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

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.

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.

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.

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"

[quotemsg=612181,7,63768]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.

[...]quotemsg]

Absolutely, they were just guys speaking another language and that had to fight for their country. It's not to say that there weren't inherently evil people (racists) in their ranks, but probably the same could be said from the Ally party. The really bad people would be in the top ranks.

As for the game haven't played it yet though it sounds ok at first glance

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.

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.

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.

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.