Reviews and Problems with Call of Duty: World at War
Showing 1-10 of 34
Don't Assume Anything
Larry j. Eckert, Amazon
28 January 2014
Summary: The game pkg info wasn't clear enough. I made an ASSUMPTION the game included the game book. The information on the game didn't indicate the book wasn't included. Several other World at War games for sale stated not only condition, but, if the pkg didn't include the game book. Without the book the game isn't worth what I paid for it.
Summary: Prone to glitching and not starting properly. (over an hour to actually get the game to where i could play after a fresh install) Excessive forced movie watching; you spend less time actually playing than you do watching movies. For single person, it is the WORST of the series so far. There is almost no room to deviate from the narrow path the game wants you to follow.
Cons: Loading screens take a LONG time. Treyarch doesn't care about the players, they release new maps while there are major issues to be fixed. Multiplayer is just simply not fun.. Even softcore seems like hardcore. Weapons aren't balanced at all. In CoD4, I use snipers most of the time.. In this, I would never use single-fire rifles. Simply because if you miss, the person is just going to spray in your direction (if he's using a fully auto) and oh, he will hit you.. This ...
Cons: A very *short* game. I finished the entire game in less than 10 hours of game play, *including* all the times I died and had to restart the section. Any one of the Half-Life2 games has *way* more game play. Have not been able to get the LAN play to work on my 2 desktop PCs, even though I have 2 copies of the game (one through Steam, the other from DVD). Freezes up my PCs more than most games.
Summary: I was really looking foward to this game but after playing it I should have just stuck with CoD4. The guns are better and the areas are better for online play imo. Not worth the 60 bucks I spent for it. Hopefully CoD6 will actually be fresh and new not just a copy of 5... which would actually make it another copy of 4. If you don't have 4 then pick it up, if you have 4 not worth the money.
Pros: Fun single player
Cons: There really isn't any change from 4 other than the guns and areas. The online play is still frustrating. I can't tell you how many times I have spawned right in soemone's crosshairs or 1 sec from a bomb being dropped on me.
Summary: I have followed this franchise since it started. Have played every game for the PC. I can honestly say that if you want to see the best multiplayer WW2 action...the game to buy is the original Call Of Duty with the United Offensive expansion. The expansion was made by an independent software developer (not IW) who came up with some great ideas (satchel charge, flame thrower, panzers, shermans, jeeps, etc).
Pros: *Took a lot of the COD4 ideas and ran with them. Such as custom perks and killstreak abilities. *Finally added the Japanese to the battlefield. The flame thrower is finally back (first time since COD UO). *The COD gameplay which is so fluent...is still best for up close fighting action. *Maps are fought on different environments to spice it up.
Cons: *Took the UAV idea from COD 4 and applied it to COD 5 with spy planes. Totally stupid idea...takes away from the WWII feel. *Bolt-action rifles don't have the same great feel that they had in previous COD games. (Although I'm not a huge fan of the game, they were best in COD 2. *Lack of large scale maps. Hello! When will IW realize that people want to play as a sniper or support man without being found and killed after two minutes. Battlefield 2 mastered this. *LACK O...
Summary: I was skeptical at first about getting this game, and I was right to be that way. This game is fun for the first few missions. It seems as if you are playing Call of Duty 4 all over again, except it's worse. The main thing that people purchase this for is the multiplayer so I'll get right to that.
Pros: Decent Graphics
Cons: Buggy Bad gameplay Horrible Multiplayer World War II Spawn points
Summary: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2.4GHz 2GB Ram XFX GeForce 8800GTS 320MB Graphics sucked compared to COD4 I think...
Pros: Flamethrower, Co-Op Zombie Mode (I've gotten to level 25 and Zombies is all I play in this game now. They should have made this Call of Duty: Zombie Warfare but whatever.
Cons: Co-Op missions are weird. Usually in co-op games you fight together to beat the enemy. With this, you fight together... but are also fighting against each other for points. It's not a very good way to do co-op in my opinion. COD 4 was MUCH better.