First Call of Duty: World at War review 10/10, 'better' than COD 4

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.

I just hope reviews this year give more focus towards the multiplayer. One paragraph at the end doesn't do it justice.

Yeah, too bad it would have sucked, IF NOT for IW.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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 refuse to say this game is better then COD4, only because Treyarch didnt make the COD4 engine.

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.

Is it set in WWII? Then no thank you. Make the Zombie part the WHOLE game, and I'll buy it.

It's the little things that count... like nerfing martyrdom

first 10/10 = lots o' traffic

Well it can't be that hard considering they copied a lot of stuff.

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

Whatever. Call of Duty is Call of Duty. I bet grenades are still gamebreaking in multiplayer.

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.

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.

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.