It's extremely fun to mow down undead German soldiers, using a bunch of cool new weapons like the Ray Gun. The story in the first mission, Nacht Der In Toten is very simple to follow. You play as an American soldier who's planes been shot down, and you have to take refuge in a bunker of sorts, defending yourself against a bunch of Nazi zombies. It was very fun to play, and when I'm ever playing this game, it's mostly spent in Nazi zombies, so that's saying a lot.
HowlingRabbit 19 December This game is a really genuine shooter, with intense battles and so much more. I mean, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare brought something new to the series, because it's not set in the second World War.
Despite the drawbacks of this game, the battles and gameplay are pretty interesing. Multiplayer has improved with new perks, Nazi Zombies has been inserted as an extra feature, and the missions are quite fun, although a bit too WWII-ish.
All in all, Call of Duty: World at War is a game which fans of the Call of Duty series would enjoy, but not one for gamers who like advanced and sophisticated settings. This game set up the black ops franchise and is very good. The campaign has you play as the Soviet Union and Americans in Japan. It is a realistic game and very gritty. It is underrated and should be appreciated more. Amonguscyan 16 August This game relates to horrors of World War 2 i.
Also, the tactics the Japanese uses to ambush us. Now it's all PC and doesn't show it how it was. I don't like playing like the communists were good guys though. I wish it we're all American or British soldiers. But a great game nonetheless! Spooky music,amazing gameplay,graphics suitable for this game and bonus that went into other games.
This game is like you learning the history,except you play it and enjoy it more. Why can't Activision publish COD games like this? If released two years earlier this title would be a game that everyone would be waxing lyrical about.
However, it followed in the footsteps of the fantastically addictive Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Anyway, what is done is done and Treyarch tried to make the best game they could. As happens on all games the first impression you have is of its graphical capabilities.
They take some getting used to if you've played Modern Warfare meticulously but the details on everything are very realistic and its refreshing to see a game set in different locations such as Russia and Japan. The sound quality in the game is as impressive as its predecessor as well. Now the most important factor whats the game-play like? For those who delve into the campaign, its almost on a par with Modern Warfare. It lacks the intensity and brutality of Modern Warfare's campaign mode but makes up for this with its interesting set pieces on the Eastern Front and in the Pacific.
One level replicates the fantastic Chernoybal snipers levels from number 4 but moves the action to Stalingrad. It doesn't hit you with the same 'wow' factor as the levels in the predecessor but its still a great level.
Overall, the campaign mode is incredibly enjoyable to play through but the main criticism is, its even shorter than the campaign mode in Call of Duty 4. And that was short. Now to the online mode. Franky it is excellent, the problem is if you are not a newcomer to the series: it is no Modern Warfare. The matches are a lot of fun and contain a good mixture of close quarters combat and long distance shooting. Tanks spice proceedings up nicely too. The maps are generally well constructed, however some are just too big.
A particular level called Outskirts is insanely large and there are few kills to be made on this map. The weapons just aren't as fun to play around with as those in Modern Warfare either. I understand that Treyarch are vying for realism but the inclusion of more powerful weapons would have been welcoming.
To conclude, World at War is a game that should be played in isolation. Forget that Modern Warfare came before this title and you'll have a lot of fun playing through this. This should be viewed as a great game and a good stop-gap before Modern Warfare 2. However, it is easier said than done to forget how good Modern Warfare is. You will most probably go back to play it but give World at War a chance - especially you Mr Taylor.
It shows a true experience on what World War 2 was like. The Campaign had you being the allies the Americans and the Russians and you were fighting against the axis the Germans and the Japanese.
The Multiplayer was so much fun and so enjoyable and last but not least Zombies. Zombies was the best mode in the game. There was so much things to do and the DLC maps were amazing. I had brought call of duty 4 at a curiosity and it was incredible.
I knew this game would be a blast. It was fantastic. It contained the best soundtrack and actors. The campaign had a bloody and gritty feel to it. The characters were pretty average on the American side of the 2nd world war. But it had a great character in the game. And it was reznov.
Victor Reznov. The multiplayer, well kill steaks returned with the 3, 5, 7 kills just as cod 4. Great multiplayer with all the weapons being amazing not including mp40 maps were amazing and overall a great experience. Now nazi zombies has met its dubut at waw. It was simple not like bo4 with weird as maps.
But the thing that made it shine were the characters. All of the game is fantastic. I've read so many articles rubbishing w w and treyarch and I can't help but wonder if they've even given this game a chance. It seems a lot of people are just unhappy that they've gone back to ww2 and that initial annoyance has tarred their judgement. I played the game and tried not to compare it to cod4 but as it is so simular it's hard not to. If your looking for an opinion on which game is better I honestly couldn't say.
If you stuck w w in having never played cod4 you would be amazed, having played cod4 it isn't so stunning. The graphics are stunning and the gameplay is challenging yet rewarding. The content is much more mature than seen before and this adds to the other-all experience. The multiplayer offers players a long term service and the map packs are a welcome enhancement. The improvements from its predecessors are many although some of the maps don't seem to have been thought through.
Zombie mode offers a great break while offering merit. To sum up, if you want to play a really involved FPS any call of duty will do ya, however world at war is special and will keep thrilled for much longer than other games. This game came of just as well as I expected it to be.
There were very little problems I had with it so I'll start off with those. The main problem I had with this game was that the enemy A. Enemies will run right past you and not register who's in front of them.
Another problem is that the story and music was not nearly as memorable as COD 4. The moments that made COD 4 so memorable, are not as great and underused. It still has its very great sequences, we just need to hand this title over to Infinity Ward because they handle it very well. This is a terrific tittle. The sequel to Call of duty modern warfare brings the same gameplay with a few improvements. Using the same engine as the previous games the graphics are very similar to COD:4 the gore of the game is excellent and much more realistic than the gore in Cod For example when you get a grenade thrown at you your leg may come off or your arm, this holds true for the equivalent of the 50 calibre sniper rifle in the game.
The story line of the game is just amazing, the intense action makes you feel in the game. The story line is very similar to that of Cod:4 with an intense sniper mission and a bombardment mission with an added tank mission. While this does include North American and European versions of the game, reports say that fog, frame-rates, and input timing are affected all of which is covered in this Performance Review.
Is this the Link to the Past we all hoped? Watch and find out. Nintendo Online N64 games may have been something that we've all waited for, but maybe Nintendo should take another pass. IGN Logo Recommends. Uncanny X-Men Jesse Schedeen Eric Song I took the gold out of the treasury of the company I co-owned at the time. New World Brendan Caldwell Battlefield Stella Chung I think that Infinity Ward makes a better Call of Duty than Treyarch does, and I like Modern Warfare's multiplayer much better, it seems a lot more fun to me.
User Info: Slayr I like modern warfare and i also think that tom clancy's ghost recon advanced warfighter is almost as good as it. User Info: genninma. Modern Warfare all the way. The thing with World at War's multiplayer is that most of the maps are one-sided. In Modern Warfare, there are a couple of maps like that Bog in particular comes to mind , but most are well-balanced and you don't have to pray to spawn as a certain side in order to win. Also, the story in Modern Warfare is much better since there is actual variety in the missions as opposed to just killing everything.
User Info: Chiron It really does depend I am more of a semi-automatic weapons person, so I really like World at War because of the vast amount of guns that are semi. Both are great shooters, but have those equal amount of glitchers and hackers. Honestly I would buy both, and Modern Warfare 2 when it comes out.
If only for one I would go for the Modern Warfare it will give you the set feeling of why MW 2 is a big hype and will give you gist on what to know when MW 2 comes out. Modern warfare is better. User Info: calloftheweird. Modern warfare User Info: hologram They're both good, it depends if you want to play a modern game or a WWII game. Im sure modern warfare 2 will be badass, so if you just want to wait then wait.
My opinion is by all three of them! User Info: slakcer. Well it depends on what you want it for, if you want it for SinglePlayer, then i would say Modern Warfare. If you want it for both then i would go with Modern Warfare. Both are terriffic FPS games with good story lines but Modern Warfare just puts a new spin on the singleplayer AND multiplayer game modes because and its not as repetitive as the many WW2 games that have been made.
0コメント