Frostbyte
13 Dec 2008, 02:53pm
First of all, you all saw this thread coming sooner or later. I was really bored, so I felt like making it.
First of all, lets get some things straight. Call of Duty 4 didnt ''revolutionize'' the genre. By no means am I calling this a bad game, but I think it was a BIT overrated. Thats coming from someone who played the game for a year. It was a very fun game. It got really repetitive after about the 4th prestige. Eventually, people on youtube mass produced glitches that gave people an unfair advantage over other players, which made the game less fun, imo. The campaign was great, and people felt truly sorry for Captain Price and Gaz on the last level. It was like an action movie, exept you controlled it instead of watching it.
Second off all, World at War was developed by Treyarch, the company responsible for Call of Duty 3, which made people automatically say 'this game sucks'. I think it is more of an expansion pack or a mod than a full fledged game. It still is a really fun game. It brings game types and features that people begged for in Call of Duty 4 like co-op campaign,
zombies, capture the flag (fuck yes), and new hardcore gametypes. Sure, people can call this, 'just another world war 2 shooter'. And well, they wouldn't be wrong. But its a damn good one. Tanks aren't super overpowered, and there are many means of defeating them.
I personally liked the introduction of the Pacific campaign. The competitive campaign was a great idea, along with the death cards (Halo 3 skulls anyone?), and it kept people coming back, and made veteran difficulty a hell of a lot easier. The online multiplayer is basically a copy/paste of the Call of duty 4 formula with world war 2 guns, its not necessarily a bad thing.
In a nutshell, Call of Duty 4 was a great game, and World at War brings some great new concepts to the table.
First of all, lets get some things straight. Call of Duty 4 didnt ''revolutionize'' the genre. By no means am I calling this a bad game, but I think it was a BIT overrated. Thats coming from someone who played the game for a year. It was a very fun game. It got really repetitive after about the 4th prestige. Eventually, people on youtube mass produced glitches that gave people an unfair advantage over other players, which made the game less fun, imo. The campaign was great, and people felt truly sorry for Captain Price and Gaz on the last level. It was like an action movie, exept you controlled it instead of watching it.
Second off all, World at War was developed by Treyarch, the company responsible for Call of Duty 3, which made people automatically say 'this game sucks'. I think it is more of an expansion pack or a mod than a full fledged game. It still is a really fun game. It brings game types and features that people begged for in Call of Duty 4 like co-op campaign,
zombies, capture the flag (fuck yes), and new hardcore gametypes. Sure, people can call this, 'just another world war 2 shooter'. And well, they wouldn't be wrong. But its a damn good one. Tanks aren't super overpowered, and there are many means of defeating them.
I personally liked the introduction of the Pacific campaign. The competitive campaign was a great idea, along with the death cards (Halo 3 skulls anyone?), and it kept people coming back, and made veteran difficulty a hell of a lot easier. The online multiplayer is basically a copy/paste of the Call of duty 4 formula with world war 2 guns, its not necessarily a bad thing.
In a nutshell, Call of Duty 4 was a great game, and World at War brings some great new concepts to the table.