| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (76)

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 11:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Yahoo review games?

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 11:48AM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yahoo does everything, more or less. Still the best homepage out there, imo.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 11:33AM Jouten said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I've played the demo and have to admit, I didn't care too much for it really. I'm sticking to CoD4. I tried to be open minded about it with the dogs and all, but I think I am personally burnt out on WWII genre.

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 2:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Same here but I still gamefly'd this and Mirror's Edge. Figured I'd do single-player for some easy achievements and do the multiplayer when I'm burnt out of playing warzone with friends in GOW2.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 11:36AM Tmoney02 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Can people now stop slamming this game? (especially those who have never played it) I guess that might be to much to ask since its apparently the cool thing to do...

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 11:55AM Hasney said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've played it, can I slam it?

To be honest, there is not much to slam though. I don't like it, because I'm bored of WW2. But the actual game is pretty good.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 12:58PM Tmoney02 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Hasney- Yes you can say you dislike it and thats your right to your opinion, but you can't post on every COD post how Treyarch sucks and COD:WaW sucks, since in general that would be false (individual expernce/fun may vary)
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 11:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I, too, was hesitant in picking up COD5 (okay, I waited one day) because I remember the leap from WW2 in COD2 to COD4 (I didn't waste my time with COD3) was so huge.

I like it, though. I figured it'd suck picking up WW2 weapons after using modern weapons, but they aren't that bad...some of them really cool looking, lots of automatics. There are also more perks/options than COD4.

The dogs are a nice touch, and so are the tanks. I thought it'd be a tankfest, but that hasn't been the case. It's also a helluva lot bloodier than COD4...by a mile (arms and legs getting blown off).

From my short experience, it rivals COD2 as the best WW2 FPS I've played. I like playing both COD4 and 5...will be keeping both on my machine.

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 11:49AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"It's also a helluva lot bloodier than COD4...by a mile (arms and legs getting blown off)."

I love that,It really is a nice touch on Treyarchs part. The MP maps are spectacular!
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 12:00PM Jouten said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
...but they aren't that bad...some of them really cool looking...

Sounds like you are 'settling' for WaW, not convinced that it can replace CoD 4 conmpletely.

Just an observation.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 12:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Have the graphics improved on the multiplayer? I played the beta and found the overall look to be 'muddy' which made a nice warzone touch. But it made it very difficult to see the other players since everything was the same color scheme. This was especially apparent on the Makin map and the map with the tanks. Also about a third of the games I played were laggy compared to CoD4. Have they improved that as well?

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 12:18PM Nadril said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I don't get why everyone is praising Treyarch. All they did was take CoD 4 (not their own code) and reskined it. It doesn't mean shit.

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 1:13PM 343 Guilty Fart said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've never enjoyed the Call of Duty series. The single player always had endlessly respawning bad guys and I've never enjoyed the multiplayer since I constantly get killed by people I can't see on the other side of the map.

Plus you die after about one hit so by the time I've even registered that I'm being shot at I'm dead. The weapons might as well be hitscan.

Well, just thought I'd vent/dissent.

Posted: Nov 15th 2008 6:04AM Omega2k3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, I also prefer games like Halo where you can take a missile and not die. Way more fun than having skill, I'd say.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 1:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I cannot wait to get this game. I love almost all the call of duty games. Especially WWII games. I know there are alot of them but Im a fanatic about WWII.

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 1:50PM billy5000 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Usually when you do the meta reviews, you quote 1up and gamepro and one or two others. But this time it's a bunch of no-names. Does that mean that the game actually sucks big time but you dont want to admit it or something? I've been playing the beta and it's good fun, but CoD4 is definitely better.

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 2:28PM NukeAssault said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Gamepro gave it a 4.5/5 and 1up a B (which is like a 75-80). Happy now?
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 2:32PM billy5000 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 3:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
IGN.com gave it a (9.2 Outstanding)
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 2:17PM Vegeta has a ps3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am absolutely shocked. People are still trying to find ways to hate on this game. Now instead of it being just Treyarch sucks, it's now "OH THE ONLY REASON WHY THIS GAME IS GETTING GOOD SCORES IS BECACUSE IT'S ON THE CALL OF DUTY 4 ENGINE!!!" which doesn't even make sense since a developer can have the greatest engine in the world, it doesn't mean shit if the developer is incompetent. And treyarch has proven that they can make a fun game.

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 2:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah its crazy that one COD game would borrow something that was insanely popular from, wait for it...


...


ANOTHER COD GAME!!!


Some people just need to STFU! The game is damn good regardless of it not being IW.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 2:19PM sand0789 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I watched some kids playing this co-op split screen on an 18" set and it looked like a total crap game. I've had a 50" HDTV for so long that I forget how much crappy TV's suck. I'm sure the game would be impressive on my set but I just had to laugh watching them play split screen on junk. Reminded me of PS2.

Posted: Nov 14th 2008 4:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I sure hope the zombiethon is available on single player. I love all the WW11 games [it is after all history] Don't be in too big a hurry to do away with WW11 shooters; it sure beats hell out of chasing stinky, rapacious bedouins on flea bitten inbred donkeys across a hot desert! lol.

Posted: Nov 15th 2008 12:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm glad the unreasoning Treyarch hate was all wrong, but..

in what world should this game get higher scores than Mirror's Edge??? Something is all messed up with the review calibration scale...

Posted: Nov 15th 2008 6:01AM Serious Kriss said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So a 6-hour long WW2-themed script-fest can pass for a good FPS these days? How standards have lowered... It almost looks like a light gun arcade shooter now, only without the pacing.

Posted: Nov 15th 2008 9:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I really like this game. The weapons are more challenging to use than CoD4's, there is at least some incentive this time to do prestige, and zombie mode is a hell of a lot of fun with a bunch of friends.

However, I don't think I have ever wanted to kill a kitten more than when playing though World at War's solo campaign on veteran. I felt like WaW crossed the line between challenging and infuriating.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW