniper level I was playing there's even a bit where you go up a ladder but you cannot go down it once the next setpiece is triggered because the game wants you to go a different way. It's a real shame that the game feels so restricted, it makes it seem far more linear than it needed to be, and the developers have clearly missed an opportunity to have multiple routes and objectives through each level.

    Also the hateful respawn points are back with a vengeance and more glaringly apparent in this game than the previous ones. You can spend ages at certain points fighting off enemies because you didn't move forward to a specific point which then triggers the next set point. It's about time this archaic design choice was abandoned in favour of something a bit more random and realistic IMO.

    Overall it's a good game in terms of atmosphere and excitement but the game design lets it down IMO. I'd give 7.5 so far although that's only for the single player campaign.

  • Whizzo #42 3 years ago

    back to Berlin for the climactic assault on the Reichstag

    er... ok, where did we play this before?
    Recycling is good for the environment. And for developers who run out of ideas so reuse something from the very first game in the series!

  • dr_faulk #43 3 years ago

    Um, read as a 7/10?

  • Darren #44 3 years ago

    To be honest, Whizzo, the whole WWII setting is getting very familiar now so it's unavoidable. Even the Pacific setting has been used at least twice before in Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault and the awful console versions of that game for example which came out at the same time (don't remember what it was called though). A lot of the Pacific levels in this new COD feels straight out of the PC version of MOH: Pacific Assault to me.

  • whome #45 3 years ago

    "COD is a rubbish series and COD4 should have go
    t an 8 as well. Get the fuck over it. As far as shooters go, nothing comes close to the depth and polish of Halo 3."

    not sure that's popular opinion :p

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=129421
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=145015
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...[/link]

  • Masarin #46 3 years ago

    Treyarch 0 - Inifinity Ward 5.

    @aphexstwin said: and no, i dont believe you get better playing better people. its not fun being slaughtered imo

    Hm. So you get better by playing lesser good people? Doesn't sound right me thinks.
    Personally I didn't find it a problem at all to level, and I'm not especially good at anything multiplayer. :-)

  • pha #47 3 years ago

    COD:WaW = Theme Park Ride = RENTAL!

  • karstux #48 3 years ago

    Using real death scenes in a commercial game with no artistic merit whatsoever - that's exploitation at its lowest, and completely strips the game of any claim to be somehow respectful to the real(!) people who fought and died in this war. They should be ashamed.

  • Steroyd #49 3 years ago

    Nothing to see here COD 6 is where it's at.

  • frostcircus #50 3 years ago

    @karstux: Agreed 100%, and it's pretty baffling that there's not more furore over this

  • General Coxykiller #51 3 years ago

    Game rankings 88% overall so its not doing to bad, just play it for what it is, a great cinematic War Game. Xmas number 1!

    I have just finshed single player and yes I must admit the team AI is a little shabby and I did want to run of the rails and flank the enemy, but otherwise it was great fun with the vehicle levels adding some variation.

    I totally agree with the comments on the Russian Campaign. I WANT MORE! Adds a whole new dimension to the conflict. Germans kicked the Russians around in Barborosa then the Russians went back with avangance and a Stalingrad game would be amazing! Hark back to the days of MOH AA and the Stalingrad MP map.... Glory days!

    8/10 is a good and honest score.

  • groovychainsaw #52 3 years ago

    gah - another chance at infinitely respawning troops = no sale

  • HolyJebus #53 3 years ago

    EG, please ban anyone who ever types "Read like a..."

    I fear everyone is going to be disappointed with IW's next version after waiting so long. Hopefully not but I think we'll prob all be tired of the scripted.....ness of their games.

  • HolyJebus #54 3 years ago

    @karstux

    I was always surprised there wasn't more of a fuss for them putting zombies in the game.

  • mcmonkeyplc #55 3 years ago

    Surprise!

  • kangarootoo #56 3 years ago

    Christ, I never thought I would ever find myself writing "doesn't read like an 8", but I think the day might have finally arrived.

    Given the stack of FPS games out there, I found nothing here that suggested this should be a contender for my money. The positives seemed to focus almost exclusively on the graphical presentation, and yet the game is apparently "***".


    *** is the bit where I was going to quote from EGs review policy. But I'll be damned if I can find it. ANYWHERE.

  • Cappy #57 3 years ago

    Pity it's not a Nazi Zombie survival game with the shitty blockbuster World War 2 game as the unlockable.

  • metalangel #58 3 years ago

    I also would like EG to explain how they can slag the game off for almost the entire review and then expect us to swallow 8/10. The review reads like a 5 or 6, the very good score has not been justified in any way; especially not in the face of extremely contentious issues like the dogs and zombies and poor AI and linearity.

  • Robm612 #59 3 years ago

    Eurogamer is a bit unfair about the dogs, they're much better than the dogs which can magically shoot you when your inside, they are clearly campers who get mauled and so dont like them cause their shit, as crap as the bolt rifles were im still getting as i managed to get 53 - 4 KD ratio with a scoped mosin nagant, bouncing bettys and a russian pistol/ thompson.

    Also to eeryone taking this review as gospel, gears 1 got an 8/10 on here and a 9.3/10 on metacritic so clearly eurogamer is harsher than most, nowadays i never take one reviews word for it i only read the text of about 3/4 then look at the metacritic score, so ill still get this one with a 86.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/08 @ 09:50

  • septimus #60 3 years ago

    Better review that I thought it would get. A discount purchase for sure still.

  • ParanoidZombie #61 3 years ago

    left4 Dead is only 1 week away!!!!

  • beckyh #62 3 years ago

    Its funny, the game got criticised for the very things which were in CoD4. Yet CoD4 was hailed like it was a gaming god.

  • Brogan #63 3 years ago

    Do you get an achievement for raping 2 million german women on the way to Berlin

  • Dizzy #64 3 years ago

    Not sure if I can stand *another* push into Berlin.

  • mikeck #65 3 years ago

    getting your arse handed to you by the americans who'd had the game for a few days before us brits, ie. no rank restricted rooms.

    There's low rank rooms in this versions MP, so noobies to the game won't get arse's handed back left right and centre :D

  • metalangel #66 3 years ago

    Here's hoping for a game with the guts to tell some of the story from the Axis side instead of just relegating them to a multiplayer "side".

  • SilentScream #67 3 years ago

    Good thing there’s a convenient last minute rescue about to take place, or this would be a very short game.

    GoW2 is full of "conveniences".

    Oh that was convenient that the falling buildinga had formed a path.
    Oh that was convenient that this lever was here.

    etc, etc

  • samk #68 3 years ago

    ShineDog: "Review didn't mention the music. it is godawful."

    Absolutely. I was playing mission two last night - storming a beach - and a metal riff came into the soundtrack. It literally stopped me in my tracks. I was stunned by how inappropriate it was and it completely ruined any immersion.

    I think someone made a big misjudgement in how to present this game. They've taken a sensitive subject and horrific footage, then chavved it up with a bold MTV graphics and an awful modern soundtrack.

  • afghan_jones #69 3 years ago

    well, the multiplayer beta was gash.

  • mr_ruberfon #70 3 years ago

    Here's hoping for a game with the guts to tell some of the story from the Axis side instead of just relegating them to a multiplayer "side".

    NO!

  • Darren #71 3 years ago

    @samk - "Absolutely. I was playing mission two last night - storming a beach - and a metal riff came into the soundtrack. It literally stopped me in my tracks. I was stunned by how inappropriate it was and it completely ruined any immersion."

    Yep, I heard the same and thought "What the hell?!?". I mean this is modern hideous rock music being played in a game set in 1944 and pre-dates rock 'n' roll even by a good decade. It sounds horribly out of place and jarring. Whoever thought that was a good idea needs to be shot IMO (no pun intended). The music elsewhere is pretty good though and epic so I just about forgive that absurdity. Just.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/08 @ 10:45

  • vaggabond #72 3 years ago

    I've canceled by pre-order because those dogs are the most annoying thing in history of world gaming :)

    This will be the first ever COD game I don't buy, but its gameplay not pretty graphics Im after.

  • OmagnusPrime #73 3 years ago

    dynarama said: 8 sir? Totally read like a 6
    This.

    I don't see how this review ended up being an 8 seeing as how it reads in almost an entirely negative way. It sounds exactly as I expected though, a lazy, generic step back into the safety of WWII, but taking as many elements of CoD4 as they could get away with and using big explosions to try and hide a poor game. Any sequel that has CoD4 to build upon should be fantastic, it should at least be as good as CoD4, and should push and strive to make it even better. I don't see why anyone would want to pay good money for a poor-man's version of last year's game.

  • paulf #74 3 years ago

    we're still waiting for the cod4 multiplayer review you promised a year ago :)

  • slayaz #75 3 years ago

    So not as good as Halo, Gears. Better than MGS,

    Sorry couldn't resist.

    Total pass for me, the MP demo was more like 6 or 7

  • Fluffmargin #76 3 years ago

    So this game has a four player co-op campaign over a LAN? I've read elsewhere that it was online only, anyone confirm this either way? Hosting a LAN party tomorrow and 4 player co-op would rock.

  • turnget2005 #77 3 years ago

    @karstux

    completely agree.

    EPIC FAIL! i never really understood the hype around the last one either.

  • Bilbo_bobbins #78 3 years ago

    you guys are seriously sad on here. Personally I think this review is CRAP ! You can tell the person writing it loves COD4 and get away from the fact WW2 has more depth and various battles going on at once.
    I have played the game and personally think it's better than COD4. THe graphics are better for a start, and secondly there are alot more options on perks/guns and additional content.

    Get a life people and play the game before you slate it.

  • metalangel #79 3 years ago

    The irony of someone getting upset over other people not liking a game telling them to "get a life". I've seen enough of the game from the de... er, beta to understand that it is not worth my money.

  • jonsaan #80 3 years ago

    No Biritsh campaign= epic fail
    split screen co-op = COOL!
    still.....not sure to be honest. I think I'll wait. Too many other games to play.

  • Byzanite #81 3 years ago

    8?? lol nahhh more like a 7. Jeez

  • bonker #82 3 years ago

    "I would love a Call of Duty game that covered Stalingrad. The Russian Campaign in 2 left me wanting more. "

    I agree.

    COD2 clearly the best game of the series in my book, particularly cos of the awesome atmosphere in the Russian campaign. That still stands out as the defining next-gen experience for me 3 years on ...

    COD:WAW sounds like COD3 made with the COD4 engine - I.E. better graphics etc again but fuck-all atmosphere.

  • shogo10 #83 3 years ago

    I thought the review review was pretty spot imo.
    I didn't expect much from this game, not because its made by Treyarch, but simply because of the direction where the franchise has been heading. COD4 was good, but almost exclusively because of its mp, not saying the sp was bad, but it was lacking and too heavily scripted without any replayability. COD5 pretty much confirmed to me that the sp portion will from now on be a tacked on addition unless they really decide to mix up their formula (they won't). If I decide to buy another COD it'll be for its mp only as that is all they really are now.

  • SpyroViper #84 3 years ago

    "'NAZI ZOMBIE MODE!'. That last one sounds like great fun, but try and treat the subject matter with the dignity it so obviously deserves and be a bit more delicate about it."

    Delicate about what? They are Nazi's.. They killed hundreds fo thousends of our Great Great uncle's, grandfathers etc. Delicate about it is insulting, they can rot for all I care.

    However, I do feel that the campagin for COd should be a bit more delicate adn less yay another plane blowing up wooo look at that! wow! It's not wow, its not OMG cool. It was once someone dying a not very nice death, it shouldnt be treated with such disrespect.

  • kangarootoo #85 3 years ago

    @Truk

    Cheers for the link. Silly me, there was I thinking it might be in the standard website pages, such as under the "How we work" section. Shows what I know about websites ;)

  • Whizzo #86 3 years ago

    Anyone who wants Stalingrad should just find a cheap copy of the original CoD, it's there in all its stolen from "Enemy at the Gates" glory. It even finishes with taking the Reichstag...

    It'll run on pretty much any slightly reasonable PC as it's Quake 3 engine title. It also has the best CoD level ever with Pegasus Bridge.

  • TheNinkyNonk #87 3 years ago

    FFS, COD4 only got one point more! WW2 is a great setting. Looking forward to playing this.

  • TheNinkyNonk #88 3 years ago

    "some of the sections were seemingly impossible until I found the hidden "trigger point" to stop the enemy spawning - thats the mopst irritating thing of all"

    True of ALL COD games.

  • T4RG4 #89 3 years ago

    I consider 8 scrores almost worthy of purchase even if I had some doubts. But after reading, an 8?

    8 is meant to be really bloody good but it doesnt come across like that (to me at least).

    You might as well dump scores 1-7 :-/

  • Chufty #90 3 years ago

    Eurogamer overscoring a generic me-too first person shooter? Surely not...

  • filtronic #91 3 years ago

    It's a shame they went back to WW2, I'm sick of WW2 shooters, it's just all the same. I was really hoping for more COD4 type fresh modern settings. I was really disappointed when Treyarch announced they were setting it in the Japanese fight of WW2. Hopefully the COD game InfinityWard are working on is going to be awesome like COD4

    http://gadg etsgamesandstuff.blogspot.com

  • yerawldda #92 3 years ago

    i loved CoD 4, and even CoD 3 i thought was amazing, though the mp was a tack-on and any rank-ups were lost each reboot. this fixes that problem and has the CoD4 engine. and i loved the tanks in multiplayer, for me thats enough to make this a great game. i bought CoD2 for dead cheap and i must say - its shit. very disappointing. maybe it was good the first time around, but playing it after 3 and 4, its horrid.

    after the travesty that was far cry 2, give me linear levels and straight up shooting action ANY DAY!

    also there were dogs in CoD4, doesnt anyone remember?! a click of the stick as its about to sink its teeth into you was enough to easily dispatch of these mutts, 100% of the time - assuming you got the timing right.. whats the problem?! dont see it being any more difficult in multiplayer, plus you need a 7 kill streak for them, and should stop people camping for the entire match.

    i agree with the person that said this review is aimed at treyarch haters. its not a proper review, but when was the last proper review on here, without trying to be smart?! eurogamer THINK they are smart, its obvious they are just EDGE wannabes. (they eurogamer T-shirts "8/10 better than halo 3" confirm just that. twats.

    ive never played MOH or any other WWII shooters other than the CoD franchise, so these settings arent so familiar to me. and even if i had played them.. it would have been on a ps2, wouldnt it? theres a big difference.
    Edited by 5 at 14/11/08 @ 12:57

  • phycus #93 3 years ago

    just noticed that http://www.asda.com have it for £27 for 360 and PS3.

  • phycus #94 3 years ago

    hang on... i saw this in today's daily mail on page 46, however the website asda.com states £37.

    looks like in store only, as "online prices may vary".



    Edited by 1 at 14/11/08 @ 12:55

  • metalangel #95 3 years ago

    It's not World War 2 that's tired... it's being the damned Americans as they destroy the Third Reich in Western Europe for the umpteenth time that is. There were so many other places during the war they could set it...

  • karstux #96 3 years ago

    @KingsXKing
    "Ur talking bollox so with some artistic merit exploitation is fine is it?
    So the TV series World At War is porn then.
    Get a grip FFS"

    Well, without going offtopic too much, Art can be seen as being about communicating insight in some aspect of humanity. It's not primarily about commercial profit. So if the same archive footage were presented in the context of an artwork, most likely it wouldn't be exploitation. For example, there is that famous picture of a dying soldier in the spanish civil war, who has just been shot but has not fallen to the ground yet. It was popular in the pacifist movement as a poster, often with "WHY?" written on it, in large letters. Because it conveys such a strong emotional message and a rather fundamental insight in the nature of war, it's not exploiting that soldier's death and preserves his dignity.

    Activision/Treyarch on the other hand probably included these executions to generate a bit of buzz and "controversy". After all, nothing sells like hype. And that's quite despicable.

  • Fab4 #97 3 years ago

    "After all, nothing sells like hype. And that's quite despicable."

    You should watch "Flags of our Fathers"...despicable is what we humans do..on a daily basis.

  • yerawldda #98 3 years ago

    i think the japs back then were more ruthless, whats wrong with showing the executions? after all they were pepared to kill by suicide attacks. its a part of history. im not saying americans didnt execute people, but it probably wasnt official, unlike the japanese - where it seems like they were lined up and shot by, or in full view/knowledge of army officials.

  • FooAtari #99 3 years ago

    If thats the case then perhaps they should consider a career change.

    Why? Games getting stale due to endless sequels is a valid criticism.

  • yerawldda #100 3 years ago

    would be valid if they never gave it an 8.

  • Fab4 #101 3 years ago

    "Why? Games getting stale due to endless sequels is a valid criticism."

    Because as a professional games reviewer, he/she should be objective. What about people who are new to gaming and have never played a CoD game in their puff before?

    The things he/she complained about were present in CoD4 and they hardly warranted a comment in that game's review, yet they were also present in the two previous console outings (CoD2 and Cod3). So by your standards, it was already 'stale'.

    Its the lack of consistency that makes it a joke of a review, imho.

    Btw, I'm not buying WaW...to me it has all the shit (crap matchmaking/hit detection/perks/kill streak rewards) that made CoD4 one of the worst in the series.

  • MasterNameless #102 3 years ago

    I'm pretty bored with WWII shooters by now too, got bored of COD4 eventually as well so I doubt I'll be picking this up. I enjoyed COD4 for a good long while, but it's a bit of a one trick pony and didn't take long for me to go back to Halo. I can see this game lasting an even shorter amount of time before I get bored - or infuriated by the dogs! Halo 3, for me, never gets old. With the many different tactics you can employ, amazingly balanced weapons and levels, and a damn good choice of vehicles and game modes keeps the gameplay fresh for what seems like forever!

    Plus, is it really that dificult to actually read the text and make your own mind up. Stop going on about the bloody score, it's really very very dull.
    Edited by 2 at 14/11/08 @ 13:49

  • MasterNameless #103 3 years ago

    @Fab4

    No, he shouldn't. Reviewing games is entirely subjective. Let's not get into that tired old argument again, it's been done a million times.

  • RedSparrows #104 3 years ago

    Karstux - You know that Cappa photo was a fake? There's different levels of exploitation, obv (just thought I'd mention it).

    I agree with your sentiment but not your terms: a documentary like World at War, which would use archive footage, is not art. It is trying to convey something, but craft does that. Loth as I am to simply distinguish between craft and art as the only thing that matters, but it helps here: a documentary etc is craft. That Cappa photo is 'art' in one sense and 'craft' in another, it has the special status - 'fake' in one sense, 'real' in another.

    BUT ANYWAY, pointless attempts in a comment aside, art is not innately non-exploitative, but I agree with your idea. Entertainment/educative is a difficult line for these games, and one feels, intuitively, that they sway towards the former at the expense of the latter. But then they'd argue, so what? And so it goes on...

    Oh and lovely to see other people saying 'but wait, CoD4 had those problems too....!'. Damn right it did.

  • yerawldda #105 3 years ago

    games should be reviewed on that one games merits ALONE.

    a game reviewer who has played EVERY WWII shooter in the last 10 years shouldnt mark this down because HE has seen it all before. this will be a breath of fresh air to people who have played nothing but space alien/contemporary shooters.

  • MasterNameless #106 3 years ago

    Well, if people actually read the review instead of focussing on the score, then that wouldn't be a problem would it? I actually like a review to be written in context to other games of a similar type.If it wasn't, and this was the first WWII shooter - or even FPS game! - the reviewer has ever played, he'd give it a 10. But it isn't, and he shouldn't. It's impossible to avoid a direct comparison as it's a sequel, and by all accounts, a game worse than it's predecessor. So, to ignore all other games in the genre whilst doing a review - let alone the previous games in the series - would be pretty damn stupid in my opinion.

    EDIT: Bad grammar/
    Edited by 2 at 14/11/08 @ 13:48

  • RedSparrows #107 3 years ago

    'games should be reviewed on that one games merits ALONE. '

    As MasterNameless argues, that's silly.

    If I reviewed on its merits alone, I'd have no reference point. I wouldn't know what was up or down, good or bad. It'd all be sublime or bizarrely jarring, due to not having experience with the medium. Which is impossible, at the same time.

    @Schrodinger (no umlaut, soz!)

    Woops you're right, one P. As for the stageyness, I'm inclined to say, yeah. Get the exposure at that exact moment? In the open? When someone's shooting (apparently)? Good on him if so! ;)
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/08 @ 13:48

  • Lawlost #108 3 years ago

    Certainly read like a 7 to me. Will not be picking it up today. Will wait till next year and pick it up second hand.

  • Merefield #109 3 years ago

    COD4 mulitiplayer would have been an 11/10 if it didn't have that stupid martyrdom perk :(

    COD5 is just a lazy skinning of COD4 - NEXT!!
    Edited by 3 at 14/11/08 @ 13:57

  • thesombrerokid #110 3 years ago

    flaky ai, corridor gameplay, grenade happy instadeath, magic invisible nazi mind control flee-enators, shitty campathon multiplayer for interfacingly challenged consoles.

    substitute nazi for arab and you've got cod4 so why didn't you give it a 10?

  • rudedudejude #111 3 years ago

    Wi Review?

  • solidSnake04 #112 3 years ago

    shame. i hoped these guys would make at least a 9 game just to equal IW. think will get this when the price drops considerably :p.

    /thinking about buying mirrors edge...

  • FooAtari #113 3 years ago

    What about people who are new to gaming and have never played a CoD game in their puff before?

    Well in that case you can still play CoD 1 - 4.

    a game reviewer who has played EVERY WWII shooter in the last 10 years shouldnt mark this down because HE has seen it all before. this will be a breath of fresh air to people who have played nothing but space alien/contemporary shooters.

    See above and add on another WW2 shooter that has been released. Games should should absolutely be compared to other games, what other measure is there?
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/08 @ 15:11

  • ParanoidZombie #114 3 years ago

    schrodinger wrote: "What is the difference between 'Saving Private Ryan' and this game, for instance? Why should one be allowed, the other one banned? "

    Hmmm, good point, I think the real question is: do you think saving private ryan is art? I would say yes, even if it's not spielberg's best IMO. Is COD WAW art? No way. You'd better compare COD to michael bay's pearl harbour or a chuck norris flick, that would be more accurate. Same thing with rainbow six, BTW: those video game takes on realistic serious subjects are embarrassingly stupid, tasteless and condescendent, which tends to prove that video games shouldn't try to tackle those issues, unless they find some better ways to tell their stories and design their shooters.

    On the other hand, I don't think COD should be banned, it just makes me mad when i hear comments saying that this franchise provides "a realistic warfare experience" (that was written on the back of COD2's box). If shooters designers had any balls + ideas, they would make a game about WW1. They make games about WW2 simply because it's an easy, good vs evil scenario, and because of the iconic figures and places (omaha beach, reichstag, okinawa, whatever).

  • RedSparrows #115 3 years ago

    'The picture you're talking about must have been crap "art" because that is the first i have heard about it, maybe they need Treyarch too. '

    AHAHAHAHAHA. So you've 'heard' of every 'great' piece of art in history? Well done you, I didn't realise you were God.

  • Pulsar_t #116 3 years ago

    @ParanoidZombie
    +1

    I'll be avoiding this as well. Getting Fallout 3 instead.
    COD games need to grow up. The annoying teenagers who swear by it eventually will :)

  • cyber_nicco #117 3 years ago

    Reads like an 8 that was being reviewed in overly critical mode.

  • Caer #118 3 years ago

    Nobody else gonna mention it?

    local LAN network - redundancy fail.

    As for KingsXKing's comment about the Capa picture being crap art cos he's never heard of it... wow. Robert Capa was one of the most famous war photographers ever, and did stuff like photographing the D-Day landings. Try a doing a search on his name.

  • TRUTH #119 3 years ago

    I thought COD 4 single player was way overrated - COD 3 had a better single player campaign and better graphics, with a lot more tense action.

  • Caer #120 3 years ago

    Thanks for pointer but I find little entertainment in googling or wikipedia to boost my knowledge.

    Eh? It's not supposed to be entertaining, in this context.

    I like being truly down with my homies that is why my being here.

    Well, yes. Quite.

  • Aloominum_man #121 3 years ago

    @RedSparrow - http://ww w.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/... (just in case you're interested)

  • RedSparrows #122 3 years ago

    '@redsparrows

    I'm not into much "art" so thanks for the demi god comparison sorry to say your a bit way off.

    Maybe ur the mysterious gingerary street toff name of Banksy, u seem a little touched.

    If not maybe you could jog on and have a wank by a Damien Hirst.'

    Wow, not only did you miss my point, you missed the fact that in no way was I pushing some artistic snobbery.

    You said you haven't heard of it, so it can't be that great.

    That, artistic knowledge or not, is absurd. Apply it to any field of human endeavour. Have you ever heard the name of certain amino acids that your life depends on? No? They musn't be important then. It's not about snobbery, it's about simple logic and knowledge.

    + thanks for the link, I'll have a looksee. I've always come across things that have said it's teh staged, but I'll have a good read of that.

    Edit: interesting eh! Well, I'm prepared to accept his hypotheses, I'm no expert on Capa by any means. But all that aside, the point still remains, as was agreed :) I think this is the most interesting comments thread on a big game I've seen for a while, hah.
    Edited by 2 at 14/11/08 @ 18:15

  • bonker #123 3 years ago

    "I thought COD 4 single player was way overrated - COD 3 had a better single player campaign and better graphics, with a lot more tense action. "

    Generally speaking, I liked COD4 SP for its uber production values but it was way too short, like taking-the-piss too short ...

  • smelly #124 3 years ago

    Am I the only one who thought cod4 was merely just "ok"?

    Sure i ENJOYED it (unusual for me with fps games) but it was hardly the 2nd coming!

    EDIT: Note- I didnt play it online - I never play fps games online as i already know the outcome - I suck!
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/08 @ 18:35

  • crispyduckman #125 3 years ago

    God, there are a lot of tossers playing this game online tonight. I did have a briefly entertaining campaign co-op session on whatever the 'hard but not very hard' difficultly setting is called. Hopefully the co-op and zombie modes will justify the buy for me.

    Btw, anyone pick up a 28 pounds (f**king US keyboard) Asda copy? My Asda had sold out. Annoyingly had to pay 35 pounds from Zavvi.

  • RedSparrows #126 3 years ago

    No Smelly, it seems a fair few on here alone feel the same. I really couldn't get past the obvious mechanics behind it all, and while it was fun, it's so rigid that it's nothing that makes me feel like I am playing a truly brilliant game.

  • smelly #127 3 years ago

    >No Smelly, it seems a fair few on here alone feel the same.

    There WERE cool bits (such as after the nuke, etc).

    But the game iteself was very "meh".. with the difficulty spiking and dropping more than the current stock exchange.

    Felt VERY scripted.. Im sure it's ACE in multiplayer (if you like that sort of thing - i dont).. Actually that MAY be why i didnt like halo 3 (Only ever really judged it on the single player).... Bioshock has no excuse though :-)

  • Velios #128 3 years ago

    Well, thats disappointing - COD4 was really something special, I will probably still get this for multiplayer but it's a shame that it's not going to blow people away like the last game.

    Still, for a totally new experience that breaks boundaries, we are probably going to wait more than 1 year of development time.

  • Harmonica #129 3 years ago

    /waits for Operation Flashpoint
    /hell freezes over

  • Pulsar_t #130 3 years ago

    @smelly
    Absolutely not. COD4 was about as sophisticated as Chuck Norris. Of course nothing to stop the mainstream from enjoying it :p I did finish SP mode, and it was hilarious and fun in places, but nothing to keep me from uninstalling it. Just be glad your tastes are different.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/08 @ 21:56

  • loop7 #131 3 years ago

    Review totally read like a 6/7 at best, then score got bumped to a respectable 8 so as not to upset the masses / important game franchise?

  • RedSparrows #132 3 years ago

    KingsXKing, are you being cruelly ironic, or are you really that stupid to be unable to understand that a statement like 'It's not great cos I don't know it' is bullshit?

  • lyliade #133 3 years ago

    the game is better than cod 4,more intense and more tweaks like the flamethrower,molotov cocktail,the new gore effects incredible.Treyarch are really good in making ww2 games,they are passionate people

  • itsfuzzy #134 3 years ago

    Respawn,Respawn, Respawn, Respawn, Respawn, Respawn, Respawn, Respawn,

    Just not acceptable to compensate for shit AI. Fucking brutal as we would say in Dublin,

  • Harmonica #135 3 years ago

    Haha, anyone saying this is a good game or that Treyarch are decent developers need marching out and shooting, much like the Japanese do in this game. Couldn't develop their way out of a paper bag.

    The differences between IW games and Treyarch games is not just 'ones slick' 'ones an action-fest', it's that the former develop a nuanced, smart and rewarding game experience, and the latter don't have a grip on how to employ simple game mechanics in a modern shooter. Treyarch are - at best - stuck making the middling FPS games that dominated the 90s. At worst, they're completely irrelevant.
    Edited by 1 at 15/11/08 @ 23:55

  • TRUTH #136 3 years ago

    I still say COD 4 was way overrated...COD 3 was so much better...Action, tension, graphics, explosions, suspense, effects still look and play better then 4. And a longer game too!

  • ovenchips #137 3 years ago

    aint played very far in single player, but multiplayer is the shiz baby, loveing it. So many great games to play so little time, im off for 3 days straight now so bring on good times! my xbox live tag is OveN Ch1pZ if u want to add a english speaking welsh person lol.

  • RedSparrows #138 3 years ago

    'The differences between IW games and Treyarch games is not just 'ones slick' 'ones an action-fest', it's that the former develop a nuanced, smart and rewarding game experience, and the latter don't have a grip on how to employ simple game mechanics in a modern shooter. Treyarch are - at best - stuck making the middling FPS games that dominated the 90s. At worst, they're completely irrelevant.'

    Does 'nuance' mean 'horribly obvious, artificial and archaic enemy spawns/set pieces'?

  • RedSparrows #139 3 years ago

    @redsparrows

    I need to an example of "cruelly ironic" to answer that supposed metaphor

    --

    For my own sense of respect for your poor brain, I'll tell myself you're being ironic.

  • BillyBrush #140 3 years ago

    Calm down harmonica...cod4 has respawning a go go until you walk over set points..half life it aint
    Edited by 1 at 16/11/08 @ 16:14

  • Harmonica #141 3 years ago

    Criticising COD's respawning mechanic is a bit weak, that's just how the game works. It was much more annoying and apparent in COD2 and COD3, they toned it down in COD4 so that in your average run through it wasn't really much of an issue - in fact lot of points didn't have respawning set.

    "Does 'nuance' mean 'horribly obvious, artificial and archaic enemy spawns/set pieces'?"

    Nuanced means it has nuances, fairly obviously. Do you really want to get into pointing out how many games rely on genre tropes? Pretty much of all of them.
    Edited by 1 at 17/11/08 @ 00:38

  • RedSparrows #142 3 years ago

    No, I don't want to get into genre conventions and the like, I simply don't think the word 'nuanced' applies to a game where soldiers spawn endlessly until you walk down a corridor, resulting in the sudden disappearance of what was before a stream of angry soldiers after the last stragglers have been shot. And then repeat for 5 hours.

    Also, criticising something is perfectly valid even if it's the 'just the way it works': otherwise we could have some horrible situations where we can't criticise cos it's 'the way things are' ;) My real gripe with CoD4 comes from the multiplayer, and the horrible spawn-ringing that is possible. Take bog, the house spawn. The enemy team can camp around it, from the market and from the 'bog' area, and you can't escape. You move and die. Over and over. And it doesn't take it into account.

    King, you have missed the point entirely, and your point about language is even further away from anything ever that was a) relevant and b) actually correct.
    Edited by 1 at 17/11/08 @ 15:42

  • Notorious_LRO #143 3 years ago

    I call BS on the score. My god this game is boring and unoriginal. I played for 3-4 hours yesterday for review-purposes and had to struggle not to eject the disc and just break it then and there. A total disappointmend only made more so by the stellar predecessor and current titles like Gears2. The worst thing is I have to go back and play more today. Cheap, cheap, cheap. And The fact that Eurogamer gives a rotten title a rating of 8 is unbelievable. Shame. Cosmic shame.

  • jonsaan #144 3 years ago

    Worth pointing out that you can't play split screen online which is a rather big pisser.

  • espibara #145 3 years ago

    Stop slagging off Treyarch.

    COD world at wars single players is miles better than COD4 single player campaign. Graphically as well COD world at war looks stunning.

    I'm also sick of Infinity Wards levels where you just get swarmed defending a hill/base/barn etc. Its just lazy level design. Thankfully there is none of that in COD world at war.

  • daz70 #146 3 years ago

    once again i love playing cod games ive just finished playing world at war solo story campaign i always like to play on veteran level i always think its a good challenge and once again like cod4 the graphics are great the gameplay is fantastic and i really enjoyed the campaign even though i agree with alot of ppl it could be longer but hey the graphics are great so i dont think u can have everything but here it is once again i find myself complaining about the same thing as cod4 why is the AI so poor it doesnt help you they just get in your way its just a real pain i wish they would sort this out its the only thing that lets it down

  • $olokid #147 3 years ago

    I think the reason that some people were dissapointed is that they had way to high expectations for WaW, I mean, they go in thinkin' "how could it possibly be way better than COD4?" and that leads to them being dissapointed.
    Edited by 1 at 27/11/08 @ 21:18

  • Harmonica #148 3 years ago

    That or they don't buy it and remain pretty happy with life.

  • $olokid #149 3 years ago

    Yeah or that.

  • local_celebrity #150 3 years ago

    Allow me to eat humble pie.

    I was on the forums slagging this off after the very disappointing beta. But now that I've finally picked it up, I've had a change of heart. The single player campaign is deeply impressive. Not only are the graphics jaw-droppingly good, but the level design is absolutely first-rate. There are so many incredible set-pieces here; you really feel like you're in a warzone.

    Granted, there are a few flaws here and there (an overreliance on AI grenade attacks springs to mind), but this is not the time for mere quibbling. Treyarch have done a fantastic job, and should be applauded.

    If you've enjoyed COD4 as much as I did, this is DEFINITELY worth picking up. Honestly.

  • loop7 #151 3 years ago

    Oh dear