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 (706 Views)
Posted ImageTom
hunter22

I agree with the first few posts in that the Wii is a fucking disaster of a gaming system and blows.

But as far as the analysis of COD5 I'll leave that to you guys cause I have no idea on the subject matter and you guys are way far into it that there's noway I could get involved lol.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Slim
Cutthroat O' Postage
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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.

Okay i understand the game from Treyarch's view now financially and etc. But still why does that mean its a good game? Its good for them as a company but not a good new game for gamers overall
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xapoc
Cutthroat O' Postage
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
hunter22
Nov 24, 2008 - 10:35 am
I agree with the first few posts in that the Wii is a fucking disaster of a gaming system and blows.

But as far as the analysis of COD5 I'll leave that to you guys cause I have no idea on the subject matter and you guys are way far into it that there's noway I could get involved lol.

So true, so true... Should've gotten myself a 360 (oh shit flame wars)


BUUUUUUUUUT. [size=1]okami? super mario galaxy?[/size] Besides that, it does blow.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageZee
Member Avatar
Mclf1

slimshady96
Nov 24, 2008 - 3:06 pm
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.

Okay i understand the game from Treyarch's view now financially and etc. But still why does that mean its a good game? Its good for them as a company but not a good new game for gamers overall

Lol!

Ok Shadow I'll put it simply:
You say:
Quote:
 
I agree that it is too similar, but that was a wise move on Treyarch's part as a financial point.

I say:
No, it's not. Enough bad reviews like the one xombie pointed to, and enough readers/believers, and they're reputation will be worse than before. Have you really gained any respect for Treyarch as a game developer after this game?

You say:
Quote:
 
They are real people, after all, trying to put bread on the table for their wives and children.

I say:
That's not an excuse to sell crap. I'm not going to feel sorry for them and buy their game.

You say:
Quote:
 

I'm sick of the typical bitchy gamer attitude of people "Z0mgs dey copied cod4 dis game sucks mayne".

I say:
Unfortunately for you, and Treyarch, those bitchy gamers are also the people that buy their game. If the game sucks, not only will they bitch now, but people will remember this the next time Treyarch comes out with a game.

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.

Mclf:

Quote:
 
No, it's not. Enough bad reviews like the one xombie pointed to, and enough readers/believers, and they're reputation will be worse than before. Have you really gained any respect for Treyarch as a game developer after this game?

I don't believe that. Releasing a game similar to something that had sold millions of copies with more content will most likely boost a game companies reputation, especially when the said game is released only a year after the previous hit was released. I doubt a few bad reviews will outweigh Treyarch's success with this game. (Success measured in how many copies sell)

Quote:
 
That's not an excuse to sell crap. I'm not going to feel sorry for them and buy their game.

You don't have to. Just trying to show your closed mind that there is more viewpoints then that of some kid who plays video games.

Quote:
 
Unfortunately for you, and Treyarch, those bitchy gamers are also the people that buy their game. If the game sucks, not only will they bitch now, but people will remember this the next time Treyarch comes out with a game.

How does that make sense? People who I described probably wouldn't buy the game because "dey copied cod4 dis game sucks mayne" Either way, this game will still sell quite a few copies. Probably not as much as MW, but plenty to boost Treyarch's reputation from shitty cod3. This is essentially a placebo to boost Treyarch's rep, and make a quick buck from it too, especially after MW came out. But if its similar, and better (by better I mean by more content and my opinion), why not buy it?

Also, if I remember correctly, you chose halo 3 over cod4, obviously making you hate cod:waw aswell as cod4. So your arguement is moot, you hate both games. Enjoy your halo.


Xombie:
I'm won't lie (and I'm not trying to hide) by coming out and saying that this game is largely MW in WWII, but if its better, (again, by my own opinion and new content), why not buy it?

The first link you posted was 420 basically telling people to stop quoting some douche from Activision who obviously has never played either of the cod games (MW and WaW of course) because he doesn't know what hes talking about. I'm sure he just talks for bigger groups, like people who care about sales and such, not for people who actually play the game and pay attention to the details, for example gamers who know about bolt action rifles. Noah sounds like an idiot. Not too sure what point you are trying to make.

The last link was just a comparison between two games, where the man speaking for WaW kept making claims and the MW guy kept comming back with stupid responses such as:
Quote:
 
The two games’ multiplayer modes are almost identical, but Modern Warfare was the blueprint on which World at War was conceived. Adding a few extra perks and some exotic Japanese temple maps can’t hide that fact. They also can’t hide that the text fonts and screen HUDs were copied over from Modern Warfare, too, despite making no sense whatsoever in a 1940s environment.

Yes, it is the same 'blueprint', but what else does the rest of his comment have to do with supporting how MW is better? Who gives a shit about fonts. This guy can't come up with some good legitimate claims as to why MW is better, he only refutes Chris's statements with bullshit.

Everything else is just your opinion ("getting insanely frustrated by a shitty campaign...") so I can't really break that down.

Play the mission mission where you first take the persona of a Russian sniper on Veteran (not pussy hardened). The mission is mostly easy, but its hell of a lot of fun, especially when you get into the sniper vs sniper fight. Obviously you won't get killed by many grenades here, but it is a fun mission. Also, play the mission where you start with a M2 and M1A1 (called Burn em out or something) . This is on foot so grenades will actually be involved, but you shouldn't die from them, unless you decide to camp when you see the grenade symbol. (Again, not on pussy mode). Don't compare a bonus that is only a fraction of the game (Nazi zombies) to L4D that is 100% about the same thing (zombie massacring) which also has also been in the making for a much longer time. (I remember Tom talking about it over two years ago lol)

Also, realistically, whats wrong with the multiplayer if is largely similar to MW, but with tanks, more perks and new guns? I enjoy the multiplayer, and I don't see anything totally wrong with it (such as noobs spraying with the m16 and getting piss easy kills). Honestly, without exaggeration, how much time have you spent playing online? It's quite fun. Try something like the springfield without a scope or the mp40. Use stopping power, of course, and you should rack up some kills easily. Or, get into a tank and blast some people away. Overall I think of the multiplayer, in one word, as "improved".

You guys need to realize that it is made from MW and that it was released only a year after cod4 came out. It has many, many similarities but it is different (AND FUN)in many aspects.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xombie11
Member Avatar
I should go outside...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm not denying the fact that it's still fun; it definitely is. How could it not be when all it is is MW reskinned, and MW was so great? But is it different?

WAW's primary consumer base are people that bought MW and enjoyed it. And to them, this game is UBER 1337 because it's more of what they loved, more of the same.

But that's exactly what I'm getting at. All it is is more of the same. So if you liked MW and want more, get WAW. But if you're not COD obsessed, and enjoy playing a variety of different games, this is a total waste of money.

The point of the link to 402's blog post is to show the unrest in the games industry; IW is pissed at Treyarch for taking THEIR engine and THEIR ideas and repackaging it into a game to improve Treyarch's bad name and not to improve their own. And I feel for IW. I really do.

I also have a challenge for you. Keep playing WAW for another month or so. Obsess over it like you did MW. And then, go back and play MW, both SP and MP. I guarantee you'll like MW better. Right now the only reason people think WAW is better is because they've grown old of MW, it's been a year and it's grown more repetitive and dull and people are yearning for MORE CAWDDDD. So anything all fresh and new and shiny (oh wait, WW2, nvrm) is FUN to them.
Posted Image
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageZee
Member Avatar
Mclf1

Quote:
 

I don't believe that. Releasing a game similar to something that had sold millions of copies with more content will most likely boost a game companies reputation, especially when the said game is released only a year after the previous hit was released. I doubt a few bad reviews will outweigh Treyarch's success with this game. (Success measured in how many copies sell)

Sort of reminds me of those super mario bros copies that came out in the 80's. Sure they did good, but the developers soon died out, you can't get far riding the wake of a better game developer. Easy, of course, for the cheap buck that Treyarch seems to want to make out of naive gamers.

Quote:
 
Just trying to show your closed mind that there is more viewpoints then that of some kid who plays video games.

And in all honesty, why should I care. Of course there are people out there, and families out there as well, that doesn't change my mind about anything. If the world worked that way, nobody would be fired from their job, and donations would be through the roof, unfortunately, they're in the business of making games, and that's all I care about them for lol I'm not buying a game in order to support their family. Call me close minded, but I don't have time to care.

Quote:
 
How does that make sense? People who I described probably wouldn't buy the game because "dey copied cod4 dis game sucks mayne" Either way, this game will still sell quite a few copies. Probably not as much as MW, but plenty to boost Treyarch's reputation from shitty cod3. This is essentially a placebo to boost Treyarch's rep, and make a quick buck from it too, especially after MW came out. But if its similar, and better (by better I mean by more content and my opinion), why not buy it?

Same as paragraph 1.

Quote:
 
Also, if I remember correctly, you chose halo 3 over cod4, obviously making you hate cod:waw aswell as cod4. So your arguement is moot, you hate both games. Enjoy your halo.

Exactly my point... minus the hate portion. I preferred halo 3 over CoD 4 and, unfortunately, WaW hasn't offered anything new. I came into WaW with an open mind, expecting something good, perhaps better than what I've seen in the past, and as you can tell, I was disappointed.
What you're saying is pretty ridiculous, I disliked one game, so I should dislike the next, just because it shares the words "call of duty?" In which case, why did you even bother buying CoD 4 if CoD 3 was so bad.
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.

Why did I buy cod4 after shitty cod3? Because cod2 fucking rocked, and it was made by IW. When IW came out with cod4 I was pleased. I'll respond to everything else later, I've got to get a report in before midnight via turnitin
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xombie11
Member Avatar
I should go outside...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Turnitin -sigh-
Posted Image
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimson_Fogx
Member Avatar
In Nomine Patris, Et Filii, Et Spiritus Sancti.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Can't wait for CoD6 Future War, with the same game again, but with more guns and perks. Then CoD7 Civil War, with the same multi-player.


Note: I haven't played CoD5 yet.

But in all seriousness, if it is really just the same game, with the guns changed and stuff I would be upset too. 60 Dollars that could have gone to something more important or more fun. People could have just modded CoD4 if they wanted the same game in WW2. People Modded Counter-Strike:Source to be like 007 Golden Eye, A realistic Iraq war game (conflict), to even a mid-evil battle sort of game.

Maybe I'll rent it. I didn't really find CoD4 all that amazing though anyway. It was fun, but I thought it got old a little too quick. But really, that is how it is for most Online-FPS games.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gokucjs316
Member Avatar
Pimpin aint Easy lol (Bringin back)
[ *  * ]
i think it is actually better then 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
 
link77712
Member Avatar
58 cb ftw
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
i agree with goku.

and also, i have a wii, and my brother rented waw today. its not terrible. i mean, im no hardcore, but i enjoy it.

oh and im trading in all my wii shit for a 360 tomorrow XD
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageChris
Member Avatar
xen

From my experience in modifying game content and reading half of this topic I have a few things to say.

Games using the same engine CAN but usually DON'T look the same. They behave the same. For example, the menu system in the engine could lag. If another game uses this same engine, their menu system will probably suffer from lag as well.

Now, the look alike part. So? Think of it like this (although it's a stretch):
Halo -> Halo 2.
Halo and Halo 2 use different game engines. Halo uses an inhouse written engine while Halo 2 uses a brand new engine (inhouse or not, I'm unaware) along with the Havok physics engine. This game here (link) uses the same engine as Halo, but it looks nothing like it.

Ok, with that behind us, the "reskinned" stuff. I say no. Although I have not experienced this myself (in COD5), but if the guns were just reskinned, then they would behave in the EXACT same fashion as their predecessors. However, I'm very sure they do not - as said in Shadow's post near the top.

Story: this game was not made for story, but for multiplayer. The story, in my opinion, prepares you for online multiplayer.

Wii vs. 360: I've seen the Wii commercials for this game, and my god, it's horrible. The graphics are down right terrible. How could they do this?? But on the 360, I'm very aware of it's graphical achievements. Also, the Wii uses this graphics chip while the 360 uses this one. As by comparison, the 360's graphical reach straight rapes the Wii's. That's why the graphics for the Wii version suck nuts.

~ 'Nuff said.
Interested in playing Minecraft? Read up here: bitlegend.com
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cobster10
Newly post-happy Cutthroat!
[ *  * ]
I just don't like Call of Duty 5 multiplayer for some reason. Haven't quite figured out exactly why.

Campaign, though, is amazing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
« Previous Topic · Gaming · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Member Key
Administrators
% IRC HalfOps ~ Members ~ New Persons