I haven't been past wave 15.
And let me just say, the ray gun is awesome
And let me just say, the ray gun is awesome
Call of Duty 5 SUCKS! Dont waste your money!
- Thread starter Lookingglassman
- Start date
I tried this game last night when the Bro brought it round to my house, i played the first few levels and it does seem to be very reminiscent in graphics to COD3, but what the hell, we were looking forward to playing it on split screen just like Gears......Oh how sadly disappointed we were, the screen does not splitscreen as it just gives you a square box for each player which does not even fill the screen....very disappointed indeed.
Still he bought it so i'm still in £30 up.....
Still he bought it so i'm still in £30 up.....
So it keeps the OAR at least? That might be the better solution, to be honest.
Most of the Soldiers I work with went out and bought it after I told them not to and now they are complaining about it also. Their opinion is that the online is pretty good, but the single player missions sucks. I know they must not be doing to well either because at my local game store, COD 4 used copies are still selling for over $44.00 whereas COD 5 used copies are around $35.00 and they had tons of COD 5 used games on the shelf and only two COD 4s. The salesperson told me a lot of people dont like this COD.
What wave did you get to? None of my groups have been able to survive past wave 16
Best I've seen is level 18 from my house mate and his clan friends.
3 of my buds hit LVL 20-and they might have gone farther but the last guy alive ran out of bullets completely as the last Zombie attacked. LOL.
Wow, you really have a stick up your butt about this game don't you? It's not enough for YOU to just not like it, you need to deputise your 'local games store' and 'a lot of people' to support your agument.
FYI, WaW outsold CoD4 2:1 in the UK during its first week on sale. You're right, it's not doing too well at all.
Really dude, nobody cares if you don't like it. But some of us do. So you can stop trying to convince us
Wow, you really have a stick up your butt about this game don't you? It's not enough for YOU to just not like it, you need to deputise your 'local games store' and 'a lot of people' to support your agument.
FYI, WaW outsold CoD4 2:1 in the UK during its first week on sale. You're right, it's not doing too well at all.
Really dude, nobody cares if you don't like it. But some of us do. So you can stop trying to convince us
Yesterday at 4pm PST there were 174,000 players online. I think this game is a complete failure.
Wow, you really have a stick up your butt about this game don't you? It's not enough for YOU to just not like it, you need to deputise your 'local games store' and 'a lot of people' to support your agument.
FYI, WaW outsold CoD4 2:1 in the UK during its first week on sale. You're right, it's not doing too well at all.
Really dude, nobody cares if you don't like it. But some of us do. So you can stop trying to convince us
Yesterday at 4pm PST there were 174,000 players online. I think this game is a complete failure.
Now we jsut need to get them all on one server and have a free-for-all to end all free-for-alls
Getting more and more stuck into the multiplayer on this game now. Originally I found it a bit irritating in a few respects compared to CoD4, but as always it's just about adjusting your playing style to the new environment. My favourite thing I think is that the maps are better balanced, and none are stupidly prone to snipers taking over and ruining it for everyone else - there's no equivalent to COD4's 'Creek' map which gave enormous advantage to the Spetsnaz side and was hell for those who might not want to lie there with a rifle the whole game.
Wow, you really have a stick up your butt about this game don't you? It's not enough for YOU to just not like it, you need to deputise your 'local games store' and 'a lot of people' to support your agument.
FYI, WaW outsold CoD4 2:1 in the UK during its first week on sale. You're right, it's not doing too well at all.
Really dude, nobody cares if you don't like it. But some of us do. So you can stop trying to convince us
Yesterday at 4pm PST there were 174,000 players online. I think this game is a complete failure.
Now we jsut need to get them all on one server and have a free-for-all to end all free-for-alls
I wonder how many hours it would take to render a single frame of that match.
Just to play devil's advocate for a second; that doesn't dispute his claim. We don't know that 90% of those people haven't then traded it in. If anything it reflects on how successful and popular Modern Warfare was, people just rushed out and got WaW most likely based in part at least on Modern Warfare's reputation. Despite the same engine, it IS a different game, and different enough that people who enjoyed MW might not like WaW.
Yesterday at 4pm PST there were 174,000 players online. I think this game is a complete failure.
Anyone know how many people are online for WaW? IIRC Modern Warfare topped out at about 6m.
Personally, patience and perseverence are the key I'd say. Despite a frustrating first week or so, it's grown on me. It's more evident in WaW than MW that the better guns you get at higher rankings.
Don't know about that. Seelow in particular is geared towards snipers. There's an argument that Roundhouse is as well. Actually, thinking about it, there are a couple of great sniping points on Downfall as well.
You don't think it's a bit absurd to assume that the game has failed just because Lookingglassman - who has a well-established loathing for WaW - had a conversation with a games store clerk in Kentucky?
I think we can be quite sure that 90% of people who bought World at War have not traded it in. Even if they had, what would it matter? How does that affect the game's success or perception of quality? Final Fantasy VII is believed to be the most traded game in history, yet it stands as the second best selling game on a system that sold over 100million units, as well a piece of work that is much loved even 12 years after its debut. That's pretty good company, if you ask me.
I like World at War. Its sold well. Lots of people are playing it. Lots of people are enjoying it. Why do people have a problem with all of that?
^^ Like I said, just playing devil's advocate
No, personally I don't particularly buy into a statement of fact that's purported by one individual. What I was pointing out however, was that his loathing of the game doesn't discount the idea that it might actually not be very good either. Also, statistics can be worked either way. Final Fantasy VII is a great example. One of the best selling games of all time, yet also one of the most traded. Where CoD is concerned, it's a fairly simple concept; Modern Warfare was brilliant, and I enjoyed it. Now, here comes another CoD game, so I'm going to get that one seeing as I liked the last one so much. Such a decision will likely have been made by many, and is a decision that's borne from no actual knowledge of the quality of the new game itself. I don't see that it's an incredible stretch from this to assume that some people at the very least will have been turned off by the new game once they'd actually played it. How many people I have no idea. As I stated before, the main difference, for me, on WaW, is the need for patience and perseverence. Those are not always qualities that are in abundance, and I'd bet money that some people gave up on the game before giving it a decent chance.
For me, it's not quite as good as Modern Warfare, but it's not a million miles away. It's definitely a worthy successor, and wraps up the WWII era of CoD quite nicely.
No, personally I don't particularly buy into a statement of fact that's purported by one individual. What I was pointing out however, was that his loathing of the game doesn't discount the idea that it might actually not be very good either. Also, statistics can be worked either way. Final Fantasy VII is a great example. One of the best selling games of all time, yet also one of the most traded. Where CoD is concerned, it's a fairly simple concept; Modern Warfare was brilliant, and I enjoyed it. Now, here comes another CoD game, so I'm going to get that one seeing as I liked the last one so much. Such a decision will likely have been made by many, and is a decision that's borne from no actual knowledge of the quality of the new game itself. I don't see that it's an incredible stretch from this to assume that some people at the very least will have been turned off by the new game once they'd actually played it. How many people I have no idea. As I stated before, the main difference, for me, on WaW, is the need for patience and perseverence. Those are not always qualities that are in abundance, and I'd bet money that some people gave up on the game before giving it a decent chance.
For me, it's not quite as good as Modern Warfare, but it's not a million miles away. It's definitely a worthy successor, and wraps up the WWII era of CoD quite nicely.
I kind of feel like if WAW had come out last year instead of MW, it would be getting a lot more praise. A lot of people are still caught up on the "not another World War II shooter!" thing. Maybe if it had come out before MW they'd be more like "cool ending to the WWII phase, I can't wait to see what's next!"
IMO, to a large extent that's correct. The problem we now face is that for all intents and purposes, Modern Warfare has spoiled us. Going back to WWII was always going to be viewed by certain corners as a 'backwards step', and to be honest that's a difficult stance to counter, largely, because to some degree, it's true.
Had WaW come out before MW, I'd imagine that most people would have lauded it as being an improvement of CoD3, but coming after it, it was always on a hiding to nothing.
Had WaW come out before MW, I'd imagine that most people would have lauded it as being an improvement of CoD3, but coming after it, it was always on a hiding to nothing.
I have no idea how far I am, but in terms of gameplay it does feel like at best a sideways step. I suppose it's why it's not called "CoD5" and why there's some at least uneasy feelings between the IW team and the Treyarch team (the rap at the end of CoD4 is still awesome).
There are still the infinite spawn closets and grenade spam which plagued CoD4 but where CoD4 had some decent storytelling moments, so far here the game has been pretty much standard run and gun.
There was the frenetic Black Cat level which was I suppose the Gunship equivalent here... and it was kind of neat to see your guy travel from turret to turret, but I guess it's just that the novelty of the WW2 turret sequence isn't new anymore whereas shooting guys from a gun camera was a first.
It's not a bad game per se, just not very good either. The most annoying thing is that now that co-op has evolved so much, they pretty much half-assed the story co-op here. You can't progress your own story, so there's absolutely no point in doing story co-op by itself.
There are still the infinite spawn closets and grenade spam which plagued CoD4 but where CoD4 had some decent storytelling moments, so far here the game has been pretty much standard run and gun.
There was the frenetic Black Cat level which was I suppose the Gunship equivalent here... and it was kind of neat to see your guy travel from turret to turret, but I guess it's just that the novelty of the WW2 turret sequence isn't new anymore whereas shooting guys from a gun camera was a first.
It's not a bad game per se, just not very good either. The most annoying thing is that now that co-op has evolved so much, they pretty much half-assed the story co-op here. You can't progress your own story, so there's absolutely no point in doing story co-op by itself.
Angel- you think Seelow is a sniper level? Try a type-100, sticky grenade and satchel charges. I nailed 5 tanks in one round last night, while spending my in-between time roaming through wheat fields with camouflague hunting would-be snipers. 27-5. And I do it consistently on that map. I think its too big for snipers-too easy to use the extra space to circle and surprise....taking away their ability to dominate the battlefield like they often did in Creek.
I can pick up 30+ kills on Seelow with the sniper rifle, easily. Circle and surprise is a valid tactic, but rendered practically ineffective when confronted with camoflage and bouncing bettys. There are a couple of spots on Seelow where you can hole yourself up, mined in. You can pick off anyone crossing the fields, and if you're going for headshots they don't have a clue where you're getting them from. Even if they do know, they come after you and run straight into a mine.
The only map that I detest on WaW in the same way that I disliked Bloc on MW, is Outskirts. There's just no consistent tactic, beyond going totally cynical, that works on that map.
unimatrix7 - I wasted 60 bucks on this game so yeah, I am peeved (luckily I resold it on ebay for what I bought it for). I went to my local gamestore to buy Saints Row 2 and that is when I noticed the COD5 on the shelves and checked out the price and just happened to know the person at the cash register and we started talking about the game.
I have both been shot though a wall and have shot people through walls in COD5.
The more I play this game the more I like it better than COD4. The graphics are great and co-op campaign play is awesome.
Last edited:
Wow I just got seriously jammed up in the level "Relentless" where you have to follow the flame tank up the hill. That part seriously seems impossible...
This is coming from a guy who finished COD 2 and 4 on Veteran too...
This is coming from a guy who finished COD 2 and 4 on Veteran too...
Similar threads
