I bought it because I got it on sale for like thirty bucks a few months after it came out, I only bought it then because I didn't have a multiplayer game for the PS3, since I usually play Xbox 360. I had a few friends with PS3's who were playing it a lot at the time, so I figured for $30 it gave me something to do with them.
mostly for zombies, and partially because i wanted to see where they would go with a post-ww2 reznov. i was disappointed.
World at War was, in my opinion, by far the best Call of Duty game to date. it had relatively interesting characters and was sufficiently action-ey without being as formulaic as the last 2 Modern Warfare games (seriously, did anyone else notice the stuff MW2 blatantly copied from The Rock, one of the most formulaic action flicks of all time?).
[
jump to black ops and the soviet union is turned into the same generic Op For that's been in every other CoD game and most other modern FPSs as of late.
Because I've loved every addition to the Call of Duty games since Call of Duty 4 (haven't played any of the previous games.) I bought it mainly for the multiplayer component, but the campaigns in COD games have been consistently solid and enjoyable. Was a bit bored with the zombies mode after playing it a lot in World at War, but is was also solid and enjoyable.
I'll admit I bought it primarily for the multiplayer. Of course that was back when I could actually stand CoD multiplayer.
I ended up having a lot more fun overall with the single-player campaign though.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
