WaW and MW2

[Nalarion]

2 words: Nazi Zombies, one of the greatest little bits of fun ive had in WaW yet has been in that, the campaign in question on WaW is terribly boring alone but online with 4 others in competitive mode its enjoyable because you actually get something for kicking ass

 

[Snotnarok]

I got World at War for 25 bucks on steam when they had a sale, the game was amazing, I like CoD4 too, they're both great games.

Why people hated it? I don't know, even reading your reasons, I don't know. Lots of games run off of other games engines, does this bother most people? No.

It's a great game and if that's not good enough, then Zombie Nazis to you bitches!

 

[Stalk3rchief]

I hated world at war because it was world at war.
No shit it's a true event, IT'S WORLD WAR FUCKING 2!
Tom clancy games are modern sure, but I promise you I can find over 9000 world war 2 games in about 5 minutes.
Plus the idea that you have to kill people with a shitty bolt action rifle to get a scope pissed me off.
If I want to snipe, don't make me work for it.
I wasn't bad at the game, I just didn't like it.
Plus the higher level guns ruin the balance.
The ending sniper rifles and LMGs are way too overpowered, and if you get the game even a month late, your fucked.
It's not entirely a terrible game, but MW was just better.
MW2 will be even better than both, because of the new levels of customization they're putting in.
Hur hur hur, prestigeing gives you more weapon slots.
Big.Fucking.Deal.
-_-

 

[black lincon]

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.

and oddly enough, unless they announce it at the last second, MW2 will not have it's own version of nazi zombies.

 

[Baggie]

I didn't really like WaW's multiplayer, not sure why but it didn't feel as good as MW.

As for the single player, it was good, but nothing we've not already done before. Besides it kind of ruins the story when you've known the ending your entire life.

 

[Lukeydoodly]

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?

This probably.

I however became better at WaW than MW.

People just used the MP40 most of the time, but at least it did not have the range of the M16.

 

[Flour]

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.

CoD4 has tiny MP maps where you could throw grenades from one spawn to the other, fucked up spawns where you'd appear on the opposite end of the map BEHIND the enemy and almost every TDM game was won by one team trapping the other in a spawn location with only the odd shotgunner messing up spawns.

The AI is unchanged from CoD4.. heck, the AI hasn't changed at all since CoD1. Doesn't mean Treyarch should be using it too, but after nearly 7 years I doubt there's anyone left that coded the original AI and still knows how it worked and nobody wants to touch the abomination it has become.

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

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

I hated WaW because of dogs, vehicles, awful spawns, and the fact that EVERYONE uses an mp40 these days. It was fun when people would actually use rifles and bolt actions.

According to Robert Bowling, there are new game modes in MW2, they just haven't been shown to the public yet.

Also, not flaming. Just slightly disagreeing.

 

[Booze Zombie]

It "sucked" because "teh proz" couldn't figure out how to use weapons that required you to stop and think before you ended up on the bad-end of a reload cycle.

 

[happysock]

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?

What this guy says and a bit more.
I just found that all of the noobs from MW moved across to Waw and I ended up getting constantly owned by random nades along with juggernaut and MP40 I play it now though and I think it's awesome

 

[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.

CoD4 has tiny MP maps where you could throw grenades from one spawn to the other, fucked up spawns where you'd appear on the opposite end of the map BEHIND the enemy and almost every TDM game was won by one team trapping the other in a spawn location with only the odd shotgunner messing up spawns.

The AI is unchanged from CoD4.. heck, the AI hasn't changed at all since CoD1. Doesn't mean Treyarch should be using it too, but after nearly 7 years I doubt there's anyone left that coded the original AI and still knows how it worked and nobody wants to touch the abomination it has become.

There's no denying that the spawns in both are severely fucked (I once spawned on my own Martyrdom in Cod4), but the complete unbalance of the maps in W@W is utterly unacceptable.

I find it hard to believe that it's the exact same AI. I don't recall experiences in CoD4 in which the enemy ran straight past my teamates who were shooting at nothing in order to attack me. It's possible, but I never ran into it in CoD4, and ran into it a lot in W@W.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I agree. I'm not sure really why but I just prefer WaW to MW for it's single player. I don't care for either game's multiplayer.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

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.

There both run by Activison. Seeing the success from Modern Warfare proably prompted Activison to use the Engine in all of the sequels.

Vehicles have been in Call of Duty for awhile now. Back in Cod 3 they had Jeeps,Motorcycles and Tanks.

While I agree that WW2 isn't that interesting now, neither is the whole Modern Warfare thing. Just pick two politcal powers (Or Terriost Groups) or Make one up and then throw nukes in the middle of it. Ubisoft has been doing that with the Tom Clancy games for years now.

I don't care for multiplayer that much so I won't touch on the whole systems being similar and the maps being unbalanced but I will say that Nazi Zombies was fun. Especially on the Newer maps.

 

[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.

There both run by Activison. Seeing the success from Modern Warfare proably prompted Activison to use the Engine in all of the sequels.

Vehicles have been in Call of Duty for awhile now. Back in Cod 3 they had Jeeps,Motorcycles and Tanks.

While I agree that WW2 isn't that interesting now, neither is the whole Modern Warfare thing. Just pick two politcal powers (Or Terriost Groups) or Make one up and then throw nukes in the middle of it. Ubisoft has been doing that with the Tom Clancy games for years now.

I don't care for multiplayer that much so I won't touch on the whole systems being similar and the maps being unbalanced but I will say that Nazi Zombies was fun. Especially on the Newer maps.

I like how you used CoD3, because it was developed by the same people as CoD:WaW, and please note that IW took them out in CoD4.

I'm not so bothered by the fact that they use the same engine but because of the lack of creativity, specifically in the multiplayer, of course you don't care about that so most of my complaints dont mean a damn thing to you.

 

[I Stomp on Kittens]

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?

I didn't like it because of the down graded version of COD4 and I like more modern weapons because I am more familiar with them..my favorite gun on WaW is the Gewehr.
There is alot of people using overpowered guns on WaW also MP40 silenced (or double clip), steady aim, jugg or SP.

Both games have some over balanced weapons so it dosn't really take more skill spraying with the MP40 or the Mp5.

 

[Silencer13]

I personally didnt WaW. It was a little to short. Although i did like playing for the russians more than for the Americans. I just thought the story and scenerios were better. The American story was not as good, and the game only has 13 levels. Kinda short when it takes maybe 10-15min to beat each level.

 

[TheHitcher]

I'm not going to lie. I don't really like World at War. But that doesn't mean I think it's a bad game. In fact, I'd go as far as saying it's the best World War II game. Let's take a look why.

-CoD 4 engine: it looks great, it runs great. Why change it?
-Historically accurate
-Much more features than CoD4

I wouldn't even say CoD4 is a better game. I just like it more. I prefer the guns and the single player campaign is fantastic. But it's just a shame that it doesn't have half the features that WaW has: local & online co-op. A zombies mode (which reminds me much of Horde on Gears of War 2) and online achievements. I guess whether you like MW or WaW just depends on preference. You can go for having more features, but being historically accurate requires most of the guns to be utter crap compared to modern warfare guns.

Oh, and the difficulty curve in WaW for completely levels on Veteran was just stupid.
It goes from being piss-easy (First 3 missions) to inhumanly hard (nearly all missions after the 3rd). Veteran on Mordern Warfare was hard but at least you knew it was possible to complete. Some missions on WaW make Mile High Club feel like a simple breeze...