Call of Duty: World at War – it really does irritate me when people call it CoD 5 – grr… is an interesting game to review. There is some controversy surrounding it, whether it should be considered an entirely ‘new’ game, considering that it runs on the CoD 4 engine, andso on. It isn’t an entirely new game. This is essentially a reskinning of CoD4, with the modern day reskinned as World War Two, the guns reskinned as older guns, and the helicopter reskinned as dogs. There are many, many major glitches, including, in one map (Castle, in case you’re interested) the ability to run into a wall and go under the map and kill everyone with impunity. It doesn’t quite feel finished, and the ‘polish’ is such a tissue-thin veneer as to be imperceptible.
In CoD 4, you could feel the effort that Infinity Ward had invested in making every little thing just right, in making sure that it’s just right, every little detail. It felt like more than a soulless carbon copy, hollowed out by corperate greed. It will never cease to amaze me how game publishers, and Activision imparticular, will take something good, and milk it for all it’s worth, and try to turn it into a yearly franchise – see Guitar Hero, Medal of Honour, Need for Speed, etc.
The additions were meagre at best – vehicles – not suited to CoD, in my opinion, new perks – but the best one, the ability to hide in trees, has been removed – a new campaign – dull and irritating by all accounts – and Nazi Zombies – OK, this was probably the best addition, and I admit woud have been quite fun in CoD 4, although I doubt they would have been able to get away with Arab Zombies or Russian Zombies, etc. However, there are more glitches in Nazi Zombies alone than in the whole of CoD 4! Maybe a little more time spent in development would have made this game better but it seems that CoD 4.5 would have been more appropriate, hence why I am annoyed by people’s dogged persistance in calling it CoD 5. It is an expansion pack, nothing more, and should be sold as such.
Speaking of expansion packs, I recently played some of the new maps. Primarily, I tried the latest Nazi Zombies map. More thought seems to have gone into this one, as I haven’t seen many glitches, and the map has a definitive goal (beyond ’survive’) – to get to the power room, so you can turn the drink machines on to get perks. As Nazi Zombies was my favourite part of the whole game, and this more than doubles the re-playability, I am inclined to look charitably on this expansion.
Much as I've just spent the past four paragraphs hating on it, it's still a Call of Duty game (Call of Duty 4, to be precise)... but what I mean is, it's still fun, entertaining, and great to play with friends. While I can attack it on many fronts, and say some downright nasty words about it, I would still reccomend it.
Huzaifa from eXputer: "2008 was home to the likes of Call of Duty: World at War, Dead Space, GTA 4, Far Cry 2, Left 4 Dead, and many other hits, which is outright remarkable."
Just about every year in the 7th generation was great and something we most likely won't experience again.
2009 for example had Assassin's Creed 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dragon Age: Origins, Uncharted 2, Halo 3: ODST, Killzone 2, Borderlands, Bayonetta, and Demon's Souls to name a few.
A very devoted fan of Call of Duty: World at War racks up incredible in-game stats while playing regularly for the past 15 years.
Of course you will hit a ridiculous stat after 15 of anything.
My main character for Everquest had over 500 days played in the first 6 years of the game. I was young then and had a lot of time on my hands. I don’t think I could duplicate that again until I retire and not sure I could match it if I tried.
Gamespot : Call of Duty: Vanguard launches with 20 multiplayer maps, three of which are actually remakes from 2008's Call of Duty: World at War. Let's take a look at how the maps have changed with this side-by-side comparison.