Call of Duty: World At War (PS3)

  • Thread starter Thread starter ceiling_fan
  • 463 comments
  • 26,094 views
Nice. 👍

I can understand why people don't want another WW2 game, but if you're complaining about the inferior guns and equipment, then I'm not sure why since everyone will be in the same shoes. And the developer isn't bad either - multilayer in COD3 is pretty fun and slightly harder than in COD4. Plus, I believe it'll be using the same engine COD4 does so it shouldn't look any worse than that does.
 
G.T
Nice. 👍

I can understand why people don't want another WW2 game, but if you're complaining about the inferior guns and equipment, then I'm not sure why since everyone will be in the same shoes. And the developer isn't bad either - multilayer in COD3 is pretty fun and slightly harder than in COD4. Plus, I believe it'll be using the same engine COD4 does so it shouldn't look any worse than that does.

I think its the fact that this one doesn't continue the COD4 story is the main problem people have with it.

Robin
 
At least they have the CoD4 engine to start with so just based on that fact I'm quite hopeful. From the footage it sure looks like the night time action, if included for the online portion, could be very intense given the lack of night vision technology back in the day.
 
Great, another WW2 CoD or perhaps its Vietnam, I hate to say it but I have lost all interest in this next CoD. It's not that I need to have modern or futuristic type weapons to shoot people, its just so much more fun that old rattly Tommy guns. I think I might be waiting for CoD6 like a lot of other people.
 
I agree, I really think they will continue the story where it left off as everyone will want to know what happened next..... If that is confirmed I will 100% buy it! IW all the way! It will probably be called Modern Warfare 2.

Robin

How do you know that Infinity Ward are making COD6?
 
One of the best factors Treyarch bought to COD 3 was host migration.

Why oh why can't IW bring this to COD 4.
 
Some new information came out of E3 early this morning:

G4TV
At their press event last night, Activision dropped a lot of exciting info on the next Call of Duty game. Call of Duty: World at War is shooter set in World War II being developed by Treyarch. Here's what was revealed last night:

* 24 Actor Kiefer Sutherland will star in the game.

* While we knew part of the game would be set in the Pacific Islands, we didn't know the Russians would play a part as well. Players will be members of the Red Army for part of the game and fend off Hitler's terrible panzer-blitz and capturing Berlin.

* World at War will feature cooperative play with four players online, or two players on a single screen. Co-op will keep track of individuals kills so you can compete while you co-operate, like Halo 3.

Call of Duty: World at War comes out across platforms this fall.

http://e3.g4tv.com/e32008/blog/post/687128/Activision_Talks_Call_of_Duty_World_at_War.html

I can't find the article anymore, but from the same website, they also talked about the multiplayer. There will be 2 modes: an "Infantry" mode, where there are no vehicles, just soilder to soilder combat (like in COD4 I suppose), and another mode where you can drive vehicles like Tanks. The experience, perks and prestige levels will also be added. :)
 
There will be vehicles. Good thing. There will be good graphics. Good thing. There is the CoD4 engine. Double Good thing. CoD4 Online System. Thank God. Getting to play as the Russians. Hehehehehe.........

This game isnt going to be a dissapointment. CoD3, was an ok shooter, but most CoD fans were dissapointed. Now, since Treyarch has had a 2 year cycle to work on CoD: WaW, instead of the one year cycle for CoD3, expect great things from them. They are not a bad company, it is that just they didnt have a good time period to work on it.
 
I can't decide whether to buy this one. I loved cod4 and probably haven't played it as much as I would enjoy to. I'm just not sure if even the gameplay was similar if I would find this game just as fun puerly on the fact its not a modern setting.
 
I can't decide whether to buy this one. I loved cod4 and probably haven't played it as much as I would enjoy to. I'm just not sure if even the gameplay was similar if I would find this game just as fun puerly on the fact its not a modern setting.

I'm with you on that. Although the split screen co-op and the use of vehicles :dopey: is trying its best to persuade me. I probably will get it, although none of you will see me online until just before christmas probably. :ouch:
 
I hear vehicles are rubbish and overly easy to use and rack up kills with. My friend played the Beta and claimed that RPGs are a must because of the chance an opponent has a vehicle. Although S&D is said to be vehicle free, vehicles killed COD2 for me, vehicles killed SOCOM 3 and vehicles killed BF:BC (although less so then the others as it made more sense). All because you had to be in one, to take them out effectively which turned it into a game of who fires the first shot, or if you're an infantrymen, if you can hide/run from it before it slaughters you.

Some people like vehicles, I don't, I prefer a simple man V man combat on even grounds, or a vehicle V vehicle combat at least, so everyone is on even terms rather then one weapon/vehicle providing one player with a great advantage over all.
 
Because it's fifth, sith or 7th game does not make it Call of duty 5,6,7 etc.. It is just Call of Duty: World at war Because it is not a fallow up, it's just on it's own, using same game engine as 4. So yeah, the most you can call it it's Call of duty 4 WAW not 5 for sure.

And by the way, it is not 5th call of duty game.
 
Because it's fifth, sith or 7th game does not make it Call of duty 5,6,7 etc.. It is just Call of Duty: World at war Because it is not a fallow up, it's just on it's own, using same game engine as 4. So yeah, the most you can call it it's Call of duty 4 WAW not 5 for sure.

And by the way, it is not 5th call of duty game.

Exactly. If that was the case, I think we'd be past GT7. :p
 
BOTTOM LINE.

Am I correct when I say this:

CoD:4 > CoD:WaW

I have to agree based on everything I've heard. I hear the team behind WaW didn't try to fix the online problems or listen to the complaints IW was plagued with by the community.
 
BOTTOM LINE.

Am I correct when I say this:

CoD:4 > CoD:WaW

I think it's matter of personal choice on what kind of era person likes. Some like it modern, some like it historical

for me it would be

COD:1 > COD4, COD3, COD2, COD:waw, COD once that came for Xbox and PS2.
 
There will be vehicles. Good thing. There will be good graphics. Good thing. There is the CoD4 engine. Double Good thing. CoD4 Online System. Thank God. Getting to play as the Russians. Hehehehehe.........

There will be innovation on the scale of COD4? No, no there will not. Bad thing which doesn't warrant a full price purchase, I'm going for, get it cheap or don't get it standing.

I will agree on COD4 > COD W@W, someone should've told Treyarch to try something new rather then play it safe if they wanna get my money. Just look how generic they've made the new bond game, looks so so average and predictable.
 
Have we all finished with the COD 5 or COD WOW? Right I see a few have got it early and before the rest of us are tempted in the morning, IS IT ANY GOOD? Would be nice if the lucky few can give us some thoughts on the subject seeing as they actualy have the game , rather than speculation gleened from the beta and the internet. I was very sceptical about this game and treyards involvement after the mediocer COD 3. But from the reviews and comments of friends who got into the beta it's aparently a good title? I'm still sceptical but I'm convinced enough to go buy it tomorow, am I about to regrete it? give us a clue lads and share some early thoughts about what you think after playing it.
 

Latest Posts

Back