CoD: World at War
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
DeadlyNinja
Veteran
Wait, is this game as lousy of COD4's scripted triggering? I can't believe how I can stupidly stumble into victory in COD4. Seriously, I've never ever beaten a game before completely by accident. It sure as hell confused me. Does COD5 suffer from this problem?
All COD games except for the originial lets you stumble through things
1up gave it a B, Gametrailers an 8.7 (despite concluding with 'there are few shooters on the market up to its level of qualities'). There's a general tone of 'being pushed through corridors with infinitely-respawning enemies and quarterback grenade throwers isn't that great a design conceit', which I won't really comment on. I just hope that when IW puts out their new CoD game and if (when?) it uses the same format people remember that they don't like that sort of thing.
The feedback I'm hearing is that NPC on Hardened and Veteran are just like CoD4 and other CoD games prior. Endlessly spawning enemies from the same points, invisible check points need to be crossed to get them stop spawning, god like aim, grenade spam and they only aim for you.
Right, but if it's bad for CoD:WaW, then it was bad when CoD4 repeated CoD2's formula, and I don't really think anyone really raised this concern.
Edit: I liked CoD4, I just mean that if something's a problem, then reviewers should highlight it as a problem. They shouldn't forgive it just because they're hyped/like the developer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ign are starting to become so generous with their 9's that i completely stopped listening to them.
DeadlyNinja
Veteran
You can do that in normal mode too. It happened in COD4 for me. That was when I the entire game's illusion disappeared and showed how badly designed it was.
Probably because they didn't accidentally stumble into victory completely confused as to what just happened when you were losing like an idiot before. Still, the final battle was equally bad, but I guess some just didn't mind the scripted nature of the game. I found it completely anti-climatic and idiotic. I was expecting some epic show down with a brutal boss fight of some sort to make up for COD2's lame final stage.
Starting? They've done this since the PS1 days
I never understood why people look at IGN at all since they're the most useless site around. Reminds me of the Penny-Arcade about the IGN/Gamespy merger...http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/12/05/
Follow-up:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/8/28/
Starting? They've done this since the PS1 days
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/12/05/
Follow-up:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/8/28/
Why do people even look at scores to begin with? Gaming sites are more than happy to remind you that they just pull them out of thin air.
What planet are you on?
Gaming magazines pretty much allways give high scores to hyped titles, aspecially if the publisher behind it is a big one.
There is a reason for why the average score of all games across all review sites is above 70% and not around 50%.
The reason is that gaming journalism relies on hype, nobody wants to read about some average game coming out each year, we want to read about some super amazing OMFG game. Now, since there are few titles that can actually be amazing OMFG games, gaming journalism has to hype stuff. They get previews, they hype stuff up.
End result is, that after hyping a game so much in the previews, the journalist would end up looking like a moron if he didn't give the actual game a decent score in the review. Thus imparity.
This, coupled with the fact that publishers often spend alot of money on gaming journalists, flying them to see new games in the works, sending them games and extra's etc, means that the gaming journalist has to watch his relations with the publisher. You wouldn't want to give Halo 3 a 5\10 (if it really was that bad) because microsoft has a $50 million marketing campaign behind it, and if you start to ruin that hype by a bad review, you can bet your ass that you will not be recieving games and invitations to see new games in the works again.
Basically: Trusting gaming journalists is like trusting a used car salesman.
This one. But just because something sucks doesn't mean I have to accept it. It certainly doesn't mean I can't expect more from them. I know what they're like; it feels like half of what I do on B3D is bitch about game reviews.
But this is about World at War; if the next IW game gets game of the year despite repeating a game design conceit that no one likes when Treyarch does it, I'll be sure to bring it up. No one will care, but I'll bring it up.
I remind people that discussing game scores is OT. There are existing threads for that purpose. I'll start handing out reprimands to those who are having trouble picking up on this after some months parroting the same rule - turning a game discussion thread into a review discussion thread is unacceptble.
the ignoramus
Regular
Do we know what resolution WaW runs at on the Xbox?
I was playing the beta on XBL a few weeks ago and noticed that the distinctive, fuzzy upscaled look that COD4 had wasnt as pronounced in WaW.
I was playing the beta on XBL a few weeks ago and noticed that the distinctive, fuzzy upscaled look that COD4 had wasnt as pronounced in WaW.
I'm not very impressed by COD4/5, while all my friends love them to death, as i see past all the smoke and mirrors, the respawning enemies with crap AI, their BS grenade throwing skills, the heavily scripted gameplay.
It succeeds on the strength of its presentation and multiplayer.
I think COD5 should have got about 8s (agree with the Eurogamer review)
It succeeds on the strength of its presentation and multiplayer.
I think COD5 should have got about 8s (agree with the Eurogamer review)
CoD4 got its scores because of its multiplayer no doubt (as the 5 hour long campaign is so short i doubt any reviewer, even considering all their flaws would give it so high scores without it)
