SPOILERS! I got this crappy game today and have been playing it for the past three hours and it totally sucks! Where shall I begin? Well for starters it is pretty much like COD 3 graphic wise and playing wise. As a matter of fact you might as well say it is COD 3 just with russians and marines and japanese. COD 4 was oustanding and for them to come out with this piece of crap is a travesty. You cant shoot through walls to kill the enemy like you could COD 4. The graphics suck. When you get a gernade thrown near you you will get killed because you have either another person or an object behind you so you cant back away fast enough. You can at least throw a gernade back though. On one part, when I am assaulting some japanese stonghold, I get stuck in a corner on a foot bridge and cant move because the other marines are stuck behind me. I twirl around hoping they would move, but they didn't so I had to end up killing my own men just so I could move. There is one level where you have to blow up some bunkers with satchel charges. Well if you use them all up before you blow all the bunkers then you are out of luck because there is no other way to blow open the other bunkers. You are then stuck listening to some moron scream, "Use the satchel charge to blow the bunkers, Miller!" constantly. What is even more infuriating is you can use the flame thrower to burn the japanese out of the bunkers, but that dont count so the mission is not complete until you blow a hole in the bunkers, but you cant do that because you aint got any more freakin' satchel charges. The Russian levels pretty much suck also. You start in Stalingrad (A rip off of "Enemy at the gates") Then end up a few years later in Germany then advance to Seelow then to Berlin. The whole time you are stuck with some commie sergeant who you can barely understand shouting at you whiel all he does is lead you into trouble where you end up getting killed over and over again because you have no ideal where to go. About the ONLY good feature of this game is the flamethrower when fighting the japanese. If you really want this game, RENT IT or wait until you can get it cheap. Trust me, this is nowhere near the level of COD 4. COD 4 is a Corvette and this game is a butt ugly yello Pinto.
SPOILERS AGAIN: Oh I forgot to mention the Pacific levels SUCK! You start out assaulting Pelilu and then you end up in some plane flying around shooting up boats and airplanes then you just "appear" on Okinawa. They could have done a far better game then this. This game sucks so bad I am going to trade it in for something else.
Ok I hated COD 3 (played 1st level on COD 5 but seen my mate play much more of it) COD 4 engine being used so thats not true. Different companies incase you didn't know was never going to be as good as IW version. In COD 4 there was no balance to that at all, no attempt at realistic ballistics and WW2 weps are less powerful, you can still get past wood but of course struggle to get past solid concreate wall. Suck is way over the top so any unbiasis view is out the window I see, once again COD 4 engine. I agree with AI use of nades seem a little over the top and mainly why do they always land near you and not your team-mates. Wouldn't know but most games suffer from dodgy AI, patch will probably fix it. COD 5 was always going to be MEH but decent MEH on the PC at least.
If COD 5 is using the same engine as COD 4 then that engine needs to be tuned up. I threw in COD 4 and it has way better graphics than COD 5. COD 5 looks like COD 3, heck the neighbors kid came over and thought I was playing COD 3 when he saw it and was shocked when I told him it was COD 5. As for shooting through walls. I dont expect my rifles to penetrate concrete, but in many cases the japs or nazis are hiding behind wooden crates or a couch and you have to wait for them to appear in order to shoot them. This game sucks!
360 or PC your playing it on ? On PC looks equal to COD 4 from my PC with everything set to high, every graphics test would show the same or some slight tweaks over COD 4. Also because the game is WW2 again you could be mistaking the two up and also Graphics improvement are not as big as years ago simply because theres not much futher we can go but to call it horrible looking . All I buy COD games for is the single player because the coding used to create the game is one of the worst ever and easily manipulated for cheats online not too mention small maps with stupid perks never did appeal to me. COD games are one of the most hacked games for cheats when it comes to online play, god I hate hackers.
I don't have the game yet (I ordered my copy from Amazon since it came with a $10 gift card) but based on the 360 beta I would have to disagree, it basically looks exactly like CoD4 with a WW2 coat of paint. Again I can't speak about the single player, but the multiplayer is pretty much exactly the same as CoD4. I never had that problem in the beta. Maybe it's a single player issue?
Wait ... WHAT? You can't shoot through walls? Isn't that built in to the CoD4 engine? Ooof - the OP doesn't inspire much confidence - I've been looking forward to this (though, yes, Treyarch does have lowered expectations). I'll wait for more reviews but ... ugh. Not liking what I'm hearing from lookinglassman
As previously mentioned, WWII weapons weren't as powerful as modern weapons are. Plus for all we know, the OP's only tried shooting through concrete walls and not wooden doors.
Well, I'd wait for at least some reviews - I think they're embargoed for a few more hours... PS3 Mag gave it a 10/10, calling it better than COD4. I find that hard to believe given IW vs. Treyarch ... but still...
I'm pretty sure that I've been hit by bullets going through walls in the beta, though I don't think it's as common as in CoD4.
Yeah I also loved CoD3. I just don't get the hate it gets, it's a really good game, especially considering they only had a year to make it. I think I spent more time playing War mode in CoD3 then I've spent playing any other multiplayer mode in any other game.
Found some pseudo-reviews: 1up.com http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3169369 Gamepro http://www.gamepro.com/article/previews/207502/call-of-duty-world-at-war-beta-impressions/ The screens on the 1up article look gorgeous to me ... the Beta graphics looked pretty good, largely on par with COD4 mutiplayer. Haven't seen single player which should be better.
From the Gamepro article: Dazzling graphics and environments. Even if you don't care for World at War's frenetic pace, it's hard to argue with the graphics. The extra year of development since Call of Duty 4 has given way to significant graphical enhancements, such as ragdoll physics for enemy deaths, more vibrant dynamic lighting, and slick-looking distortion effects from the Tabun nerve gas grenades. Map design is another strong point in World at War: my favorite is Makin, a shadowy beach in the South Pacific. On Makin, the new dynamic water effects look particularly impressive, with grenade explosions and artillery strikes sending huge waves through the undulating surf. Also: the article makes clear that you CAN shoot through walls.
How old are you? "This sucks! it's sucks! the graphics suck! the game sucks! the graphics suck! i forgot to say it sucks!"
No offense to the OP, but I suggest you wait for more reliable reviews. Treyarch really aren't a bad studio, they just get saddled with impossible deadlines and don't have the spine or clout to kick against it. Based on what I've seen of the game I find this hard to believe.
I'm right with ya there. I'm not much for shooters in general, and certainly not online, but CoD3 had me hooked for the better part of a year. The netcode was superb and lag was almost a non-issue. By comparison, CoD4 was a nightmare of laggy crap where my bullets would connect with walls five seconds after I fired at the guy who used to be standing in front of them. Sorry, but that isn't good enough. Funny thing is, there's a serious amount of revisionist history going on with CoD3. IGN's review (for whatever that's worth) tagline called it a 'A worthy sequel to one of last year's best games,' and the thing earned a Metacritic average of 82%. Now everyone carries on like it was some abomination that shat on IW's creative legacy and forever stained the Call of Duty name. I don't expect the ludicrous and overhwelmingly stupid individuals that populate the gaming 'media' to remember anything more recent than their last donut, but I thought real gamers had longer memories. Oh well. P.S. I have no interest in being able to shoot through walls, and I also have no interest in being shot through a wall.