Ok, ok. Just before any of you decide to chop me up for the title, shut the fuck up and listen to what I have to say for one second. It’s only fair that I get to defend my reasoning. Sit back, get yourself a cup of coffee and some Advil, and be prepared to either punch your monitor in anger, or cheer with acknowledgment.
First off, let’s get something out of the way before I’m pummeled with radiant curses and insults towards my mother’s sexual sanctity. Those of us who convolute our time in online gaming should just acknowledge that Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is the king as far as multiplayer goes. Forget Halo, Resistance, Gears of War and whatever else you think is the best multiplayer game; numbers show that CoD4 is dominating the online genre on consoles (except on the Wii, of course). So get off your high horse and join the revolution.
Now, let’s get back on track. Call of Duty: World at War. *Sigh* Where to begin… When I first heard about Treyarch developing the next Call of Duty installment after a drooling experience with CoD4, I almost kicked the be-jesus out of the dog. The thought of having PETA riot towards the death penalty because I kicked the hell out of my pooch in aggravation wasn’t something I was looking forward to. My Yorkie is still intact, my sanity, however, that’s something totally different.
Treyarch is known for putting out relatively mediocre titles. Not the worst of things, but not something that will gain you popularity amongst gaming aficionados after playing CoD4 (at least for hardcore CoD4 fans). CoD3 was… well, let’s just say it wasn’t my cup of tea. It was one of the first games I purchased when I picked up my PS3, and one of the first to go - along with that despicable Genji: Days of Blade.
The gaming community sighed in disbelief at the fact that Activision was giving Treyarch the helm for the next Call of Duty game. It was almost like being punched in the face by a mob of 3 year olds indefinitely - it didn’t hurt, but it was annoying as hell to bear. Most of us gave Treyarch the benefit of the doubt and instilled faith in them. Then, the first wave of news came. Call of Duty: World at War would take place, again, during the World War II. I, personally, have nothing against World War II games except it’s been done more than 007 movies. Although, to me, it felt as if Treyarch was just playing it safe going with something they already knew and had perfected with their previous CoD titles. Of course, that didn’t stop anyone from spewing egregious comments with regards to Treyarch’s decision with going WWII again.
With Infinity Ward dropping CoD4 with present-day combat experiences and a multiplayer that just awed, I was expecting Treyarch to continue towards a similar route and throttle the franchise forward with newer concepts and gameplay. I was really expecting an experience that left me shitting myself. I didn’t get that feeling, though. Screenshots of World at War were later released and revealed that a slightly revamped CoD4 engine was being used (which wasn’t a bad thing). It looked good from the outside, that’s for sure. But I wasn’t shown the core of the game - its “perks”. Gameplay footage showed a replica of CoD4 executed with different weapons and textures. Multiplayer talks made the game sound riveting and left people lusting for it (good marketing, I would dare say). But then, a year later, after the long wait and anticipation of what was thought to be the next multiplayer game of the year, World at War was released to the hounds. I speculated getting the game for a couple of weeks, until phone calls bombarded my house with people regurgitating the same shit, “Dude, you have to get World at War. The game is so awesome!” After days of harassment, I got the game, popped it in, and - I’m not going to lie here - I was a bit excited. The introduction was amazing, and the voice acting was well done, that goes without saying.
Call of Duty: World at War’s campaign was, undoubtedly, great. No beefs there. Listening to Kiefer Sutherland and Gary Oldman order your ass around was just awesome. Who wouldn’t want to kick Nazi and Japanese ass with Jack Bauer? Anyone who retracts this feeling is just an idiot. The story was captivating and kept you entertained throughout the entire game. A round of applause to Treyarch for executing this part of the game flawlessly - which wasn’t really hard to do when the mechanics and visuals of the previous CoD was the template for this one (aside from the vegetation). As much as WWII games have been done, this one took the cake with the story. I would have loved to see Omaha beach done with this engine. What I also liked, that Treyarch considered, was having a more realistic feel to it by adding a little more gore. You can never go wrong with gore.
Nowadays, if your game doesn’t involve a multiplayer option, you’re basically considered a dinosaur. Almost every game released - or being released - offers some sort of competitive system in which players can either engage each other head-on, or compete for superiority by establishing a high score in whatever game they play. It is what it is. Multiplayer is defining and molding the next-gen experience. And I would dare say that it was Halo that created the template, in some form or another, for future developers to build upon (Argue all you want; Halo was the driving force behind real competitive online gaming). Nonetheless, World at War offered a somewhat “different” experience compared to its predecessor. It had solid features like the online competitive co-op mode - which was fun to play - and War mode was intuitive and certainly a fresh addition to CoD’s list of multiplayer game types.
The overall online experience felt bland. It was just lacking something. I, personally, thought that the maps were either too congested or extremely over-sized; perks were a little too familiar (except those fucking dogs and the flamethrower, just to name a few); and the gameplay was a just a slower-paced CoD4. Not really a lot of change, if you ask me. Before the lot of you even consider uttering how much of a stupid fuck I am and how much oral sex my mother has endured, take the time to seriously analyze the game. There’s not really a lot of contrast offered in World at War - that’s just fact. Not to mention that Treyarch used the same exact online matchmaking system that CoD4 had which, regardless of what some might think, just sucked because of the constant bugs it had. The migration system is new, so I won’t shit on it just yet. But, again, the same issues that troubled the previous CoD matchmaking is making this one suffer as well (the router issues, matchmaking time, etc). Where, unless some sort of router tweaking takes place (i.e. turning your router into a DMZ), you’re unable to join most invites due to clashing router issues. It’s the exact same system, mechanics and feel as the previous CoD with a makeover. The only thing that I hope, for the sake of those who are devoting their time to it, is that Treyarch offers much better support compared to the douche bags over at Infinity Ward.
So, I played through the campaign, got some trophies and traded the sucker in. I personally (<- keyword for you retards who don’t understand the meaning of an “opinion”) feel that it was not as good as CoD4. And that is what I was expecting. Either better or on the same plane-field. I’m not saying that Treyarch failed in bringing out World at War. It sold really well. It’s just that they were playing it too safe in its development. They really didn’t take any big leaps to wow me. It’s the same shit in a different toilet when you sit there and really give it some thought. Infinity Ward, as much as I hate their views on support of their games and consumers, had it right taking it to a new era and being intuitive with the gameplay and online system (i.e. perks, weapon customization, etc.).
So why did I trade in CoD: World at War? The multiplayer didn’t suck me in as I thought it would. Although the campaign was a good enough reason to play through it, the online part was just a little too familiar in some areas and lacking in others. I’m really disappointed in how I feel about it, but if a game doesn’t cut it for me, I’m not going to force it down. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of a game that had the potential to make game of the year but was held back by their own accord. It was over-hyped and it underperformed as far as my gaming needs are concerned. So what did I trade this in for? Eternal Sonata! I believe that had Treyarch pursued a different direction in time frame and a few moderate changes in gameplay (as to not duplicate CoD4), then it would have been a keeper.
Let’s see some new ideas and new wars, for crying out loud. Last I checked, WWII wasn’t the only war the took place. What about a CoD in the Vietnam era? Or the American Revolution? Or World War I? Or even taking CoD to Somalia during the Black Hawk Down incident? There are thousands of possibilities out there that can keep the franchise fresh. Stop with the WWII crap and move forward in a genre that has limitless ideas. Face it people, as good as the World at War looks, a step backward in the era was just another step backward for the franchise. Not even Jack Bauer saved this one for me. Sorry, fellas. I give Treyarch two thumbs up for their efforts; but two middle fingers for how they went about it. I think I’ll go back to CoD4 now and hand out ass-whoopings like sandwiches at a homeless food drive. Like always, you’re all welcome to flame my pants off.
Podcast RSS Feed
24 Comments
Write a Comment»I’m in the same boat as you. I sold the game a week or so after I bought it to a friend. It just felt like another game while COD4 felt like a whole new experience.
I agree with most of it.
one thing, is this a typo?
“So why did I trade in CoD: Modern Warfare?”
=P
Yes COD4 is more played, since Halo 2 spent years at the top of LIVE, Gears 1 spent at least a year on top, and Halo 3 spent a few months. Then it has been back and forth for the last year between Halo 3, COD4, and for a little bit GTA4. Not to mention COD4 is ranked FOURTH this week. Counter Strike did the whole “Modern Warfare” multiplayer setting for nearly 10 years, and a whole lot better than COD4. Not to mention let’s see how many people remain on COD4 a year from now, let’s see about that lasting power, and self proclaimed “lasting power.” Get your numbers right, and please get off your high horse.
just for the record i think your mother is a saint of saints….
so i mean like everyone says world at war is basicly like a cod4 ww2 mod. i agree on some points of your dislikes like not enough change in online matchmaking and maps are congested, dont forget how much the spawns suck.
but i live in the now, not the past. i played cod4 out to no end it was one of the greatest online games ive ever played. but thats the past now the game is 2 years old and if anyone is still playing it like it just came out yesterday they need to add some variety to their gaming.
i would not call world at war innovative by any means but i think it does reinvent the world war II feel.
Lastly anyone who expected world at war to dethrone cod4 as the king of matchmaking is living in their own little world. Mixb hit the nail on the head it just felt like a new game not a new experience.
But sometimes thats what happens when big coporate buisness pushes out quanity over quality….
`
“So why did I trade in CoD: World at War?”
I see you edited it then.
=]
bullshit matt i hope you read this shit cod4 set the bar high but world at war has a great online not better bout the same and the reason its still on the radar is a lot of 3 year olds playing the game
I don’t see where you got the idea that CoD 4 is the king of multiplayer… I’ll give you the fact that it’s a great multiplayer game, even one of the best, but to say that it beats out Halo 3 in terms of numbers, well, that’s just plain false. Even CoD 5 and Gears 2 is above CoD 4 “in terms of numbers”:
http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/12/02/halo-3-beats-cod-and-gears-2-to-live-top-spot/
So let’s get some other, more logical, reasoning behind you trading CoD 5.
@Eric - it was huge news that those games beat CoD4 last week. CoD4 and Gears 2 have been the top with CoD4 being on top the longest, even more so than Halo 3 and all others. If you go by all time stats and not just last week, you’ll see that.
@ Nev
lol. Wow, I really loved your comment (no sarcasm). Where to begin. Ah, yes, a year from now. CoD4 just hit it’s one year mark recently and is still growing strong in terms of multiplayer. You really think that in a year the game will be obsolete because more games are being released in the coming year? Absolutely not. Titles you just mentioned (Counter Strike, Halo, Gears) are a perfect example of it. The reason why it will remain mainstream is because, like Halo, CS, and Gears, the game offers prized competitions which has now become a sport. Regardless of what you might think, I can guarantee that CoD4 will be around another two-three years (or at least until the next-gen consoles hit the market). The game is just that good and well-balanced. And I love my horse… why would I want to get down? >_> And before you try to throw numbers in the mix, maybe you should consider looking at the all time statistics rather than weekly.
@ Patrick
Thanks a ton for the comment about my mother. She’s no saint, I’ll tell you that much. And I will totally agree with gamers needing to add variety to their list. Of course, though, it’s really hard to give up a game that has such great online play. I didn’t HATE CoD: World at War; It just didn’t cut it for me. As our friend Mixb said, felt like a new game not a new experience… and that’s where I lost my grip.
@scallywhop - say what now? What about me?
I have been waiting a long time to have a World War 1 game to play. With the engines that are available these days it would be very simple to do; how hard is mud and trenches?
Random mustard gas clouds and missions over the top would awesome.
i enjoyed your article and thought it had a lot of great points. Here’s why i enjoy COD WAW.
It’s a breath of fresh air for a Call of Duty 4 fan. They took the formula for an award winning game and simply built on it. After going through 10 prestiges in COD4 and spending countless hours playing the game, i was ready for a change of scenery. Going back to WW2? not necessarily. In fact, i was incredibly angered by the initial news of the franchise returning to the beaten to death genre. But after playing the game for some time now, i am enjoying myself (except for those fking tanks.)
But in all honesty, i could have gotten the same amount of enjoyment if Infinity Ward simply came out with 10 new maps, and maybe some more weapon customization or options. But they didn’t and this is what COD4 fans have to work with. There’s a reason that this game is called “Call of Duty: World at War” and NOT “Call of Duty 5.” They weren’t trying to push the gameplay further and re-invent the series. They were, in a sense, just modding the AWESOME COD4 and placing the player in WW2 setting. And for the moment, i’m okay with that.
I guess it just comes down to how long you’ve played COD4 online. If you’ve spent countless hours online, prestige after prestige, then i think the changes were more welcome than if you hadn’t.
LOL wow Im also ready to trade it in, the only thing i liked about world at war was the co-op and the zombie mode. Other than those, everything else was quite boring to me.. the campaign i didnt even bother finishing because I kept almost falling asleep. Good article man.
Two things.
One: You can’t ever go wrong with gore? I would agree, but did you ever play Soldier of Fortune: Payback? I’d say it went VERY wrong.
Two: I work at a game retailer (let’s just say it’s one where the employees are CRAZY about GAMEs) and Call of Duty 4 used copies are few and far in-between. Whenever they DO come in, they get bought quick. I see a LOT of WaW’s coming back in the future. Which is somewhat sad, because it’s still a really good game.
Plus, Nazi Zombies is HELLA fun.
i have to agree with everything you said, yaris! i think COD4 had so much greatness to it, everyone just expected more from W@W.
@ David Jay
I would agree with Payback… The first Soldier of Fortune, however, was just great (at least I thought it was). But that aside, people liking World at War just comes down to what it always has come down to: Preference. Some people might think that the game is the greatest thing since the wheel while others might despise it. Then, you have people, like me, who are nonchalant about it that were ok with some of the things that were put on the table.
Thanks guys for the comments!
Why does everyone bag on WWII because its been done to death. Like modern times haven’t been done more than anything else in games? The only problem I have with this game is that it always has to be compared to COD4. Its not COD4, its not a sequel, its is its own game. So many people I know on XBL go back and forth between COD4 and COD:WAW. This is only good for the Call of Duty brand. COD3 sucked, but I think Treyarch redeemed themselves and have already stated that 2-3 DLC updates are in the works. Infinity Ward dropped the ball on updates. I like the current Call of Duty situation, and it looks good to the future…but I hope they look towards Bungie and the Halo series as an example of how to support a game long after release with DLC, playslists, updates, and community support.
your lame, gay, and wrong, your mothers a whore and people like you deserve to be shot. ok so not really and it’s funny that you have to worry about those responses for an opinion. I personally love cod waw but it isn’t cod mw. to compare the two is almost unfair, reason being the games are that much different, the pacing of the multiplayer is slower but so are the weapons, this in my opinion adds to the realism and grit of the game. now I know they are the same engine and of course people look at it like its a sequel (WAW) however its not meant to be its made by a different group for a reason (not just so acti-blizz can put one out each year) I think they are trying to appeal to the widest group possible with the franchise. this isn’t a bad thing for us as consumers, more choices are good and usually raise the bar all the way around. my complaint is the fact that they (trearch) didn’t do enough to separate themselves from MW if they would have pushed harder that it is not a sequel to MW people may have reacted a little differently. I would also like to say thank you for not bitching about the fire rates or accuracy of the weapons in WAW as I also think this adds to the realism. I’ve seen so many people complaining about the guns, it’s ridiculous, these weapons are accurate to WW2, this is the way they fired. I don’t know if anyone on here has ever fired a 30-06, I have, and firing one fully automatic (BAR) must’ve been a hell of a chore and god forbid you actually hit what your aiming at. they were very inaccurate and for that matter so was the Thompson .45 cal packs a hell of a punch and when its firing 600-800 rounds per minute its going to kick at you. lots of people (not saying you) overlook the additions to realism this game has made. (an ak does not fire like it does in MW) to that end I commend trearch they went out of there way to produce a lucid, competent shooter that is more realistic than there predecessor, and tackles WW2 in a fresh manor that I feel has garnished a little more respect (at least in my book) for WW2 shooters. I hope companies like trearch keep trying to do new things to push the shooter realm back to shooting and not in the alien invasion area so much. That being said will COD MW2 be fighting space invaders? If so is that going to be cool? (I don’t think so) but hey who am I? just another idiot buying and playing games with a mother who is definitely to be defiled by kids the world over. Thanks for your time and if you actually read this long rambling crap then I double thank you.
I got to “(Argue all you want; Halo was the driving force behind real competitive online gaming)” and I gave up reading. What an ignorant cVnt you are! Have you never heard of quake?
And the most popular game on xbox live last week was halo3 btw!
i totaly agree with you, COD4 is way better then COD 5, alos COD 5 is just a other WW2 game -_-
@jessehays
Thanks a lot for the reply. And, yes, I will agree that the gunplay in the game does have a hint of realism to the game. What people wanted was P90’s and MP5’s in the game - run-and-gun’em weapons that some people just enjoyed running around with (the Thompson is nowhere near as powerful). When you’re trying to shoot someone with a Gewer while aiming down the black-dot sight, and they don’t die, frustration begins to build. God knows how many people I’ve heard complain about the weapons (I liked them just fine). Treyarch made a good game, no doubt about that. But what they lacked was innovation in some areas. The execution was well done, but it just didn’t have the same “umph” as MW did. Not to say that it should being that both games are different in their own respects, obviously. I really liked your “rant”. It’s a well thought-out opinion and I respect your view. Btw, lol, I don’t think Treyarch or Infinity Ward are as stupid as to take the game to an era a la Star Wars - they know it’s ridiculous. I’m pretty sure, though, that IF might just keep it “modern”. Appreciate that you took time off to write what you did. Thanks.
@dave
I never knew Quake was the reason multiplayer console games were so successful. /sarcasm Cry all you want, facts are Halo _was_ the reason competitive console gaming reached the heights it did. Quake was a PC game and, yes, it is considered one of the best multiplayers of all time. I won’t disagree there. However, I really doubt that Quake was a driving force behind console-based competition. MLG (Major League Gaming) was created solely on Halo competitions and is now one of the largest tournament holders. You want to sit there and deny the fact that Halo pushed competitive gaming further than what it was, it’s cool. Just don’t argue facts without getting yours straight. Btw, thanks for the “cunt” remark. Love it! (seriously). And Halo 3 was on top last week… How about we look at the all time figures? Thanks.
Somebody has to call you on it, might as well be me.
Counter-Strike is what started, and catapulted competitive online gaming. Prize money that was unprecedented before hand was awarded to the CAL-i competitors far before Halo.
While I agree that Halo was a big part of competitive online gaming’s beginnings, you have to give the credit to Counter-Strike for paving the way first.
I agree with some of your points and how CoD 4 bests World at War but you go a little far with some of your comments about multiplayer history. Im looking forward to your articles in the future as your opinions are always interesting but please do some more research, your insulting us older and wiser gamers.
Completely agree with you I thought the campaign was fn but the multiplayer player on COD 5 just didnt keep up with COD 4. I have found myself spending countless summer hours online playing COD 4 SnD but there is nothing to draw me in to COD 5. No bull the first SnD game I played on COD 5 I got three artillery strikes and 19 kills. There is o fun in that the guns arent powerful enough and everyone use fucking last stand and Juggernaut. This game just fell short of Infinity Wards Gem COD 4 Modern Warfare.