cod 5

[das müffin mann]

how is it?
is it worth getting?
did treyarch butcher it?
is the zombie mode as fun as it looks?
kinda feel like playing a war game and this came to mind, so ya any feedback is appreciated

[ShadowFold]

I did not enjoy it. Its got a 4-5 hour campaign and most of it is flamethrower american missions which feel like they were just put in so the Russian campaign felt longer because its obviously better. Treyarch did butcher it and the zombie game was fun for like 10 mins. I don't recommend wasting time on it.

[LittleLizard]

there are better fps out there but its not that bad, it just... not good. I keep playing modern warfare over world at war because i not get bored but if you are a fan of WWII games you will be happy

[Corrosion]

This game is horrible. the single player is so boring. and i had to mess around with the profiles folder to make a profile. that took me hours to figure out. Playing on realistic isnt even realistic. its just bot hacks. only thing i liked about the game was uninstalling it.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by das müffin mann

how is it?
is it worth getting?
did treyarch butcher it?
is the zombie mode as fun as it looks?
kinda feel like playing a war game and this came to mind, so ya any feedback is appreciated

Yes this game is worth every penny. Treyarch didnt butcher it at all. They did do a rush job on CoD3 but it wasn't their fault. The crew from Treyarch also did CoD:UO which was awesome. Given time they do a great job. They proved it again with CoD:WW.

CoD:WW has VERY high reviews and the online is great. Its different than CoD4 but its far from being "bad". As for Zombie mode I could give or take it. If you need to blast zombies you should go for Left 4 Dead. If you want "war" then CoD5 is great. Think CoD meets Quake 3 gibs. The problem is this game has a cult following of "haters". It just seems to be "in style" on the web to trash this game.

Just look at these reviews. If the game was really that bad would it have this kind of feedback?

[zithe]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Yes this game is worth every penny. Treyarch didnt butcher it at all. They did do a rush job on CoD3 but it wasn't their fault. The crew from Treyarch also did CoD:UO which was awesome. Given time they do a great job. They proved it again with CoD:WW.

CoD:WW has VERY high reviews and the online is great. Its different than CoD4 but its far from being "bad". As for Zombie mode I could give or take it. If you need to blast zombies you should go for Left 4 Dead. If you want "war" then CoD5 is great. Think CoD meets Quake 3 gibs. The problem is this game has a cult follower of "haters". It just seems to be "in style" on the web to trash this game.

Just look at these reviews. If the game was really that bad would it have these kind of feedback?

The people on this forum are not average people. Opinions here tend to differ a lot from the rest of the world population. Maybe we set our standards higher for games. =P

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by zithe

The people on this forum are not average people. Opinions here tend to differ a lot from the rest of the world population. Maybe we set our standards higher for games. =P

Ok then. What don't you like about this game? Other than the fact its set in WW2 what else is "wrong" with it? I would love to hear what this game is lacking that CoD4 has.

My standard for games is much higher than the average person on this forum. Iv been a gamer longer than some of you guys have been alive. Experience has to count for something.

[LittleLizard]

according to the review of gametrailers, it is not as good as it predecessor but is by far the best WWII game, so if you like play, if not dont play it and if you wonder whi EA SUCKS is because they're morons

[ShadowFold]

Reviewers get paid to rate games highly and usually take hype as extra points in their reviews.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by ShadowFold

Reviewers get paid to rate games highly and usually take hype as extra points in their reviews.

BS. Then I guess Wizz does too huh? Also how do you explain the crappy reviews they give to high budget games like Area 51? Dude its just in style to hate this game. The bottom line is its a great game. If you need a reminder of how bad things can get then I suggest you play Area 51 or CoJ.

[Viorel]

I think SP is horrible, the missions, the AI, the music, everything.

MP is good, Zombie Mod is fun with friends and more "tactic" than Left 4 Dead, so if you like to kill lots of zombies, go for L4D.

[ShadowFold]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

BS. Then I guess Wizz does too huh? Also how do you explain the crappy reviews they give to high budget games like Area 51? Dude its just in style to hate this game. The bottom line is its a great game. If you need a reminder of how bad things can get then I suggest you play Area 51 or CoJ.

I'm talking professional game reviewers like Gamespot and IGN.

[Kursah]

I played the MP beta and that was enough for me not to justify buying this game, not saying it was bad, but the MP felt like CoD4 with older guns and a paint job, it was not revolutionary in any way tbh. Not saying that's bad either, I just expected it to at least feel different...I hopped in and was instantly at home, which for some games is not a bad idea...to me if they were taking the WWII route, I would've liked to see more of a difference in the MP, and maybe I didn't see enough of it...but I felt I didn't need to. For me CoD4 is a superior game, it is my choice, also because atm for games I'm more biased to modern weapons, settings, storylines, etc.

I've heard the SP and coop are pretty cool, but like anything else will get old, I've read the reviews and it seems overall this game does pretty well and it does seem Treyarch did a good job on this, and shows that they are capable of doing quite well, hell even sales have shown that. Just like Crysis vs CoD4 this time last year, everyone that was a Crysis fan pretty much balked at CoD4, I played both demos and I know CoD4 for me was more fun and enjoyable (even tossing out system/game performance for PCs at that time, CoD4 is still better to me), sales proved that I wasn't even close to the only one that felt that way.

This game has had strong supporters and nay-sayers from the first announcement of it's existance. I have even gone both directions, but I wanted something different than they provided. I may pick it up in the future when it's bargain bin priced, but if it follows CoD4's track record, I've rarely seen CoD4 go below the PC 49.99 price point in the year since it's release, yet I could snag Crysis new for 15 bucks...the game has staying power, and it seems WaW may follow suit, I just don't think it'll have the lasting effect. Granted this is my opinoins and feelings on this game and situation, again I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way, doesn't mean it's a bad game, it's just WaW doesn't offer what people wanted from it. I've grown tired of CoD4 since I've played it sooooo much (MP)...that the CoD4 MP feeling in WaW instantly made me lose the want to continue even though I did, I think that was the first start to my dissapointment with what I've experienced with the game.

[Tatty_One]

For me.....the single player is crap, nothing very new there, there are better FPS out there, multiplayer is very good IMO, quite clever in places, I like it!

[newconroer]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Yes this game is worth every penny. Treyarch didnt butcher it at all. They did do a rush job on CoD3 but it wasn't their fault. The crew from Treyarch also did CoD:UO which was awesome. Given time they do a great job. They proved it again with CoD:WW.

CoD:WW has VERY high reviews and the online is great. Its different than CoD4 but its far from being "bad". As for Zombie mode I could give or take it. If you need to blast zombies you should go for Left 4 Dead. If you want "war" then CoD5 is great. Think CoD meets Quake 3 gibs. The problem is this game has a cult following of "haters". It just seems to be "in style" on the web to trash this game.

Just look at these reviews. If the game was really that bad would it have this kind of feedback?

FarCry 2 got 9/10s and 94% ratings..look how that turned out. So...reviews don't say much. In fact, we shouldn't trust reviews, because they're done by idiotic 'gamers,' who's gaming knowledge and resume are terrible.

World for War fails for five simple reasons:

1. It's a COD4 knock off
2. It's a COD4 knock off :echo, echo, hello?:
3. Perks
4. Can I say perks again? (oh wait that's part of being a COD4 knock off)
5. Theme and more importantly theme limitations. I'm so tired of being the Allies in their pre-scripted, constant over the top American movie style heroics, and ability to eat fifty bullets before dying concept(s).


There's only one good thing World at War offers, and that is the ability to turn the n00b perks off as a host option.

[joinmeindeath417]

My opinion is the game is Hit and miss, it is a hit with the multiplayer mainly cause of ranking and perks all thanks to call of duty 4. It is a miss because the single player really lacks story well the Russian story is wayyy more interesting than the american story and i had more fun being a Russian soldier than i did being a marine.

so my opinion on the single player... Dull story, well half of it, it was alright could've been better although they were following "actual events" they could've spiced them up a bit to make it more interesting.
6/10
Zombie mode....AWESOME if you have friends to play with, playing with strangers basically there would be little to no tactics involved and probably wouldn't last 10 rounds.
7/10
Multiplayer....its cod 4 re skinned with WWII textures, the maps are way more detailed in COD5, but the gameplay is more exciting in cod4 i personally think mainly cause of the weapons.
8/10

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by newconroer

FarCry 2 got 9/10s and 94% ratings..look how that turned out. So...reviews don't say much. In fact, we shouldn't trust reviews, because they're done by idiotic 'gamers,' who's gaming knowledge and resume are terrible.

World for War fails for five simple reasons:

1. It's a COD4 knock off
2. It's a COD4 knock off :echo, echo, hello?:
3. Perks
4. Can I say perks again? (oh wait that's part of being a COD4 knock off)
5. Theme and more importantly theme limitations. I'm so tired of being the Allies in their pre-scripted, constant over the top American movie style heroics, and ability to eat fifty bullets before dying concept(s).


There's only one good thing World at War offers, and that is the ability to turn the n00b perks off as a host option.

1. How is it a knock off when its a sequel? Then CoD 4 is a knock off of CoD3 by this logic. I could understand it being a ripoff if the name was "Yell of Honor" and was developed by a studio with no ties to the franchise. But its not. Its what we in the industry call a sequel. Call me old fashion but you would think its bound to be similar to the original. Maybe even with some updates like some new perks and vehicles. OH WAIT thats EXACTLY what it has.

2. See first answer. :echo, echo, hello?

3. Yeah the perks really sucked in the CoD5. I mean it has all the favorites CoD4 plus new ones. We should just get rid of perks all together so we have absolutely no replay value.

4. See third answer. (oh wait that's part of being a COD4 SEQUEL)

5. I agree. I would much rather see a crying, whining American thats afraid to fight his own shadow. That would really draw my attention. And we all know how much the Marines were at that time. Complete sissies.

Dude come on. You don't like it because everyone tells you to. Not because its bad in any way. If you hate CoD5 then you hate CoD4 for the same reasons.

[Deusxmachina]

I've apparently had enough of WWII stuff for now, and that's probably a big reason I found it "meh," using WWII weapons and all that, and after recently playing Crysis: Warhead, the graphics and interactive environments weren't anything special. Still has the good ol' CoD "squad feel" to it, though.

Anyone into WWII would probably like this quite a bit.

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina

I've apparently had enough of WWII stuff for now, and that's probably a big reason I found it "meh," using WWII weapons and all that, and after recently playing Crysis: Warhead, the graphics and interactive environments weren't anything special. Still has the good ol' CoD "squad feel" to it, though.

Anyone into WWII would probably like this quite a bit.

We should start WWIII so we a new topic to make games on.

I found this game to be unoriginal, boring and i'm tired of the WW2 perspective, why not Vietnam, why not WW1, why not the yom kippur war. That applies for most new WW2 games. I'd prefer larger maps I mean compared to cod4 yes they are larger but still tiny. The zombie mod is stolen from a cod4 mod and the mod was awesome and when i played it I shit my pants since i picked sniper but cod5 this feels more like murdering unarmed children with glowing eyes.

[philbrown23]

I like the game the multiplayer has all that COD4 does and more it's a tad harder to level up in to thereofre more challenging.

[inf3rno]

If anyone has some issues about the campaign time for the single player then remember that COD4's campaign was also not much time taking.

And the team at treyarch had to follow the gameplay of COD4 i thought thats why it seems to a knock off of COD4.

and i am sorry for my english. ;-}

[ShadowFold]

But cod4 was exciting and had a lot of great moments.. cod5 felt lifeless and boring, like I have played it before. Oh wait

[inf3rno]

Exactly! Every fanboy of COD series had felt these moments before. Why don't they try COD from AXIS side or they should focus WW1 as mentioned above.

[newconroer]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

1. How is it a knock off when its a sequel? Then CoD 4 is a knock off of CoD3 by this logic. I could understand it being a ripoff if the name was "Yell of Honor" and was developed by a studio with no ties to the franchise. But its not. Its what we in the industry call a sequel. Call me old fashion but you would think its bound to be similar to the original. Maybe even with some updates like some new perks and vehicles. OH WAIT thats EXACTLY what it has.

2. See first answer. :echo, echo, hello?

3. Yeah the perks really sucked in the CoD5. I mean it has all the favorites CoD4 plus new ones. We should just get rid of perks all together so we have absolutely no replay value.

4. See third answer. (oh wait that's part of being a COD4 SEQUEL)

5. I agree. I would much rather see a crying, whining American thats afraid to fight his own shadow. That would really draw my attention. And we all know how much the Marines were at that time. Complete sissies.

Dude come on. You don't like it because everyone tells you to. Not because its bad in any way. If you hate CoD5 then you hate CoD4 for the same reasons.

Uh, it's a sequel? I didn't know that...interesting. Though call it what you want, it's a knock-off. It's called lazy development, deal with it.

Perks, favorites? Oh look, bonus abilities for n00bs, and now look, a knock-off game with even more of your 'favorite' perks. :thumbs up;

As for the point about number five..what are you, twelve? Do you read out of politically correct and rewritten 'history' books? Do you know how close the Allies came to losing? What has it got to do with whether Marines are 'sissies?' What the hell has that to do with us being tired of the same old stories and themes over and over and over?

I don't like it cause I've played it.

And you're right, I hate COD4 for the same reasons; except I made the mistake of playing that one for several months because I was too addicted to dominating. I pulled the plug on World at War nice and early.


Inf3rno, they don't touch Axis, primarily because of the Nazis. Developers are all for violence, gore, immorality, filth, pornography, but Nazis... woah now, that's a whole 'nother bag ya? Except if you're blowing them up, then it's ok.

[Irish_PXzyan]

I would love to see a game like COD but you play as the Germans and kick the stuffing out of the Allies!!! That would be great.