Is World at War Worth the Full Price?

Despite Call of Duty 4 being a fan favorite, does that automatically mean you should purchase World at War at full price or should you hold out? Included: a discussion on the CoD franchise and a rant on buying video games at full price.

[Jimmy the Greek]

ill say wait for the discount. if theres one thing the cod series does very well its the sound. with 6.1 it makes you duck for bullets

[sunnygrg]

Being one of those to pay $65, I'd say no. It is still worth a rental though.

[CEO OF N4G]

Im not even going to buy the game.WW2 shooters can kiss my a$$.
I have killzone2 beta to play for online(which is better than every FPS) And i have resistance2 if i want to play coop or single player.

[interrergator]

how u get the killzone beta

[BlackTar187]

In mu opnion I paid 64 dollars for a 2-3hr coop game that was lame. Worst purchase I made all year. MP is okay but WW2 can kiss my as (In videogames only no disrespect to the men who fought in it) but I thought hey maybe ill actually give a ww2 shootere a break for once after being played out after medal of honor 2 but no i was let down and dont recommend to anyone. My whole clan both systems call it Call of Crap WAW

[Yipee Bog]

The same way other beta testers do, Email lol. Not much help. sorry

[ThaTeflonDon]

I love COD4 and would not trade it for any other game besides a COD game.... I mean come on people ... if you actually played COD:WAW and don't think its worth $65, then take a look at your collection of other games ... I'm pretty sure you bought something else that wasn't worth it ... Treyarch has done a beautiful job with this game ... the game looks better than COD4 in most parts ... Treyarch definitely upgraded Infinity Ward's engine and made it better ... so he has put in a lot of work ... but guess what ... the next COD by Infinity Ward will use Treyarchs updated engine no doubt ... so what will be people excuse then ... praise Infinity Ward for a great engine when it won't be all their work

...hmm

[infamousinfolite]

I might go ahead and buy this game at full price anyway but just for the multiplayer though. Then later go into the single player.

[kosha]

You lot can say its just an expansion pack and a rip off but im having fun playing it and thats all that matters.

[bgrundman]

It is hard to support a non Infinity Ward COD game. Feels too much like a shameless cash in.

[killyourfm]

Give them the benefit of the doubt, though. They had some insanely big shoes to fill.

However, gotta agree - I'll wait for this one used, or just rent it.

[bgrundman]

Though I am skeptical, I will still check it out, just not at full sticker price.

[outlawlife]

they got the shoes half filled already though, infinity ward did the hard work by writing the engine and designing the concept, treyarch basically plugged new weapons and vegetation in the cod4 shell

i can't really say i give much credit to treyarch for what they have done because they didn't do a lot of it

[kornbeaner]

you are wrong. An engine is just that an engine. And when talking about Treyarch not putting in work because of that engine you look damn right foolish. The engine is great for graphics and the MP that CoD4 already had which this game more or less keeps the same. But what about the new 4-player coop in the game. Granted its the one "HUGE" addition that Treyarch put into the game but that alone must've taken some time to do since IW didn't know how to put it into CoD4. Not only is there 4-player Coop but the MP maps are bigger in size. The smallest map in CoD:WaW is about three times bigger then that of the smallest map in CoD 4.

Funny thing is there were a host of improvements that Treyarch put into this game that will go towards the Next IW game and all the fanboys like yourself will claim it to the the next coming of Jesus for the CoD series.

What improvements? you say. 4-player CooP, bigger maps, better lighting (which CoD:WaW has over CoD4), water physics (there are huge bodies of water in this game which look way better then the water in "Charlie don't surf" in CoD4 and looks loads better than the water in Resistance 2). All these changes will be in the next IW game and many people will be claiming once again that IW is the greatest even though most of the new tech would be coming from Treyarch.

Also the Death cards (Cheats) in this CoD:WaW are way better then the "Cheats" found in CoD 4. Outside of "Infinite Ammo" and "Cluster Grenade" all the cheats found in CoD 4 were lame.

[butterfinger]

"IW didn't know how to put it into CoD4" - Do you really think IW didn't know how to put co-op in a game? If you believe what you wrote than you are just plain stupid. THE ONLY thing gamers can thank Treyarch for is the co-op, but that's not to say that it couldn't have been done before. Let me guess, IW didn't know how to do rumble or trophies in the PS3 version of COD4 either. The thing is, the best things that everyone likes in this game beside tho co-op can pretty much all be attributed to IW. That being said, there is no reason to become an IW fanboy as they were pretty much the laziest devs after their MP became a smashing success and they basically turned their backs on the gamers. For a franchise like COD, though, you can't really favorite either dev team. They will churn out a new COD every year, and if it's good they will keep the good stuff in the next one, and if it's bad they'll toss it with minimal improvements across the board. 99 percent of people that purchased this game are not going to notice the better lighting or water physics, and bigger maps should've been a no-brainer (SOCOM even has bigger maps lol). If you think that Treyarch revolutionized the COD franchise with this game more so than IW did, then you must be in denial, but we shall see if IW can make an equally impressive game in their next one.

[joydestroy]

i do think you guys are retarded for saying Treyarch didn't do a lot of work on the game. just because they used the same engine as CoD4 doesn't mean they didn't do a sh!t ton of work.

ask yourself this...how many games use the Unreal Engine!? do you say they didn't do all the work too???? no! so why now? just to hate?

and of course they used the same concept...ALL COD GAMES USE THE SAME CONCEPT!

ALSO, games feed off of each other. developers take note with what works and what doesn't and expand upon that. that's exactly what Treyarch did. if they had failed at this game, then and ONLY then could you say they suck. they had a little help, they didn't cheat. and guess what? CoD fans are gonna eat it up, guaranteed.

[kornbeaner]

I not stating that Treyarch revolutionized the CoD series because they didn't. But they put in a huge improvement into the series that players give them no credit, that being 4-player CooP. In a gaming world were people are always talking about CooP this and that, Treyarch put that into the CoD series but get little to no credit for it. And when next year rolls around that same 4-player CooP will be found in IW's game and players will jump for joy because IW "Finally" put CooP in the CoD series. The point I was trying to make is Treyarch may not be the inventors of the series but through out their time with the series they have made little improvements to the series that most of the gaming community refuses to give them credit for and thats just sad.

Treyarch from what games I have played from them are a very talented Dev. Team that have always been under the gun to make a product that will sells in a short amount of time. This is the first time that I know that this team has been given two years for any product and while I won't say it surpasses CoD 4 I will say that it adds a host of improvements to the series that they will get little credit for, also this is the best WWII game to come out since Medal of honor for the PS1.

Also when I worked at Sony there was a guy who joined the team that worked at Treyarch during CoD 3 (which is considered the bastard of the series) but he would tell us that on Average during the project they would work 95 hours a week (and it also wasn't uncommon for them to put in 120 hours a week for long stretches during the project either) for pretty much the whole project which lasted 8 months. While CoD3 was not a great game by any means I challenge you to find a dev that can make a game in that short amount of time and make it as good as CoD3 game out. You won't find one.

[thor]

OK just because you have a great engine doesn't mean you're going to make a great looking game with it. Gears 2 has fantastic graphics with UE3, yet look at a lot of the games that use UE3 and you'll see if devs aren't much good then having an engine built for them isn't going to help. Treyarch have done a great job.

[morganfell]

They had some shoes to fill alright and Treyarch spent too much time trying to fill them with talk. Wah wah wah, they sound like Charlie Brown's teacher.

They screwed up Quantum of Solace worse than anyone that hasn't played it can imagine. You would think Activision would have had better sense and given their first Bond title in a new contract to some people that knew what they were doing. That game is just trash.

Now comes COD WaW and it certainly fails to achieve a passable $59 bar. Wait for the discount. It is the only way to teach these companies a lesson. Hit them where it hurts - in the wallet.

[butterfinger]

COD fans? You do realize that COD4 was the best selling COD game by far, so what do you think those people are looking for that bought COD4?

@ Kornbeaner - I can respect your appreciation for Treyarch, but you have to realize that nearly everyone else that will play this game will be judging their game against IW's. Now, that being said, my intention was never to label Treyarch as a bad dev team, and I too have enjoyed their past games (even COD3 to an extent lol), but they haven't changed the COD franchise like COD4 did. Actually they could probably thank IW for a huge portion of the sales that this game will manage. The one thing that will make myself want to buy this game is if Treyarch maintains their online community better than IW did (which isn't hard), so they basically have to act like they give a damn about their fans.

Edit @ Joydestroy - "obviously CoD4 fans wanted another modern shooter, but they knew this wasn't going to be one from the get go" That is exactly why the announcement of this game was met with such disdain. People are tired of the WWII games, and we as gamers have made that abundantly clear. I will say without a doubt that this was the very best WWII game I have EVER played, but the thing is, I'm sick of WWII games!

[joydestroy]

screw a discount. xmas present for me.

@butterfinger
well i guess they got what they wanted then huh? shouldn't be any complaints from them if it's a CoD4 remake but set in WWII, right?

what would CoD4 fans really like to be added to the game besides the things Treyarch added to this one? obviously CoD4 fans wanted another modern shooter, but they knew this wasn't going to be one from the get go.

[kornbeaner]

I can respect that opinion, CoD4 was a great step for the series to take but they had 2 years+ to make that game happen. Treyarch was given only 8 months to do CoD3 but even then they managed to put some improvements into the core gameplay like running and throwing back grenades. And now CoD:Waw is out and Treyarch was given a full dev cycle. they could have easily followed CoD4 to the "T" and simply cashed in on the series name, but instead they used that time to put in 4-player CooP, Deathcard cheats which are awesome for the most part, Nazi Zombies which is great fun, bigger MP and included vehicles which makes players change their custom classes for at least a couple of matches. These are the little nuances that Treyarch will not get credit for because they are Treyarch and not IW. but when the next IW game rolls around these little nuances will be slightly tweaked and be hailed as a great improvement to the series because of IW.

But whatever, haters are haters. I enjoy the game and between this and fallout 3 my winter is pretty much covered until Killzone 2 and Street fighter 4 come out in the spring.

Happy gaming.

[comm13]

Most gamers do not care who the game is made by, instead how it plays.

CoD4 sucked ass and that is why I am not buying this one.

Why did it suck?
No rumble, no host migration, the only game (for me) that ever lagged, horrible hit detection when sniping and the lack of support. Charging 10 bucks for maps that should have been there is an outrage and the Single player was awfully short. Just because it was bought by masses does not mean the game is good.

Also WaW has a lot of glitches and given the past history they will not be fixed.

Look at GeoW2 and R2 there are many better games out there but they sell better anyway only because of the Marketing that is put in.

[outlawlife]

i think people misinterpreted my point so i'll clear it up a little

when i said that they had most things done for them it was a reflection in the fact that hardly anything original is in cod:waw

the perk system is hardly changed, the physics remain largely unaltered, even the score boards are exactly the same but with a different(and less appealing) color palette

all treyarch did was copy cod4, they had a chance to greatly improve upon it and fix the flaws that it did have but they didn't, in fact most of the flaws remain in cod:waw

how many people really want to buy a bad replicant of a game that has been out for over a year already?

this game just screams cash in when it really could have been something very impressive and pulled treyarch out of the shadow of IW

with cod:waw you just get a general unsatisfying feeling

[sak500]

Nopes same COD4 style with way too difficult areas like sniper mission. Nothing innovative about this. SHould have been an expansion pack for $20.

[Jamegohanssj5]

Not even worth 5 dollars.

TGSI

[kosha]

Ok your just crazy

[Gun_Senshi]

In my opinion for online only its worth it.

EDIT: Disagree? I said in my opinion not stating is as a fact or anything like most of you fanboys. I always loved CODs online and I love W@W online. Probably you arses took bubbles away too like usual.

[mega BIG time]

I gave u a bubble, now STOP CRYING

[crystallakekiller]

when i first heard that Treyarch was doing COD5,i said that i would never buy it...then i saw some gameplay..and more gameplay...and the zombie mode,and coop....so i decided to try it,and to be really honest,i think its as good or maybe better than COD4 on multiplayer but way better on single player,and we also have a great coop mode,so yes it does worth my 60$

[Toolster]

I picked mine up at Asda (walmart in usa) for £27 thats about $55 and its worth every penny

[LevDog]

I wont buy it.. My friends who were obsessed with COD4, said its ok.. But they said it will get boring just like COD4..

[DA_SHREDDER]

Not buying the game because its not modern warfare is stupid,, childish, and very naive. This is a totally different then COD4. COD5 is a bigger game, with more weapons, and a 2 totally different settings. It also looks better then COD4. I could name like 20 reasons why this game is better then COD4, but all of you kids wouldn't listen anyways.

Also, Im glad none of you kids are getting this game. It saves me the time I would have spent to mute you for life. This isn't a little kids game at all,, and I dont blame your mothers for not buying you or letting you play this game. Its your loss,, really.

[butterfinger]

it's not my loss. I got to keep my hard-earned $60. Buying the game just because it is COD is stupid, childish, and very naive, and the way you go to every single thread defending it makes seem like you NEED people to get online and play with you. I mean, aren't you busy playing it all the time? lol

[DA_SHREDDER]

Stalk people much? Maybe if you had COD5 you wouldn't have to come on here and snoop in other peoples business. And I can tell by the way you talk that you are a kid, talking about spending your hard earned $60. I spend that going out to eat with my three kids and wife. If you don't like the game fine,, but if you dont own it, then you don't have any right talking about the game. You don't know what the heck your talking about. Weirdo. Oh yea,, quit stalking me.

[Fishy Fingers]

UK Gamers.

ASDA £27. Certainly worth that.

[VampHuntD]

And I'm a fan of COD4. I hate FPS games and COD4 made me want to play it bad enough to finally cave in and do it. That being said, I've really enjoyed COD5. I know I'm a little biased because I love the WW2 period, although this is the first good WW2 FPS since the original MoH on PC (I say that because it's the only one that has also made me want to play it).

I think the multiplayer is actually requiring more skill now than it did in COD4 because there are no super scopes, no red dot, it's all eyeing and aiming now. A lot of that can be said for COD4 too, but a red dot makes it far easier to take down a distant target not to mention the lack of major heavy weapons means a rifle stands a chance at close range against a sub machine or standard machine gun.

All in all, I'm happy with the purchase, even if like many of you I feel that Treyarch took the greatness of COD4, took off the 4 and added World At War and then implemented Coop and zombie modes (neither of which I have done yet) and sold it as a new game. It's not COD4. We know that. But if COD4 had been in WW2, this is what it would have been like.

[TheCagyDies]

when you can probably get used copies of Call of Duty 1, 2, and 4 for the price of one copy of World at War...

[agentace]

COD4 costs more 2nd hand than cod5 costs brand new...got my cod5 for £37 and in the same shop and next door cod4 is £43 2nd hand WTF

[TheCagyDies]

used amazon.com as my source...
Cheapest COD1 (PC) price on amazon - $2.69
Cheapest COD2 (X360) price on amazon - $5.94
Cheapest COD4 (X360) price on amazon - $30.20
Total = 38.83
Shipping cost for all 3 games would be around 12 bucks so total will be around 51 bucks
which is still cheaper than a brand new copy of Call of Duty World At War which is around $65 including tax...

[ThisPlaceSucksBye]

...is how CoD:WaW is getting a lot of great reviews, yet there are still people who want to ignore this in order to continue spewing crap out of their mouth (without having played the game first, as always).

This game is great (and this comes from someone who hated CoD3).
It really is an improved version of CoD4, only set in WW2 (a setting that's much more interesting to a lot of people, including me).

Also, I don't see how the QoS game is involved in this discussion.

QoS = Movie game with a short development time in order to have it
ready before the movie opening.

CoD:WaW = Next installment of the CoD with a MUCH longer development time.

So please, fanboys...instead of talking out of your ass like you usually do, why don't you try playing the game first?

[butterfinger]

Not worth $60. Check my gamertag. It's funny that you say a lot of people find WWII more interesting. You would think they would've played one of the many WWII shooters we've had since PS1. Playing games where I know the outcome are not my cup of tea. It's an updated/modded version of COD4 only set in a war that we have fought a dozen times over. Also, if you want to talk about reviews (which obviously you do) COD:W@W has scored significantly lower than COD4 on average. What an improvement!

[Radiodread]

half the price. It SUCKS a lot. Had high hopes for this game. COD 4 IS STILL THE KING, until their next game, set with Werewolves! FROM THE FUUTURE!

[Slinger420]

Treyarch actually did a GREAT JOB. I was pissed when I heard that Treyarch was developing this game and it was going back to WW2. I almost didn't buy the game. Now, after beating it and playing the zombie mode, multiplayer, and the single player campaign I can say this is one of the best shooters I have ever played.

[PimplePopperMD]

actually the game is worthless.

treyarch sucks

[Magic_The_Celt]

Short Answer: Yes

Long Answer: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees

[Bladestar]

I think the game is worth it's price tag... I mean, look at other games that are inferior as far as action and online features are concern and are sold at full price.

Take Brother in arm, Haze, Quake, Battle Field, and yes! I will dare to say it Resistance 2!.. which is currently being sold at full price fell short compare to this game as far as online features and playability.

Stop crying because the game runs and look better on an xbox 360 ($199) and not on PS3 ($399).

[butterfinger]

"look at other games that are inferior as far as action and online features are concern and are sold at full price"

Who said those games were worth the $60 price tag? Other than R2, I don't see one on that list that is. Great comparison, buddy! Nobody was even whining about the PS3/360 comparison until you came in here... I guess you should take that to the open zone.

[NickIni]

You always bring up your Xbox vs PS3 crap. No, those games aren't worth $60, but R2 sure as hell is, ever played it?

Stop trying to turn every thing into a Xbox vs PS3 battle. It's pathetic. Go back to the open zone where you belong.

[iiprotocolii]

Besides the point, I would have to generously disagree with regards to the COD:Waw being worth it's price tag. Don't get me wrong, the game is pretty good... but it's not excellent. Reality is, the game is just a recycled version of COD4 with different textures and weapons. The game is exactly the same in every way... no innovation. It's more like a WW2 mod than a game in itself.

Treyarch, however, did do right by implementing IW's engine. The campaign is decent and the multiplayer does have its "perks" (pun intended) for which it is worth giving a shot. But because it feels so much like COD4, its going to get old quick. I respect Treyarch for their release. But to say that this game is better than COD4 is just silly.

[jspc1989]

and wow the ''console wars'' have now turned into developer wars lol. if you liked COD 4 then you will definantly like this.

@ PimplePopperMD - ever programmed a game mate? - try it one day! maybe then you'll keep your opinions to yourself - saying that have u even played WaW?

People may have there doubts at first like alot of friends of mine but once they started playing it - it caught on, it has that effect on alot of people lol.

Oh and to the people saying that IW did most of the work because it was their engine LOL - i honestly think you should all do some research. then again how many of you are actually game developers? The engine is the very core line of the game, everything else from that up is completely self developed, and I have to say Treyarch have impressed me this time around. Large maps with lots going on and very few to none existent frame rate drops. Well at least ill give it a good thumbs up even if noone else will :-)

[mastiffchild]

I had higher hopes for this one than many but having played through a lot at my mates I'll be waiting 'til it gets cheaper before I get it. Sure it's a longer campaign, and it's a pretty good game graphically but i couldn't get away from feeling that , gameplay wise, it really felt like a very dear expansion pack with old guns and uniforms. Honestly I feel that Treyarch have done a fair job but they could have pushed so much further considering what great leaps Infinity Ward gave us last time out.

There's loads of games I'd like but not being made of money I cannot see the point in paying full for a game that plays identically to it's predecessor when there are more original thrills out there.

[ThisPlaceSucksBye]

No one was talking about comparing it to CoD4's reviews.
CoD4 came out a year ago, so anyone with half a brain would know that a game that uses the same "skeleton" with a new paint job will never get better reviews than the original product, regardless of having great quality (similar to what happened with Ninja Gaiden 2, in a way, but I digress...) so yeah, that's not gonna fly.

And I still stand with my comment about people liking WW2 games. Who cares if they've played enough WW2 games? I'm sure they don't.

[butterfinger]

If you didn't notice, I posted my comment a little further up, next time you should reply directly to that. Anyways, if CODW@W is such an improvement, but keeps the bare bones then why wouldn't it score higher? Your logic made absolutely no sense. YOU were the one bringing up reviews, not myself, and I was just showing that there is a significant difference in scores from COD4 and CODW@W, one being AAA and the other not. If your logic was correct then games like Resistance 2 should've scored lower since "anyone with a brain" would've expected it to right? lol. Also, I don't care if you like WWII games still and try to bring millions of people onto your side, it still doesn't change the fact that COD4 MODERN WARFARE is the bestselling game in the series, and people were greatly dismayed at the thought of the series stepping BACK to WWII. Honestly, did you think the allies were gonna lose this time or something? Did you not know what was going to happen next? I know I definitely did.

[Xbots are pathetic]

not for campers from cod4

[Xbots are pathetic]

so stop complaining. COD4 is garbage and treyarch, who isnt lazy, took its engine and refined to an amazing action shooter that takes SKILL, unlike cod4

YES ITS WORTH YOUR 60 bucks

[ThisPlaceSucksBye]

Ahh...name calling, good strategy right there. Showing your true colors.
You can twist words all you want, I now know I'm not gonna have an intelligent discussion with you, so there really is no point to continue.
I'm pretty sure some people got what I was trying to say, and that's all I care about.

I'll be happy to read your "I pwned u! Backing out already? Got nothing more to say??" comments too :D

[butterfinger]

First of all, you started with the name calling - "So please, fanboys..." I am not a fanboy and I couldn't care less about IW or the entire COD franchise. On top of that, I have completed the game in single player and co-op. I see you still haven't figured out how to reply to my comments properly. Of course you went the route of "ooo name calling, I guess we can't have an intelligent conversation"- Well, the funny thing is, you would have to bring some intelligence to the conversation first, which you clearly lack. Your excuse for not giving a proper reply of just name calling just show that you are either new to the internet or don't know jack sh!t about what you are talking about. The funny thing is you come to this argument with no sort of facts (except ones you make up about how many millions of people love WWII games) and I bring you facts about COD4 being the best selling game in the franchise and the review scores being MUCH lower for this iteration. If you wanted to run away from this argument you shouldn't have ever *attempted* to reply. You are clearly out of your league.

I just found your facts - "I'll be happy to read your "I pwned u! Backing out already? Got nothing more to say??" comments too :D " lol. At least you know when to admit defeat.

[ThisPlaceSucksBye]

I'm pretty sure there's a big difference between "fanboys" and "retard".
Did I ever say "millions of people"? I'm confused about that one.
What's also funny is that before you replied, I had never heard of you. I wasn't aware of your existence when I made the comment about "fanboys", which obviously hurt you, since you brought it up twice.
But yeah, you clearly have a lot of confidence in these boards, good for you.
"Never should have attempted to reply"? "Out of your league"? Hahaha please, guy, listen to yourself.

[butterfinger]

with no facts yet again! AND you still don't know where the reply button is! lol. I took offense with your fanboy accusation because you spoke unknowingly about ALL the people that posted above you! You should probably keep your mouth shut when it's clear to all that you don't know what you are talking about. The difference between retard and fanboys is irrelevant as I was simply stating that you were in fact name-calling yourself. Either way, I just checked your past comments, and I thought correctly when I assumed that you were new. lol

[ThisPlaceSucksBye]

Ok, big man. You win!
Also, show me what a big man you are around here and take the chance to make another "smart" comment since I won't be able to reply.

[DA_SHREDDER]

He probably has like 20 accounts and gave them to himself. Anyways. COD5 is awesome. Why would people talk crap about it being too much the same as COD4? What is wrong with that? Its funny because there were 3 COD's before part 4 and noone talked about how much of the same they were. All you fanboys are lame.

Just so you know,, the only reason why im not playing COD5 right now is because my 360 is acting up. Im probably gonna be getting the RROD,, I can feel it. But the only thing you people are doing is hurting yourselves by not playing this game. If you love the COD series then this is biggest COD yet, and I promise you will enjoy this one very much. The only problem you will have is getting used to using the old guns, which requires more skill. This game is less pray and spray then COD4, which was the main reason other people hated COD4. I guess you cant make everyone happy?

[NickIni]

Because if it's too similar to the previous game you might as well not buy it.

[Lord Vader]

Meh, tried it & it was about as boring a campaign as R2. Back to Gears for me.

[Asurastrike]

Blogspot...

[Unreal2901]

this game it will cost to much rental fee because you'll wont to rent it again when your time is up. yeh its gone back to its ww2 roots but nothing is holding this game back its even a little better than cod4 its going to be a long hual playing the single and multi player so get buying this game and enjoy it its awesome

[MRMagoo123]

Im personally enjoying it alot i finished the story mode and unlocked the zombies game and now im level 43 on mp mode and im loving that too.IMO i think i like the guns more in this game than cod4 i feel like i have to use a bit more skill using only iron sights mainly and when i shoot someone on the other side of the map in the head using my garand and its iron sights i feel a little bit proud.I dont think the story was as good though but the multi player to me is better.Ppl should stop bagging on treyarch they did a great job and im glad i bought the game.Its keeping me away from other games too, i bought fallout 3,dead space and far cry2 and still havent even taken them out of there cases even LBP and bioshock arent getting a look in at the mo.

[AZgamerB3yond]

I am so pissed off i spent over 60 bucks on this sh1t. Never again treyarch, never again. Thinking about trading it in for dead space or maybe little big planet or sumthin...

Obama for gamers 09 XD

[pansenbaer]

I'm giving it a rent and will probably never buy it. I'm on the 5th level. Really just playing for the trophies. Not really a bad game, but too many games out right now that need my attention.

[Bladestar]

and people ask why the xbox 360 have a bigger attach rate... I mean look at the majority of xbox 360 gamers here.. you do not see them complaining about the game as much as PS3 fans...

How many other games out there get the whole, "Is [enter game] worth the full price" article? hell Haze, Lair and other supper flop didn't get this kind of articles and this game is far better.

I remember Sony fans hating on COD2 and COD3 and even today I can go online and it's full of people playing it. well at least on the xbox 360 that is. I guess I can probably understand why xbox 360 owners think that this game will be a great addition to their games. The xbox 360 online community is so large and connected that you are guaranteed to be playing this game for a very long long time. I mean aren't people still playing original xbox games on xbox live? name how many PS2 games people are playing now...

Is this game worth the price tag without the online community? Nope!

Sony fans tend to only support the games that Sony makes... everything else for them is crap and this is the reason why many games suck online on PSN and never get a chance.

I guess the reason why there is such of a big difference in opinion between xbox 360 fans and PS3 is because of the online component... maybe this games brings nothing new and the online experience suck online making the game not worth $20 which it's not the case on xbox 360... I just connected and there were at least 400,000 people playing this game online.

[pansenbaer]

SOCOM still has A LOT of people playing online on PS2, or PS3, who knows. I was playing Combined Assault on my PS3 until Confrontation came out. The community has nothing to do with it. If there is 10,000 people playing, that is still a lot of people to find playing a game. The reason people are saying its not worth it, is because it is essentially a World War 2 mod for Call of Duty 4. Everything is exactly the same except for the maps/locations/weapons. It feels the same, it acts the same, it looks the same. Its the same engine so what do you expect. The community has nothing to do with the fact that its not worth 60 bucks. In fact, the amount of playtime you get online is the only reason that people would buy this game. 'It's not worth it on PS3 because there are only 60,000 people playing. But it's worth it on 360 because 400,000 people are playing.' Bullsh!t.

[NickIni]

Why are you still here? Go back to the open zone to your scummy fanboy brethren.

It's got this article because a lot of people reckon it's very similar to CoD4. Not because of the "dreaded Sony Fans". Yeah, XBL is bigger, but you can always find a match on PSN.

You know, this was quite a nice, friendly discussion until you came along and polluted it with your fanboy BS.

[Bladestar]

@NickIni - it was a "friendly discussion" where sony fans hold hands and hug and flame and trash 3rd party games that fail once again to show the PS3 superiority. Practically happens with every multi-player game. Sorry I ruined your little discussion.

[kingtigar]

I have a ps3, bought Cod5 on first day and I love it.

[RPG Guy]

No.

If not for the fact that it's just COD4 in a WWII atmosphere then for the fact that Treyarch needs to learn the definiton of "evolution" and should take poor sales if need be to find it out. Why sit in WWII ALL THE F'N TIME? Modern Warfare was incredible, so why go back to this? Scared to leave their comfort zone, scared untalented devs hacking and posing as Infinity's equal, which they most certainly are not.

[Lykon]

I will pick it up later, same as mirrors edge, LBP, Shawn white. All games i want to play at some point but not right now. I brought Fallout for full price and it is worth every penny. I will probably get resistance 2 as soon as it hits the shelves too and a bargain priced burnout paradise. That's enough to keep me going over Christmas.

[Traveler]

The game is great. I don't know why so many PS3 fans are so negative about every game that isn't a first-party exclusive.
If COD4 was worth $60, then CODWaW is definitely worth $60. They are both outstanding games. Infinity Ward did some stuff better and Treyarch has done some stuff better. I actually like the setting a lot more. I know, it's WW2 blah, blah, blah...but the environments and the history of that conflict are a lot more interesting to me.