Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

cXs Community Staff


Forum Admin

Chris
Icelink
James
Quint
Stephen
TomLew
Zee

Announcements




Welcome!!!

Welcome cXs members both old and older. Don't forget to check out our new shoutbox while you're here! We've also added the 'multiquote' option for all posts, and have redone the layout of the forums. Don't forget, cXs doesn't rent, we own!
Information


Today's Date (EST):

Coordinated Universal Time (UTC):

Eastern Standard Time (EST):


~ Home Page ~

~ Get To Know Your Staff ~

~ IRC Client ~
Welcome to The Cutthroat Syndicate. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Call Of Duty - World At War
Topic Started: Nov 18 2008, 12:40 PM (705 Views)
Omri
Hail Sir Post-A-Lot !
[ *  *  *  * ]
So, i went to my friends house ( he has a Wii ) and we played cod5.

WORSE
GAME
EVER
MADE
IN
LIFE
EVER
SERIOUSLY
OMG
DONT
GET
IT

Now, i dont know how it's like for the 360 (different, i hope) but its awful for the Wii. why?
-Graphics are awful
-Gameplay is lame
- Co op is a joke.

So, can anyone tell me how it is for the 360? It sucked for the wii
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageIcelink
Member Avatar
 

Everything sucks on the wii lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gokucjs316
Member Avatar
Pimpin aint Easy lol (Bringin back)
[ *  * ]
wii is not like a serious gaming system its more for like the family.. its great on xbox 360 i love it. just as addicting as COD4
"i dont love hoes im sharing them"
<a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/5192/funnymh4.png" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xombie11
Member Avatar
I should go outside...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It's fun on the 360 but blows on the Wii.
Posted Image
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dmitri333
Awesome Dude
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm just going to wait for COD6 :D its coming out in 2009
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Omri
Hail Sir Post-A-Lot !
[ *  *  *  * ]
Icelink
Nov 18, 2008 - 3:35 pm
Everything sucks on the wii lol

super mario galaxy didnt suck, i still have dreams about it
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageStephen
Member Avatar
Bob Returns

Wii must suck big time then lol

On 360, the graphics are AMAZING for a First person shooter and although I didn't like it at first compared to COD4, I like it much more now that I've played it a little longer.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageJames
Member Avatar
Doctor doctor, give me the news, I've got a bad case of tubin' noobs.

Lol wii sucks, don't compare a tricycle to a Ferrari, there is just no comparison.

I have it on 360, and I'm already max level. I'm going to prestige soon, however running around with a flamethrower is so much fun. At first I thought cod4 was definatly better, but this is really starting to grow in me.

The weapons are weaker in this game, for example the Ghewer 43 replaces the g3 from cod4, but it only has 10 shots. The pistols suck, and I would take a USP over WaW's six shooter any day.

There is no super overpowered weapon in this game (m16 in cod4), so it isn't as easy. I think this game makes it slightly harder for people to get kills, but once you master your weapon you can really rack up your score.

I also like the new attachments, bayonet (increases melee range) rifle grenade (like the noob tube). The aperture sight, which replaces the red dot, I like a lot. There is double mags that are unlockable for smgs, for example the Thompson can double its ammo capacity from 20 to 40 rounds with a round drum.

There are also bolt actions, which can have sniper scopes, bayonets, and rifle grenades attached to them. They are basically the snipers of the game with a scope on (obviously) but if you put a bayonet on instead, it becomes a whole new weapon.

The campaign is really fun, and the survival mode that is unlocked after you beat the game is tons of fun. Haven't tried co op. Heard its far from disappointing though.

Overall, I think this is $60 usd well spent, and its worth the money (on 360). I can answer any questions u guys have too.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xombie11
Member Avatar
I should go outside...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The campaign is terrible... you must be kidding me?

You must read this review:

http://www.destructoid.com/destructoid-rev...ar-111618.phtml

Everything in there, and I mean everything, is true.
Posted Image
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageJames
Member Avatar
Doctor doctor, give me the news, I've got a bad case of tubin' noobs.

Xombie11
Nov 23, 2008 - 11:45 am
The campaign is terrible... you must be kidding me?

You must read this review:

http://www.destructoid.com/destructoid-rev...ar-111618.phtml

Everything in there, and I mean everything, is true.

How can you declare what ones opinion fact? If you say thats fact, I say one of the comments is fact too.

Quote:
 
SantanaClaus89 at 11/16/2008 10:32   

I have to repectfully disagree. Strongly. The single-player campaign is nowhere near what you say it is, and it sounds like you may have been playing on veteran because a frustrating, maddening, grenade-fest would be how I would describe veteran mode, but certianly not the regular difficulty setting.

And as for the multiplayer, who didn't expect it to be exactly like COD4 with new maps, weapons, and perks? Anyone? And I'm sorry man but if you ran around in a multiplayer game for TEN minutes and didn't see anyone you were either fondling yourself in the corner of a map or you really, really suck.

If Modern Warfare is a 10, World at War is at worst an 8. Plus, it's different. New maps, weapons, and perks are welcome to someone who has played the death out of COD4 for the last year. And you still get the same great online gameplay.

Also, Nazi Zombie mode is awesome playing with 3 other people.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xombie11
Member Avatar
I should go outside...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The campaign blows.

The reviewer wasn't playing on Veteran.

He was playing on Advanced (or w/e the next one down is).

At same level that Slayer and I were playing co-op on when I got the game for him for his bday.

It sucks. Ask Slayer, he'll agree.

The multiplayer is fine tbh. It can't be any worse than COD4 seeing as they ripped off every aspect of it. If I were Infinity Ward I'd be infinitely pissed at Activision for letting Treyarch rip off my game and make loads of cash doing so.

All Treyarch did was make a shitty single-player campaign and reskin the multiplayer. IW could of done that in a week and the game would of been a thousand times better.

I just can't even get over the fact that the multiplayer is an exact copy of COD4. If you look closely, all the guns in WaW have direct correlations with guns from COD4. It's as if all they did was reskin the guns... Even all the bugs and glitches that were part of COD4 multiplayer are still in WaW multiplayer. I mean WHAT THE FUCK.

If you have COD4, this game is so not worth it.

And I'm sorry if I sound cynical, but I'm also pissed that I bought the game under the impression that Slayer and I could play splitscreen live together like we do on every other game on the market just to find out that we can't. That was the one thign that COD4 was missing and the one thing that would make purchasing WaW worthwhile. But it's not there...

Treyarch :122twars1og Me
Posted Image
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageJames
Member Avatar
Doctor doctor, give me the news, I've got a bad case of tubin' noobs.

Xombie, I don't think you realize that it is so similar because its the same game engine. Same one from cod4. You can change a lot of things with a game engine but adding split screen with guests I can imagine would be very difficult.

The campaign doesn't suck as much as that shitty review claimed it was. "80% or more of a players death will be from grenades" = he sucks. Either way, its a matter of opinion on what you think of the campaign. Have you even beat it Xombie? I doubt it, and until you play some of the fun levels such as the sniper one don't be so quick to judge.

On to the multiplayer, as I said, runs on the same game engine. I can't really blame Treyarch for going on the safe side and using something that has already worked in the past. I mean, think about it. People hated Treyarch's cod3, and the public loved cod4. Treyarch knew if they had something similar to cod4, it would boost their previously tarnished reputation from past bad feelings from cod3. I agree that it is too similar, but that was a wise move on Treyarch's part as a financial point. After all, thats what its about. Money. That's all the world revolves around, money. (And women, but we won't go there.) They are real people, after all, trying to put bread on the table for their wives and children. Releasing a previously successful product will do just that.

You can hate Treyarch as much as you want from a Gamer's perspective, and hell, you have a right to. This isn't a groundbreaking game, which is what every fun-seeking gamer wants, because it has already been done before. But you have to understand Treyarch's stand point. I'm sure they discussed long hours with Activision and Infinity Ward about this, and this was most likely a greatly debated conclusion.

The multiplayer's weapons are actually very different. There is only one full auto assault rifle, the mp (or stg, whatever, same thing) 44 which is essentially the first fully automatic assault rifle of its time, so be happy thats in there. The single shot rifles are different from each other, and they all have different attachments. Silencers, Flash Hiders, Bayonets, Aperture Sights, Telescopic Sights, Rifle Grenades, and full out Sniper Scopes can be attached to the semi auto rifles alone. Bolt actions are a whole different thing aswell, they are good to use if you are a good marksman. Smgs are different aswell. There is a gun that shoots at 1662 rpm with double tap (the P90 shoots at only 925 rpm) with an attachable 70 round drum mag. LMGs (and HMGs now) are diverse too. You can get the Browning 1919, the actual gun from the turret of American tanks. Perks are improved, things like Bouncing Bettys (Claymores) and Bazookas (RPGs) are much more lethal then before, and the selection is more vast. There are also a lot more new and useful perks, such as Reconassiance.

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, all I am trying to say is that look at it from Treyarch's point of view. They needed to regain their reputation so incase they release a new game in the future, people will actually buy the game. I'm sick of the typical bitchy gamer attitude of people "Z0mgs dey copied cod4 dis game sucks mayne". No, this game is not perfect. No, this game does have a brand new revolutionary multiplayer experience like Modern Warfare did. However, this gun does offer a good campaign and new online content. There are a lot of fun things that will get you hooked. Either the exhilarating experience of lunging at someone with your bayonet, or running head on to a tank when its not paying attention and destroying it with some well placed explosives, this game deserves more then an hour of your time before you can make a good conclusion about it.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageZee
Member Avatar
Mclf1

James
Nov 23, 2008 - 6:32 pm
Xombie, I don't think you realize that it is so similar because its the same game engine. Same one from cod4. You can change a lot of things with a game engine but adding split screen with guests I can imagine would be very difficult.

The campaign doesn't suck as much as that shitty review claimed it was. "80% or more of a players death will be from grenades" = he sucks. Either way, its a matter of opinion on what you think of the campaign. Have you even beat it Xombie? I doubt it, and until you play some of the fun levels such as the sniper one don't be so quick to judge.

On to the multiplayer, as I said, runs on the same game engine. I can't really blame Treyarch for going on the safe side and using something that has already worked in the past. I mean, think about it. People hated Treyarch's cod3, and the public loved cod4. Treyarch knew if they had something similar to cod4, it would boost their previously tarnished reputation from past bad feelings from cod3. I agree that it is too similar, but that was a wise move on Treyarch's part as a financial point. After all, thats what its about. Money. That's all the world revolves around, money. (And women, but we won't go there.) They are real people, after all, trying to put bread on the table for their wives and children. Releasing a previously successful product will do just that.

You can hate Treyarch as much as you want from a Gamer's perspective, and hell, you have a right to. This isn't a groundbreaking game, which is what every fun-seeking gamer wants, because it has already been done before. But you have to understand Treyarch's stand point. I'm sure they discussed long hours with Activision and Infinity Ward about this, and this was most likely a greatly debated conclusion.

The multiplayer's weapons are actually very different. There is only one full auto assault rifle, the mp (or stg, whatever, same thing) 44 which is essentially the first fully automatic assault rifle of its time, so be happy thats in there. The single shot rifles are different from each other, and they all have different attachments. Silencers, Flash Hiders, Bayonets, Aperture Sights, Telescopic Sights, Rifle Grenades, and full out Sniper Scopes can be attached to the semi auto rifles alone. Bolt actions are a whole different thing aswell, they are good to use if you are a good marksman. Smgs are different aswell. There is a gun that shoots at 1662 rpm with double tap (the P90 shoots at only 925 rpm) with an attachable 70 round drum mag. LMGs (and HMGs now) are diverse too. You can get the Browning 1919, the actual gun from the turret of American tanks. Perks are improved, things like Bouncing Bettys (Claymores) and Bazookas (RPGs) are much more lethal then before, and the selection is more vast. There are also a lot more new and useful perks, such as Reconassiance.

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, all I am trying to say is that look at it from Treyarch's point of view. They needed to regain their reputation so incase they release a new game in the future, people will actually buy the game. I'm sick of the typical bitchy gamer attitude of people "Z0mgs dey copied cod4 dis game sucks mayne". No, this game is not perfect. No, this game does have a brand new revolutionary multiplayer experience like Modern Warfare did. However, this gun does offer a good campaign and new online content. There are a lot of fun things that will get you hooked. Either the exhilarating experience of lunging at someone with your bayonet, or running head on to a tank when its not paying attention and destroying it with some well placed explosives, this game deserves more then an hour of your time before you can make a good conclusion about it.

First paragraph: You're using Treyarch's unoriginality and refusal to build a game from the bottom up as an excuse as to why the game doesn't have certain features. COD4 reviewers disliked the lack of split screen, and just because COD5 uses the same engine doesn't mean that aspect should be excluded from reviews.

2nd: w/e

3rd: COD3? more like COD2.5; having played both, there was so much similar between the two, it was sort of disgusting. You're also saying that they have an excuse to make a copied game, just because they're a business. You're saying that they can rip off millions of players simply because they can make money off of it.
The rest: tl;dr

Ok last paragraph:
Just because treyarch has made the crappiest games in the world in the past, does not mean they can copy and paste a game with a new picture and expect everyone to love it. As you said yourself, we have a right to hate treyarch from a gamer's perspective, after all... what more are we?
Click here to join our IRC chat!
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageJames
Member Avatar
Doctor doctor, give me the news, I've got a bad case of tubin' noobs.

cod2 and cod3 were totally different games. cod2 was a great hit and cod3, made by treyarch, was an epic fail. Thats all I could gather from your post mclf...I don't really see your point. Also, xombie, waiting for your response.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xombie11
Member Avatar
I should go outside...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
So I have to look at this game in Treyarch's point of view?

Doesn't that defeat the point of the game itself.

I'm not supposed to rip on the game because I'm supposed to feel sorry for the developers?

It's an exact copy of COD4. They can't justify doing this. Treyarch can't rip off their customer base and make them pay another $60 for the SAME game. At least make it an expansion or something and charge $30 for it.

Yes, I understand it's the same game engine. But that doesn't mean anything. TF2 is run on the same game engine as CSS. L4D is run on the same game engine as HL2. GOW is run on the same game engine as UT3. But the similarities between the games are almost nonexistent.

And, no, I highly doubt IW had any say in the matter.

For example: http://www.fourzerotwo.com/2008/11/07/noah...ing-interviews/

Sure they changed up the guns and a few perks. They had to change something didn't they? But everything else is the same. It feels like I'm playing a mod for a game that I already own. Treyarch may have changed some things, but they didn't change enough to justify the purchase of a brand new game.

You can't call me out for not completing the singleplayer. I'm sorry, but if I spend over an hour getting absolutely nowhere and getting insanely frustrated by a shitty campaign... I don't care how good it gets at the end. If it doesn't suck me in, I'm not playing it. I played on the level down from Veteran, and, yes, I can vouch for the fact that grenades killed me 80% of the time. Slayer can too. He hated it also, and you see him playing MP like everyday. I just feel sorry for him because he has to beat the terrible campaign to get at the only original aspect of the game: Nazi Zombies. But wait... L4D just came out and it's 100x better in that aspect. Wow what a waste.

Here's a comparison worth reading (as well as the comments): http://www.gamesradar.com/f/is-call-of-dut...114133516470081
Posted Image
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Gaming · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Member Key
Administrators
% IRC HalfOps ~ Members ~ New Persons