Call of Duty: World at War? - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Gaming > PC Gaming
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 11-17-2008, 10:11 AM   #1 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Waphlez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 1,976
Default Call of Duty: World at War?

Is it me or should CoD:WaW be renamed to Call of Duty 4: World at War? Cause it seems Treyarch just took Call of Duty 4 and gave it World War II guns and models. I mean, silencers on MP40s and Thompsons? Aperature sights on almost every gun in the game? (even if there were such things, does it make since for every soldier in the **** army to be using them) Or what about the fact I can be a Japanese soldier yet run around with a MG42 and Mosin Nagant? Unlockable weapons are fun and all but when your playing a game based on a real war shouldn't realism come to play at least according to your arsenal? It was fine in Modern Combat, which was not only a fictional conflict but having all the weapons for all 4 sides isn't a big deal since weapons now a days are very globalized (for the most part).

I don't know, maybe I feel if your playing a Japanese soldier during WWII you should only be able to equip Japanese weapons, and the same for other nations as well. The perk thing is fine (although martyrdom returns with it's ugly face once again), but I'm not so keen on the weapon system.

The gameplay itself is fun as CoD 4, if not better since I like WWII guns, plus the new maps definately make me want to play WaW more than CoD4. The tanks are alright but it seems people just whore them instead of like United Offensive where you could get in some big tank battles. The graphics, like CoD 4 are just purely awesome.

Also, I think this is a by product of it being designed with consoles in mind, the maps are WAY too small. Even 32 players on some maps is too much (let alone 50+ player cluster-f***s). You know it's too much when you spawn infront of 10 Wermacht soldiers just to get slaughtered. Or better yet, an enemy spawns around a bunch of you, just so he can die and with martydom kill 4 or 5 of us.

So, in conlusion, this feels more like a big WWII expansion pack for CoD 4, but that doesn't mean it isn't fun, but just dissapointing for strong fans of Call of Duty like myself.
__________________

__________________
Waphlez is offline  
Old 11-17-2008, 10:23 AM   #2 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Druid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,065
Default Re: Call of Duty: World at War?

Playing the same way as cod4, it is good enough to tide me over until the next infinity ward release. I was getting soo bored with cod4.

Marty is not a problem at all as it is is easily avoided. Juggernaut and Last Stand are the dumb noob perks that annoy me.

The maps are bigger than in cod4..., but yes, it was designed for the consoles. Aren't they all now? Wasn't the first one the only one designed for pc? Wasn't #2 even a port from the console version, or did they design that one for pc and port it to the consoles?
__________________

__________________
Druid is offline  
Old 11-17-2008, 10:31 AM   #3 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Waphlez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 1,976
Default Re: Call of Duty: World at War?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Druid View Post
Playing the same way as cod4, it is good enough to tide me over until the next infinity ward release. I was getting soo bored with cod4.

Marty is not a problem at all as it is is easily avoided. Juggernaut and Last Stand are the dumb noob perks that annoy me.

The maps are bigger than in cod4..., but yes, it was designed for the consoles. Aren't they all now?
Well I only play on hardcore servers, in which you don't get the grenade indicator, so the only way to know is either see it (fat chance) or hear it, but when there are over 40 players blazing away at each other, it's kind of hard to hear it. Either that or your just going to have to anticipate it which is just annoying.

Juggernaut doesn't bother me either since, like I said, I play on hardcore, in which juggernaut doesn't really matter, and my only issue with last stand is 1) People can steal your kill (especially since I use bolt action rifles a lot, so unless I get that second shot off someone else kills him) and how glitchy the animation is. It's better than martyrdom cause it at least takes some skill to kill with. Martyrdom is like: "im goin 2 rushh u n' die so my nad cann kiell uuu! *DuRP!*". Or better yet, if friendly fire is on, so your buddy can kill you too (unless that has changed).

Also, does it bother anyone that team-mates can block you (another reason sometimes you can't get away from martyr grendades), yet you can run through the enemy? So if I melee a little too late we run through each other just to have it turn into a spray fest.

The idea of martrydom is fine though, I mean it comes from the idea that if your going to die at least you can pull out a grenade and take a few with you. But In Call of Duty, once you die (like taking a shotgun shell to the face), you just instantly sh*t out a live grenade. For example, last night Someone threw gas on me, so I was dazed, the guy rushed in for the knife but I headshoted him with the shotty, but since I was dazed by the gas I wasn't able to get away from it.

Also, the killcam is really cool when your killed by a grenade, rocket, or artillery.
__________________
Waphlez is offline  
Old 11-17-2008, 10:44 AM   #4 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
ricanflow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Euless, Tx
Posts: 6,317
Default Re: Call of Duty: World at War?

Ok first of all, the maps are bigger than cod4.

Second, people need to stop comparing it to cod4...its not the same game. It does play the same way because its the same engine. But it is not the same game, weapons are different the campaign is different and theres
many new features.

Third, anybody can equip each others weapons...because in those days soldiers would pick up weapons of their enemies and use em against them. The germans would even rename weapons they took from the red army. Even today, soldiers in Iraq will pick up weapons from insurgents and use them.

Fourth, tanks are never an issue if you have two guys on your team work together to take them out. Equip one of your classes as a tank destroyer. Use fireworks, extreme conditioning, the sticky nade and bazookas or satchel charges.

Two guys with that kit can take out a tank in less than 20 seconds.

Dont play on servers with huge amount of guys if it bothers you. I dont play in servers with more than 24 guys cause it just turns into a big spray/nade fest.

Id rather play on a 14 man server actually.
__________________
3DMARK06 = 20,341 (3.8GHZ)



Laptop
P7350 | GTX 260M | 4GB DDR2 800 | 320GB HD | X-Fi | Vista 64

Folding Rig/File Server

M775 | E1200 | Foxconn P9657AB
| Dual 8800GT | Antec NeoHE 500 | Barracuda 80GB | Wintec Ampx



ricanflow is offline  
Old 11-17-2008, 11:13 AM   #5 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Waphlez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 1,976
Default Re: Call of Duty: World at War?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricanflow View Post
Third, anybody can equip each others weapons...because in those days soldiers would pick up weapons of their enemies and use em against them.
Exactly! So KILL the other guy and TAKE his weapon. Not SPAWN with the weapon.

And what new features? Almost all the game modes are the same (haven't played War Mode yet though), most of the perks are the same (some new ones, but they are just new perks, hence why it seems more like an expansion pack), most of the attachments are the same, with the exception of the bipod (which they should rename to the suicide bipod since using it will get you killed unless your camping in a corner; and not to mention it's almost useless since you don't really need it unless your going full auto; They should either make it so you move, like you should, or just remove it since they said it was too buggy if people could move with it), and the bayonet, which is just a knife attack with longer range. Almost all of the challeges are the same.

Ohh, what about the kill streak rewards?! Just clones, except the dogs, which I admit are really cool, but none the less they are the same. Recon plane instead of UAV (Now with NEW pictures that can look through walls and buildings, and instantly update your common soldiers "radar" instantly! No need to take back the pictures to intelligence officers so they can examine, then radio them to your local radioman! Just use your telepathy powers!), artillery strikes instead of air strikes, and dogs instead of a helicopter (which is essentially the same since it's just AI assisting your team).

So what's new? Perks, weapons, maps, and (OMG) Tanks! Sounds like an expansion pack to me. And the campaign is just more of the same with Call of Duty. Your just another super soldier you can "heal" bullet wounds in 10 seconds, and apparently is a master sniper, tank smasher, machine-gunner, flame-thrower, tank commander (with the special ability of driving and controlling the turret at the same time! Not to mention your gun can shoot like a semi-auto rifle.), plane gunner, radio man (for air strikes), etc. the list goes on. It was cool in the first Call of Duty, because it offered some seriously epic battles in a game back in 2003. But now it's jus the same. The only difference is they took it the the pacific front, which is a nice change, but you still have the old European East front again. The campaign, although well done, is more of the same, so I haven't gotten real excited over it.
__________________
Waphlez is offline  
Old 11-17-2008, 03:11 PM   #6 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NB, Canada
Posts: 2,215
Send a message via MSN to Akubane
Default Re: Call of Duty: World at War?

Yeah agreed with rican, yet again lol.

Course I never wasted time with cod 1 2 or 3 so I dunno.
It's different enough from cod 4 that I don't waste the effort comparing it. Just because it has a similar ranking structure with perks and such, doesn't make it the same game. Completely different campaign, different weapons, different time period entirely, the mutliplayer rank system was just fine, so changing that would have just been a nuissance. It's been extended upon. Maps are really nice.

My only main gripe is in most maps any more than 12-15 players is just a spawn camping nightmare.
Well it's not even so much as camping, it's just the game constantly spawns you right on top of other people, and them on you. It's retarded. Spawn, walk 2 feet and have someone spawn directly behind you ready to spray.

Other then that it's mostly cool. The spawning has always been screwed up since cod4 though so I can't really complain much, since I fulyl expected it to be no different.
__________________


C2D E8400 | Diamond 4870 X2 | Biostar Tpower I45 | 4GB G.Skill PK
Corsair 750TX | Xigmatek HDT-S1283 | CM Haf 932
2x Seagate 1TB 7200.11 | Asus Xonar D2X | LT Z-5500's
Razer Lycosa | Razer Lachesis | LG L245WP-BN 24" MVA LCD
Akubane is offline  
Old 11-17-2008, 04:47 PM   #7 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Druid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,065
Default Re: Call of Duty: World at War?

Well, most of the time you can hear the nade from marty. It doesn't really matter with me though as I've developed a habit of fleeing from the corpses of enemies I've just killed. I used to use marty in cod4, but I stopped because everyone learned to avoid it. I think people know what to do by now, so I'm not going to try it in this game.
__________________
Druid is offline  
Old 11-17-2008, 05:09 PM   #8 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Waphlez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 1,976
Default Re: Call of Duty: World at War?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akubane View Post
Yeah agreed with rican, yet again lol.

Course I never wasted time with cod 1 2 or 3 so I dunno.
It's different enough from cod 4 that I don't waste the effort comparing it. Just because it has a similar ranking structure with perks and such, doesn't make it the same game. Completely different campaign, different weapons, different time period entirely, the mutliplayer rank system was just fine, so changing that would have just been a nuissance. It's been extended upon. Maps are really nice.

My only main gripe is in most maps any more than 12-15 players is just a spawn camping nightmare.
Well it's not even so much as camping, it's just the game constantly spawns you right on top of other people, and them on you. It's retarded. Spawn, walk 2 feet and have someone spawn directly behind you ready to spray.

Other then that it's mostly cool. The spawning has always been screwed up since cod4 though so I can't really complain much, since I fulyl expected it to be no different.
I never said they should change the ranking system. I'm just saying if you took the weapons from WaW and maps and put them into CoD 4 the gameplay will be almost exactly the same. The campaign is just more of the same and is way too short, even the Pacific campaign isn't that different. Apparently you just take the enemy AI, give them bayonets and have them rush you, it makes it a different enemy. For a $50 game (****, it even has it's own $70 collector's edition) or $60 on consoles, you would expect something a little more than what WaW presents.

I was hoping they would have just went back to the CoD roots with WWII instead of what I feared, a CoD4 clone. Either that, or they should have just never done another WWII CoD. UAV has no place in a WWII shooter, and soldiers should only spawn with weapons related to what they would have been equipped with in WWII.

Also, if any of you guys ever played Call of Duty 1 and United Offensive, you would see that the gameplay with the right levels could easily handle 32+ players (some of the tank UO maps could handle over 64 players if you could). Now the consoles have reduced that to very low levels.
__________________
Waphlez is offline  
Old 11-17-2008, 07:04 PM   #9 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
ricanflow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Euless, Tx
Posts: 6,317
Default Re: Call of Duty: World at War?

In the end, someone will always complain.

Nobody will ever be happy. If the game went back to cod1 and cod2 sytle, people would complain. If it was another modern warfare game, people would complain.

For $50 theres plenty of games out there that are straight garbage (spore) but waw isnt one of them. Ive played cod1, cod2, UO, cod4 and theyre all great in their own ways. But comparing cod5 to cod4 isnt fair, theyre set in different time period.

But the early cod's arent all that anymore (you can even sprint, no custom classes) i mean i could list on and on what sucks in them.

Cod: waw is far from an expansion pack. Its set in a different time period, has new perks different weapons, enhanced graphics etc.
__________________
3DMARK06 = 20,341 (3.8GHZ)



Laptop
P7350 | GTX 260M | 4GB DDR2 800 | 320GB HD | X-Fi | Vista 64

Folding Rig/File Server

M775 | E1200 | Foxconn P9657AB
| Dual 8800GT | Antec NeoHE 500 | Barracuda 80GB | Wintec Ampx



ricanflow is offline  
Old 11-17-2008, 10:23 PM   #10 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Waphlez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 1,976
Default Re: Call of Duty: World at War?

For a game that is in a different time period it feel awfully similar to a game over 60 years in the future.

As for the perks...

I will color the non-vehicle perks that are new.

Perk 1:
- Special Grenades x3
- Satchel Charge x2 (C4)
- M9A1 Bazooka x2 (RPG)
- Bomb Squad
- Bouncing Betty x2 (claymores)
- Bandolier
- Primary Grenades x2
- M2 Flamethrower

Perk 2:
- Stopping Power
- Fireworks (sonic boom)
- Flak Jacket
- Gas Mask
- Juggernaut
- Camouflage (UAV Jammer)
- Sleight of Hand
- Shades (almost the same as Gas Mask, but for other grenades)
- Double Tap
- Overkill

Perk 3:
- Deep Impact
- Extreme Conditioning
- Steady Aim
- Toss Back (resets fuse on tossing back enemy grenade)
- Second Chance (same as last stand basically)
- Martyrdom
- Fireproof
- Dead Silence
- Iron Lungs
- Reconnaissance (shows artillery and tanks on map)

Wow, what BIG changes...

And comparing CoD4 and CoD5 is completely fair, as they are sequels to the same franchise. If they were that different they shouldn't have called it Call of Duty 4. As for the guns, they don't change the gameplay that much. Only guns that don't really show up in CoD4 are the bolt-action rifles (if you exclude some of the sniper rifles). You still have your sub-machine guns, shotguns, sniper rifles, machine guns, semi-auto rifles, and even an assault rifle (MP44); not to mention they have the same attachments. They don't change the gameplay enough to make it different from CoD4. it still feels the same. Add in UAV, same game modes, and a perk/challenge list almost identical to CoD 4 and apparently you got a full new game. The game is still fun as CoD4, that is why I really like this game, it's just a big disappointment of what it could have been. No wonder they pumped this game out so fast, the majority of the design is borrowed from CoD 4.
__________________

__________________
Waphlez is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Call Of Duty - World at War Patch 1.1 Released ricanflow PC Gaming 39 12-08-2008 04:42 PM
Call of Duty: World at War Digital_Jedi PC Gaming 19 11-13-2008 02:50 PM
Call of Duty World at War Beta impressions NightSurge Microsoft XBox 15 10-17-2008 10:15 PM
Call of Duty 5 New Info - Promising Oreo Microsoft XBox 32 08-27-2008 07:28 PM
Call of Duty: World at War unveiled maroon1 PC Gaming 12 06-22-2008 11:53 PM



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.