Call of Duty: World at War (Xbox 360) - I know this isn't the real cover but it's so much better. :)
Alrighty then everyone, I just finished a 3 hour battle with my homework, i finally came out on top for once. I wanted something fun to do afterwards, so here i am.
And then I noticed the review i was doing was Call of Duty: World at War (CoD:WaW). My heart sank. For several reasons.
One, this game was a total letdown.
Two, unfun games are never as good to write about.
Three, this game was a total letdown.
I'd like to let everyone know, Poke was right and i was wrong. This game came out, and I kept pestering him to go in half with me on it, since i wanted to play, but of course was too cheap to buy it outright. He kept saying no, but i eventually wore him down and we got it. What a waste.
Popped it in, turned on co-op, and came to find the screen setup was AWFUL. Not only was it terrible, you can't change it. Stuck in Suck-Mode forever. Not a great start, Activision.
I really don't have much to say about the game itself, it's a lot like Cod 4, minus, you know, the good stuff. Poke and I beat the co-op mode in under 4 hours. Dissatisfying.
Poke gave up on WaW at that point. I took it to my apartment and figured I'd try single player. It was ok, a lot better than co-op for sure, but still just ok. I beat the game in yet another dissatisfying 7 or so hours total.
Dismayed at my waste of $30, I gave WaW back to Poke to have him beat it. (Originally I was going to have him write this review, but he never played CoD 5 again, he really didn't like it.)
My (our?) copy of World at War ended up back at my local GameStop as fodder for my collector's edition copy of Halo Wars. :/
Ok I'll talk about what I liked, then what I didn't.
The good stuff about this game is fairly limited. However, the sniper level in Stalingrad is great fun, reminiscent of the greatness that is CoD 4's "All Ghillied Up". I had a good time with that level.
The game mode you unlock upon beating the game, NAZI ZOMBIES, is pretty amusing, and it's fun even, but after about 20 times of playing it, it loses its appeal, and falls aside.
The strong point of all CoD games shines here - multiplayer. I spent an afternoon playing multiplayer, and had a damn good time (by 'good time', I mean unlocking the Japanese "Banana Gun" and running around like a deranged maniac). However, multiplayer won't hold me for long, the game itself needs to be good as well , and that just wasn't the case. I'll just mention that Poke really dislikes online multiplayer, mostly for the reason that "it's pointless". (He just hates losing.)
That's pretty much all i enjoyed from CoD: WaW. Oh, shoot, well i also liked the "Black Cats" level. Mowing down Zeroes with a huge chain gun is great fun too. If anyone knows where to get the music from that level, PLEASE email me a link, or something.
On to the bad stuff.
Co-op. Abysmal. It seems they had a week to go until release, and some developer ran into the test room and goes "FUCK we need a co-op mode!" and some idiot slapped it together in under 45 minutes, just so they could write "co-op" on the box to sucker people like me and Poke into buying it. Communists.
The gameplay took a step back from CoD 4. Activision, THAT'S BAD. We try to avoid annoying our target audience by producing games that deviate from what they're used to.
I can't quite put it in words, but pound for pound, WaW just feels inferior to CoD 4. Please give the next game in the series back to Infinity Ward. Please. Last thing this market needs is another WWII game. Yeesh.
Also, I'd just like it pointed out that as of now, World at War retails for approximately $10 less than CoD 4 does. Hmmm. Wonder why.
Call of Duty: World at Was earns a 5/10.
That's pretty much all i can bring myself to write about this less than satisfactory shooter.
As for the rest of you, hopefully you're going out to get FEAR 2 tomorrow just like me.
Until next time everyone.
----------------
Now playing: Dio - Living The Lie
via FoxyTunes
No comments:
Post a Comment