WaW and MW2

[phar]

Ok just the other night while playing WaW with a few friends we were discusssing why so many people treat it as such a horrible game so hear us out. Heres a list of the general complaints against the game we have found from the people who say the game is trash. I know this is a very narrow analysis but we will go with what we know.

- Copy of CoD4:MW, Basically a reskin of CoD4 with WW2 visuals
- WW2 themed game, people say its been done before
- No story or boring story (guess what guys its based on true events)
- Vehicles
- No new gametypes
- Dogs (arguable)
- Guns not being exclusive to either side
- OP Guns and exploits, most were fixed very early on in the games lifespan

Now lets look at MW2, it covers a lot of the same points

- Copy of CoD4, same engine
- Modern theme, has been done before and there are heaps of games set in current day (aka. Tom Clancy)
- No new gametypes (CTF, I dont know why that wouldnt have be included in the beginning)
- Guns not being exclusive to each faction

Youd have to be living under a rock to know that MW2 can do no wrong in most gamers eyes (mine included) but really to give WaW a reputation of being a terrible game just because of vehicles and dogs seems pretty weak to me. Yeah I do perfer CoD4 over WaW sometimes but it does not mean that WaW is a terrible game.

Just to make it clear I love the CoD series and have been a big fan since CoD1 on PC but I just want to clear peoples impression of WaW.

Ive probably missed an important point but please flame away

 

[Mcface]

People hate WaW because they sucked at it.
They went from being "pro" with their GL and M16, thinking they were awesome, to getting owned again by skilled players with semi-balanced weapons.

Therefor, it sucks?

 

[Akai Shizuku]

I love World at War. I have it on the DS. It's great. A nice lengthy campaign, lots of great action, and fun online play (despite hackers). It's extremely difficult, but realistically so.

My one and only complaint is that there's no blood, let alone realistic gore. But whatever. They ironed out all the CoD4 problems and stopped with the anti-communist propaganda. In fact, you actually get to play as the Soviets. And it's awesome.

EDIT: You know what? I think World at War is the best WWII game there is.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

I know people don't like it, but I haven't really seen why up till now. I quite enjoy taking my Mosin-Nagant and picking people off thank you very much. Bolt-actions are more fun than automatics and M-16 burst anyway. (M-16 was overpowered)

 

[black lincon]

the problem wasn't that it was a copy but rather who copied it. you can't fault infinity ward for using their own engine but I certainly can fault Treyarc for using Infinity wards engine.

also, vehicles ruin a game like CoD, they never should have been added, neither should sticky grenade, and I'm still slightly angry that MW2 has them.

also, being based on a real story doesn't make it interesting or wholly true. if it's based on a true story all they have to do is have some facts right, not all facts, and from what I understand the single player is too short.

The reason I didn't but WaW was on principal, I don't enjoy having Treyarc rip off IW. I understand WaW was somewhat good, although from what I understand the maps were terribly unbalanced, and the addition of Nazi zombies was supposed to be very nice, but I refuse to pay over $20 dollars for a rip off of CoD4 with Nazi zombies.

 

[Emphraim]

I actually like WAW more than COD4. COD4 annoyed me with everyone spraying with full autos. The bolt actions in COD5 are actually balanced to be on par with the autos.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

I liked WaW a lot, but it felt a bit clunkier and less polished than MW - and yes vehicles and dogs seemed to add to that disjointed feel. Dunno how MW2 will turn out but it looks pretty sexy-smooth.

 

[phar]

the problem wasn't that it was a copy but rather who copied it. you can't fault infinity ward for using their own engine but I certainly can fault Treyarc for using Infinity wards engine.

also, vehicles ruin a game like CoD, they never should have been added, neither should sticky grenade, and I'm still slightly angry that MW2 has them.

also, being based on a real story doesn't make it interesting or wholly true. if it's based on a true story all they have to do is have some facts right, not all facts, and from what I understand the single player is too short.

The reason I didn't but WaW was on principal, I don't enjoy having Treyarc rip off IW. I understand WaW was somewhat good, although from what I understand the maps were terribly unbalanced, and the addition of Nazi zombies was supposed to be very nice, but I refuse to pay over $20 dollars for a rip off of CoD4 with Nazi zombies.

So essentially you dont like the game because it doesnt have IW sticker in the corner of the box. Im sorry dude but that is really petty. Lets look at a newish title for example, Batman Arkham Assylum, your telling me your depriving yourself from playing that because its on the Unreal engine and not made by epic?

The unbalance that people speak of is mainly due to vehicles.

The single player campaign is just as long as MW campaign. It would be nice if it was longer sure, but its no shorter than any other game in the CoD franchise.

Finally its not exactly a ripoff, its a game in a series, I dont know what everyone exepected Treyarch to do, make a totally different game that doesnt have the CoD feel and layout?

 

[Lemur_Ninja]

I'm personally a fan of both World at War and Modern Warfare. I don't get why people complain about World at War. Why don't they just shut it, play their game, and allow others to play the game?

 

[black lincon]

the problem wasn't that it was a copy but rather who copied it. you can't fault infinity ward for using their own engine but I certainly can fault Treyarc for using Infinity wards engine.

also, vehicles ruin a game like CoD, they never should have been added, neither should sticky grenade, and I'm still slightly angry that MW2 has them.

also, being based on a real story doesn't make it interesting or wholly true. if it's based on a true story all they have to do is have some facts right, not all facts, and from what I understand the single player is too short.

The reason I didn't but WaW was on principal, I don't enjoy having Treyarc rip off IW. I understand WaW was somewhat good, although from what I understand the maps were terribly unbalanced, and the addition of Nazi zombies was supposed to be very nice, but I refuse to pay over $20 dollars for a rip off of CoD4 with Nazi zombies.

So essentially you dont like the game because it doesnt have IW sticker in the corner of the box. Im sorry dude but that is really petty. Lets look at a newish title for example, Batman Arkham Assylum, your telling me your depriving yourself from playing that because its on the Unreal engine and not made by epic?

The unbalance that people speak of is mainly due to vehicles.

The single player campaign is just as long as MW campaign. It would be nice if it was longer sure, but its no shorter than any other game in the CoD franchise.

Finally its not exactly a ripoff, its a game in a series, I dont know what everyone exepected Treyarch to do, make a totally different game that doesnt have the CoD feel and layout?

do you know who that is? it's smoke, one of the less popular versions of scorpion. you see back when mortal combat was made a palate swap of a character was considered an entirely different character, it was stupid but it worked and it was easy. see what that means? IW made scorpion, Treyarc made smoke, it's not the same as Arkham Assylum using the Unreal engine, it 's like the difference between scorpion and raiden, they may be in the same game, but they play differently.

also, from what I understand the campaign was noticeably shorter than CoD4's, and I have heard that from several different people.

 

[LordGarbageMan]

The game was ugly and I don't like the maps. The only things I liked about it were the balanced guns and the massive amount of people who suck at the multiplayer.

 

[Avatar Roku]

I didn't like it for a few reasons:

-Horribly unbalanced MP maps, especially the maps with tanks. Occasionally possible to turn around if the team that spawned on the good side is bad, but that shouldn't be necessary.

-Single Player had some of the most artificial difficulty I've ever seen, roughly akin to One Shot One Kill from CoD4 spread out over the entire fucking game! What's that, the player is near death and has the audacity to take cover? Nade Spam!!! And that's ignoring the awful Enemy AI which focused on you and only you, and the horrible Friendly AI Which stood there firing at nothing while enemies ran right past them to attack you.

 

[phar]

chop

Yeah its a bit different than a colour change. There are a heap of similarities thats because CoD4 was simply amazing. WaW did take a few small steps forward for the series by testing out vehicles in multiplayer and was the first cod game to have a flamethrower and bayonets. Of course the succesful Nazi Zombies mode.

I cant see the same backlash happening if theres a Nazi Terrorist mode of something like that in MW2.

 

[Gestapo Hunter]

I thought WaW was a pretty brutal gamer out of all the other in CoD series

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

I definitely feel like a few of the OPs points are valid.

-Dogs ruin a LOT of games. Dogs are ridiculous, plain and simple. At least with Choppers you can hide inside a building, but Dogs follow you inside!

-Tanks ruin a LOT of games and entire maps even. Seelow and Downfall are both completely decided by who whores the tanks the longest. Anyone not using Satchel Charges is basically either Sniper fodder or Tank food. I also love that Tanks can survive THREE Bazooka shots right to the turret and hardly sustain any damage at all. Not to mention the driver is invulnerable while inside.

-Gun balance is definitely off. The MP40 is miles ahead of the other weapons.

Now with all that being said, I still enjoy WaW. I just think it's rather disappointing when compared to CoD4. Then again, most games are disappointing compared to CoD4.

 

[DrunkWithPower]

Here is a few videos taped up to show a point. (Does contains spoilers possibly)

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KIVCE8yzBU&feature=related[/youtube]

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnDnLGQ5k44&feature=related[/youtube]

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF6DcoUc7AA[/youtube]

The point here... CoD 4 and CoD WaW looks exactly alike in movement, MW2 has a fluid movement unlike it's elders. Online CoD4 and WaW was setup exactly alike, same info bars about how 1 killed 2 and so on. MW2 looks to have new stuff (little indicator at bottom of screen) with same old stuff. IW is carrying themselves quite well. I'll have to wait until Treyarch puts out another game to start calling their bluff. But 4 and WaW are twins... besides the tanks, dogs, balanced guns, blah, blah, blah.

 

[Banana Phone]

WaW is ok, but there's something about it I couldn't place that's less satisfying than MW. Don't get me wrong, I love a little bolt-action goodness now and again, but something keeps me playing MW while I get bored with WaW.

 

[nYuknYuknYuk]

I really liked WaW. The Mp40 is incredibly powerful, the maps are to big, dogs are as hard to kill as another player, and the grenades in sp ruined it. But I liked it, despite those flaws.

 

[Fists]

My problem with it is that they did a lousy job of porting it to the PS3, MW looked way better but on PC WaW actually looked smooth

 

[Akai Shizuku]

I really liked WaW. The Mp40 is incredibly powerful, the maps are to big, dogs are as hard to kill as another player, and the grenades in sp ruined it. But I liked it, despite those flaws.

I actually think the PPSh-41 was the best gun in the game. I just really loved using it. In fact, I didn't much like the MP40 myself, its firing rate was a bit slow for me.