Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Call of Duty: World at War Review

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 26, 2008 5:04:05 PM

Review by Devin Connors.

Activision follows the acclaimed Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare with a return to World War II in Call of Duty: World at War. World at War drops players into the Pacific theater and later years of the global conflict.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/11/26/worldatwar_revie...

November 27, 2008 1:38:04 AM

Wow, another review score I actually agree with.

I hereby bookmark Toms Games as the only review site I actually listen to.

The only thing I would question is how kind you were about the graphics. Some of those character models look like they are straight out of a Quake III game, even if they do have great lighting effects applied on top.

The environments and flame effects were nice though :) 
November 27, 2008 6:34:23 AM

Pretty good review about the mechanics of the game, but the topic is pretty worn out now, and lacks the ability to play as the Nazi's. :fou: 

Its like a propaganda machine -- the Nazis were not idiots, and were not pure evil, they were just like you and me. Lots of people today think the Nazi's were the good guys (history is written by the victors and all that...) and want to play as the Nazis. Even if you still believe the Nazis are the "bad guys" and that the people who fought them were the "greatest generation" instead of the "greatest mistake generation", lol, it STILL would be great fun to play as the Nazis. Come on! :sol: 
Related resources
November 27, 2008 9:43:27 AM

how can call of duty WaW get a 7/10 reviews at Toms Games hav seem to be overly harsh for this game and far cry 2.
November 27, 2008 3:11:26 PM

spiralsun1 said:
Pretty good review about the mechanics of the game, but the topic is pretty worn out now, and lacks the ability to play as the Nazi's. :fou: 

Its like a propaganda machine -- the Nazis were not idiots, and were not pure evil, they were just like you and me. Lots of people today think the Nazi's were the good guys (history is written by the victors and all that...) and want to play as the Nazis. Even if you still believe the Nazis are the "bad guys" and that the people who fought them were the "greatest generation" instead of the "greatest mistake generation", lol, it STILL would be great fun to play as the Nazis. Come on! :sol: 



I can understand wanting to play as the nazis. Dfiferent weapons, variability, all that. However, I do not understand how the nazis were not the bad guys. Could you maybe explain what you are saying there?
November 27, 2008 3:15:22 PM

He means the general public, in Germany at the time.
They were subverted by the politicians media campaign, as many of you have been in the past few weeks concerning Obama (although nowhere near as extreme!)

Of course the figureheads, the likes of Goebbels and Hitler were bad guys - they were ultimately responsibe for the atroities caused by the Axis.
Most of the Nazi's were regular guys caught up in the zeitgeist though.
November 27, 2008 5:59:50 PM

Of course the regular grunts in the Nazi armies weren't bad guys, they're just the same as the allied troops. In fact most of the allied troops recognized this and had a respect for their opponents.

As for the game, I've just finished the single player campaign (haven't tried zombie mode yet, though it sounds awesome) and I have to say I'm a little disappointed. The pacific theatre was a welcome addition and was well done in some aspects. The Russian front though I thought was a step back from previous titles. Overall I think the game is deserving of the 7/10 posted here. Without comparing it to COD4, I might give it an 8-8.5/10.

The main problem I had with the single player is that I didn't feel nearly as engrossed in the story and gameplay as in COD4. You were more of a passenger than an active participant for most of the game. The audio, while not bad, was not nearly as good as COD4. I was expecting the jungle sequences to be more ominous with just the sound of boots in the swamp and flies buzzing, with night patrol ambushes and the like. More of a Vietcong (for those that have played that game) kind of feel. The scenery in general I thought lacked the quality and attention to detail that COD4 had.

I haven't played the multiplayer yet, but I've played thousands of hours of COD multi since the days of COD1 and I'm hoping that this one doesn't disappoint (though I'm betting I switch back to COD4, just for the better weapons / scenery). I enjoyed playing this game, but I hope that they hand the reigns back over to the COD4 developers and move the setting back away from WW2.
November 27, 2008 6:06:41 PM

darthvaderkenneth said:
how can call of duty WaW get a 7/10 reviews at Toms Games hav seem to be overly harsh for this game and far cry 2.


After playing both these games, I agree with the ratings.

7/10 is still well above average (that being 5) and indicates that World at War is what I would call a 'good' game. But both Far Cry 2 and World at War contain - in my opinion - flaws that prevent them from being great games. In World at Wars case this can be boiled down to: Criminally short and uninspired single-player campaign, a multi-player component that is really just a tweaked version of COD4's, and a full-price tag that is not worthy of the work done. Crysis:Warhead offered a similar (or superior) amount and quality of content, plus a tweaked game engine, for half the price!

I agree with the review scores for Far Cry 2 and World at War - and am tired of certain other sites only giving big-budget releases scores of between eight and ten.
November 27, 2008 7:38:29 PM

Exactly, it bugs me how reviewers can say that a game is not very good and still give it a rating of 8/10. A game that is not very good is 4/10 or maybe 5/10. That would be at or below average.
November 28, 2008 12:21:09 AM

spiralsun1 said:
Pretty good review about the mechanics of the game, but the topic is pretty worn out now, and lacks the ability to play as the Nazi's. :fou: 

Its like a propaganda machine -- the Nazis were not idiots, and were not pure evil, they were just like you and me. Lots of people today think the Nazi's were the good guys (history is written by the victors and all that...) and want to play as the Nazis. Even if you still believe the Nazis are the "bad guys" and that the people who fought them were the "greatest generation" instead of the "greatest mistake generation", lol, it STILL would be great fun to play as the Nazis. Come on! :sol: 


The nazis were the bad guys, your mistake is in thinking that all German soldiers were Nazis.

Nazi is a shortened slang of the Adolf Hitler's political party, National Socialism - he was never elected, he took it by force by staging an attack on the Reichstag to eliminate his political opponents.

I would say that in all likelihood, a vast majority of the German people including most German soldiers were not Nazis; even if many were misled.

But seriously, stop referring to them as Nazi's, because if you refer to "Nazi", then yes, those were all very much "bad guys"
November 28, 2008 6:49:13 AM

Could prolly skin some bots to wear bowler hats and berets, with the player model skinned as S.S. if you are really that desperate.

Oh i feel a mod coming on...!
November 28, 2008 9:18:38 AM

bedwards said:
After playing both these games, I agree with the ratings.

7/10 is still well above average (that being 5) and indicates that World at War is what I would call a 'good' game. But both Far Cry 2 and World at War contain - in my opinion - flaws that prevent them from being great games. In World at Wars case this can be boiled down to: Criminally short and uninspired single-player campaign, a multi-player component that is really just a tweaked version of COD4's, and a full-price tag that is not worthy of the work done. Crysis:Warhead offered a similar (or superior) amount and quality of content, plus a tweaked game engine, for half the price!

I agree with the review scores for Far Cry 2 and World at War - and am tired of certain other sites only giving big-budget releases scores of between eight and ten.

Yeah but crysis warhead mp still sucks i've tried the mp a few times and it was really boring compared to CoD WaW and I found far cry 2 better than the original crysis.
December 1, 2008 1:12:30 AM

gm0n3y said:
I haven't played the multiplayer yet, but I've played thousands of hours of COD multi since the days of COD1 and I'm hoping that this one doesn't disappoint (though I'm betting I switch back to COD4, just for the better weapons / scenery). I enjoyed playing this game, but I hope that they hand the reigns back over to the COD4 developers and move the setting back away from WW2.


I haven't tried the single player part yet, and probably won't. So far, after a week or so, I prefer WAW to 4. I know most are sick of the WWII theme, but there's only so many "modern" conflicts to choose. After the BF1942 desert mod, BF2, and COD4, I was kinda' ready for WWII again.
December 1, 2008 9:07:40 AM

gaming this year had quite a few wwII games like turning point fall of liberty, CoD Waw, BIA hells highway, maybe resistance 2 but i think 2009 will be for modern warfare again like operation flashpoint 2, armed assault 2 and cod 6
December 1, 2008 4:40:28 PM

I'm really looking forward to OFP2, the original was amazing.

Now that I've played the COD5 multiplayer for a while I find that I just can't get into it like COD4. The tanks are just ridiculous, the audio deters any sense of realism, and the gameplay in general just doesn't feel as team oriented. Of course as people start to get used to the levels and learn all of the ins and outs, I'm sure things will get better. Also, while the levels look good and are reasonably well designed, they're too open for my tastes. COD4 had mostly CQB maps (close quarters) whereas COD5 doesn't have even 1 real CQB map. This is just a personal preference on my part, but I prefer the more technical, closed in maps.

I'm still going to keep playing COD5 multi for a while though, to give it a full chance. Its not bad, I just really like COD4. When COD4 came out, I had a few friends that said they just couldn't get used to it and went back to playing COD2. I'm just glad that they didn't go back to the 1 shot kill hip fire KAR98 from COD2, that was just stupid.
Anonymous
December 2, 2008 1:09:37 AM

cod 5 sucks compared to 4....

Glad i tried the beta

I abso-f*cking-lutely loved cod 4... but 5... its just a 4 remake... except 10 times worse
December 2, 2008 10:28:24 AM

i think cod 5 mp was pretty good even it its like a remake of CoD 4 with CoD 5 skins. There was no prestige for CoD 4 pc so there was no point for me to continue playing and so far CoD 5 is the so far the best shooter for PC this year.
December 2, 2008 5:31:01 PM

What is this "prestige" you speak of?
December 5, 2008 9:33:53 PM

Prestige is only on the consoles apparently. Once you've maxed out, you unlock prestige allowing you to start all over again, while keeping your overall score, kills, deaths, etc. Each time you get a new emblem to replace the rank star and stripes the PC has.
December 5, 2008 10:15:04 PM

I don't really get how that add to replay value. I guess you can brag about how many bungholio points you've accumulated, but seriously, if the 150 headshots with each weapon isn't enough for you and you just need to prove how hardcore you are, you have serious self-esteem issues.
!