 |
 |
 |
-icon.gif){kind=icon}
21 comments + 95764 views
 |
||||||
|
get involved register or login post a blog post a forum enter a contest discuss a review contribute a news tip write a guest editorial |
support new member's guide login assistance tech support report abuse email our editors read our dev blog nuclear crisis? |
keep in touch RSS feed Myspace Flickr Game nights Meet-ups |
seriously about us advertising terms of use privacy policy jobs at MM buy our crap |
our network Tomopop Japanator 
|
|
Living the dream since March 16, 2006 |
||||||
An exclusive first review being surprisingly positive!? Who would have thought!
Oh noes! Time to knock its score down on Metacritic because we can't have games that are well-received!
"and the first one of mony"
On the subject, I seriously doubt WaW is better than COD4. I hope I'm wrong, but zombie mode SCREAMED "we have an inferior product so we're just throwing in random shit at this point".
This is good news and bad news. Good because it's nice to see good video games come out. Bad because it means I'll probably end up getting it and wasting a fair chunk of my time on it like I did with CoD4.
Timeline:
Treyarch makes crappy game
Infinity ward makes awesome game
Treyarch ctrl+c ctrl+v, throws in a little bit more, takes all credit.
The game may be better, but lets not say that Treyarch deserves most of the praise here...
I just hope reviews this year give more focus towards the multiplayer. One paragraph at the end doesn't do it justice.
I'll reserve judgement til my brother buys it next week. I'm sure it'll be good, but considering it's WWII setting, I doubt I'll prefer it over CoD4.
Yeah, too bad it would have sucked, IF NOT for IW.
Yeah, too bad it would have sucked IF NOT for Infinity Ward.
It's not that I doubt it will be a good game. It's just that it's another WWII game (which I'm sick of) and another CoD game (a style of play I'm tired of) so I just can't be arsed to care. The Zombie mode has me thinking I might pick it up a year from now when it's cheap but that's definitely a maybe. I'll probably still be playing L4D then anyways.
An exclusive review being a 9 or above?
NO WAY
To all the doubters :
I've been playing the beta for a week and a half. All I can say is IF YOU LIKED COD4, YOU WILL REALLY LIKE THIS GAME! It plays VERY similar. The differences include MORE PERKS, MORE ATTATCHMENTS, BETTER GRAPHICS, BRIGHTER AND DARKER levels, bayonets, bipods, TANKS, and DOGS.
I think it's geared a little more to the advanced COD4 playing crowd. Some of the guns(IE Bolt Action Rifles) are more difficult to use, but oh just as satisfying if not more than the modern weapons.
The level designs in the 3 maps I've played are amazing. Good luck finding a camping spot because EVERYWHERE you go you can be killed from two other vantage points. I feel this game is much more strategic.
Without giving a full review, all the little additions make a big difference. It's a very refreshing take on the COD4 engine and if you just started to get bored with COD4, this will bring the addiction right back.
Less time spent on engine = more time spent on game.
Thievery gets you everywhere.
LOL. Man as much as I love reading gaming magazine PSW is something I wouldn't even use as toilet paper. It's the single worst, most biased, just plain stupid magazine in exsistance.
To prove my point the gave METAL GEAR SOLID 2 an 8/10, not because of the "crappy raiden bits" but because it was in Japanese, as they had imported it. I rest my case.
To be fair this game will just be like CoD4 play wise but the content will be different so I doubt they could make it a bad game.
The main reason COD3 was bad was because Activision dictated that COD would be developed cyclically by both Infinity Ward and Treyarch. That meant whoever had to start the cycle would get shafted with a short development time and that person was Treyarch. Treyarch only got 1 year to make COD3 while Inifinity Ward got 2 years to make COD4. I guess what I'm really trying to say is..
LEAVE TREYARCH ALONE!
Massive offtopic in 3 2 1....
Does anyone know what happen to the Dead Fantasy series of animation shorts?
I've only seen two of them and I was wondering if there were any more squirreled away somewhere on the intertubes.
On topic: I've played so much CoD4 that I don't know if I can spend 60 bucks on a game that is too similar.
Awaits further reviews...
I played the multiplayer beta for a little while. It wasn't really that bad, It feels the same as COD4 just different weaponry. Basically if you liked COD4 you will most likely end up enjoying this game as well.
Hey Nick,
Why cant you talk about it? I assume a confidentiality statement? But isnt that a little well... late to be having those still?
The game releases in a few days and the beta has been up for a while and even just opened up to the public.
Shouldnt exclusive reviews and what not have already been granted by this point?
At this point, I hope no one paid a lot for that exclusive as this seems to be as least exclusive as I can recall in a while.
I still can't justify spending 60 bucks on what I consider a mod for cod4
I refuse to say this game is better then COD4, only because Treyarch didnt make the COD4 engine.
its impossible for this game to BETTER than COD4 when it IS COD4!!!!
these jokers are silly.
Mattchewie... then dont.
No offense meant in anyway... It's your money. If you want the game then buy it, if not, then dont.
I just hope for logic's sake that you played the demo before you made that assessment.
Doesn't Infinity Ward automatically get more than half the create since you know they made the game engine it runs on? So by what logic would that suggest that they toppled IW? When they make their own engine and game from scratch then something like that can be said.
Is it set in WWII? Then no thank you. Make the Zombie part the WHOLE game, and I'll buy it.
After playing a fair amount of CoD4, and alot a hell of a lot of CoD on the PC. I think ill end up skipping the WaW version, Just like battlefield, the step to modern combat was a fantastic one, and one that i dont really want to go away from yet.
Now a post apocalyptic CoD? Fall out 3 and CoD4s love child anyone?
It's the little things that count... like nerfing martyrdom
Big Filth...
It is certainly not impossible to be better then the game whose engine you are running on. It happens all the time. It might be impossible for the game to be more innovative then COD4.
If I made a game engine like say the Unreal engine and other games use it to build there games, is it impossible for them to be good games simply because they didnt make the engine?
first 10/10 = lots o' traffic
This game will be Epic. I swear I've never played a CoD game I didn't like...
Well it can't be that hard considering they copied a lot of stuff.
I have said it time and time again. There is no such thing like a 10/10 score. 10/10 means the game is perfect in every single way. This is something that simply cannot be achieved you will always end up with a level or a map that is inferior to the others and you will always have some bugs or exploits in a game.
GOW wasn't a 10/10 neither were GTAIV, Halo3 or COD4. So stop giving games 10/10 scores. What will you do next time when you find a game that you like even better than that game. By that logic you would either have to award it a 10.5/10 or you would have to extend the scale and give it a 11/11.
I won't be picking this up next week at all. Personally after playing the beta, there's something kinda off about the MP. Sure it wasen't developed by IW, but some of the weapons either are more powerful than they should (thompson) be and others are way too week (bolt actions). Otherwise I'm going to wait on it, plus Gears 2 and R2 just came out and I'm more than happy with COD2, and COD4 anyways
So... very... conflicted! So many badass games, so little funds >_<
Whatever. Call of Duty is Call of Duty. I bet grenades are still gamebreaking in multiplayer.
The multiplayer beta did play just like CoD4. Did it have better graphics? I'd say no.
In addition, I noticed many instances where the level of interaction with the environment was more lacking in 5. For example, in CoD4, I could hide under tables, in archways etc, but in WaW I felt like every time I found an interesting object to hide in or around that should have had a "nook or cranny" seemed to be a solid object instead.
I'm not saying that the game will suck, or even that the multiplayer won't be better than 4's, I'm just saying that I can't tell from the beta. I like some of the new features, but unless it blows away 4 entirely, I'm fairly certain that I won't be spending money on it. Even though I loved 4.
I'm in the PC beta and I KNOW based upon what i've played thus far that it's incredibly inferior to COD4?
Not only does it look worse than COD2, the performance is also far below COD4.
How does a game look and play worse at a lower framerate than another game? because it's crap.
Actually dgschrei, 11/11 is the exact same as a 10/10. Both are 100% scores, but I know what you meant (11/10).
Either way, I don't care how good it is, it's a genre (WWII shooter) I'm not a fan of right now. Especially so close to the release of Left 4 Dead, an FPS that will actually innovate and bring something refreshing to the genre, unlike WaW.
Why do people think that Treyarch just copy/pasted CoD4 and put a WW2 theme on it? Treyarch has been working on this title for two years from what I understand, before CoD4 came out, before they knew how well it would do.
Yes, they used the same game engine as CoD4, and I'm sure they implemented features that were popular and worked from CoD4 into this game, but they did alot of their own work on it as well. The new maps are wonderful and I enjoy them more than CoD4 maps for the most part.
That all said the game has problems and doesn't deserve a perfect score from what I've seen in the Beta. Tanks I could have done without in multiplayer, single player sure. I can't really judge the graphics at this point because it is just the Beta I've seen, but they don't seem as good as CoD4, which is maybe due to them adding the whole being able to actually blow off body parts, so they cut back on the detailed textures to save on memory.
I don't have plans to buy the game immediately when it comes out, since I have Mirror's Edge pre-ordered I'm going to stick with that for now.
I've been playing the beta with my crew of people who play COD4 hardcore (I'm talking 30+ days of playtime) and we've come to some conclusions. While basically a WWII COD4 clone, with more perks and such, the majority of the levels are too big, everything it WAY too dark, and while it's more "realistic" as you can't hear footsteps as well or hear the bomb being planted/defused, that feature which was in COD3 as well, is what makes the game infinitely less fun.
so... whoever makes the engine gets credit for the game?
So where were all of you when Havok was licensing its physics engine for half the games out there? I think Havok deserves half the credit for like, every game built, ever.
Right, i've been through the full single player of this game, and yes, in many ways it is better than COD4. The games set pieces are better, the detail in the level design (first level excluded as that is pants) is far superior to COD4's, hell they even do the sniper mission better.
I still prefer COD4's characters (captain Price should be in every game), but in every other way, WAW is superior in my opinion.
Returning Dtoiders: login now to post a comment
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just Create an avatar now - it's fast and free: PLUS you also get your own gaming blog and begin posting stories and uploading videos in our open community area that may also appear on our home page. Sign up and we'll guide you through it, it's easy and 100% anonymous.