Reviews and Problems with Call of Duty: World at War
Showing 1-10 of 85
J. Carpenter, Amazon
27 January 2010
Summary: although this version is more cut down than the ps3 version the in game gameplay is so good that it is not far off the ps3 quality and being a ps2 game that is an awsome achievement. The graphics are top notch and the videos between each mission make you feel as though you are part of the war.
Summary: This is probably best regarded as an expansion pack for Call of Duty 3 to cover the end of WW2. The gameplay is very good, but the game is rather easy and/or short. It only took just over a week playing 1-2 hours per night to complete at the regular setting.
Summary: Good graphics and having a son in the armed forces this is very true as he sees it and he loves to play this when home on leave. Allows you to access and think for yourself good game play and uses the mind.
Summary: well its quite simple the gameplay is hardly any different from the ps2 game of call of duty 3 all they've done is changed the names story and levels! don't get me wrong call of duty 3 is good but we need something new until the new modern warfare 2 comes out which is one of the biggest games ever!
Summary: Not a bad game, but not really that good if you have played the other call of duty titles. I feel that their is nothing new in this game apart the flamerthrower. The best parts in my view are in the european arena rather than the far east ones.
Summary: Very excited to purchase and play a lot of shoot em up games. This one was rushed through like a after thought. The game play is easy even on Expert. The AI is poor the enemy do not adjust to your strategy and your own team get in your way. The graphics look like they where designed 5 - 6 years ago.