Why Flame Cod:WaW?

I love it. Some people just got so ass raped in game, that they contest it's winliness.

 

because no matter what game it is, there will be people who do not like it.

the fact of it being YOUR favorite game right now doesnt mean that goes for the world.



PS. that game blows.

 

Put oh-so subtly.

I myself believe that game was incredible. Yea the WW2 scene has been done time and time again but I feel this one was done right. And with zombies :]

I'm pretty sure one reason many of the die hard CoD fans hate it is due to the ability to climb into a tank and rack up a 20 kill streak like its nothing. Which can be a major killjoy considering basically all of the maps with tanks would be great without them aside from Sealow which is horrible all around.

 

I've never liked shooters like that one where pretty much any gun can kill in under a second. I prefer Halo for the BR battles, being no shields and ninjaing, and all of the other situations that arise from the unrealistic aspects in Halo built purely for fun gameplay.

 

Let me put this to you more "real world"... If you dont like something, theres no intelligent reason as to why... you just dont like things that you dont like. For me, real time war games are annoying. If i wanted to go do that ****, i would've signed up for the army. Additionally, the allies look the same as the enemies. The way the animation looks when you move your vision around is also annoying, as it is severely speedy and unrealistic. I have many further reasons, but i dont need to justify them to you.

My point being is that you are letting people cause you grief over their dislike for a video game... Did you create it? Are they trashing your pride and joy? Then why give their thoughts the time of day?

the end.

 

I agree with silence.
And why do people flame the game? Because it is a decent game, but Activision and the COD franchise are basically ruining the gaming industry. Make a game where anyone can pick it up and instantly do good in this battle of no-skill, and you got a seller. Make a new one every year, half assed with little improvements or modifications that really could have been done through downloads and patches, and you slap all hard working game companies in the face. COD WaW is hardly anything more than COD 4. You get new weapons, new looks, a couple of unbalanced vehicles, changed perks, a new campaign, and a bonus **** Zombies. Why pay $60 for that? They could have made a $15-$30 expansion to Call of Duty 4 and it would have been the same dang thing. It's games like this, and companies like Activision that are deluting the gaming market. Several years ago, a game made in a single year would have been obvious crap. Now, it is the norm.

 

I gladly paid sixty bucks for a whole new set of maps, skins, weapons, etc. Why the hell did people pay eighty dollars for 3 maps for Halo, is the better question.

 

I don't know, I guess those people had to much money. The idiots of the world buying **** doesn't excuse poor production ethics.

 

If you're arguing that everyone in the world should like it, and none can differ, I suggest you find your own opinion on matters. People have the right (Or so we believe, under certain jurisdiction) to like what they want, do what they want, and say what they want. It's reasoning like this that makes me like blue, and you like red. Or I drive a car, and you ride a motorcycle. People will disagree on things, for it's human nature, with all it's manipulations and what not.

I personally love that game, but that doesn't mean I rejected the non-WaW debates. For one, I'm very much aware the engine is exactly the same. Simple changing with the rewards for kills, and Treyarch created the kill engine. Then, changing skins and what not created the weapon array, etc. (Obviously, they didn't do this. In the director's commentary somewhere on gametrailers, the producers explain that WaW was in production as Modern Warfare was. But, it's just as figure of speech). One reason I favor World at War over Modern Warfare, is the past. Snipers, and more low-tech weapons are much more appealling to me then simple one shot kills (Even though it's literally the same terminolgy/mentality when actually playing). Few WWII have been succesful, but I feel WaW accomplished that. While it has it's 'vexes' like players in Tanks, etc. it would create the same HLG debate for Halo. Or, you can simply comprehend the fact it's in the game, as you are also, learn to assimilate with it rather then disregard it.

 

They paid 80 dollers for three awesome halo maps, and an awesome xbox game.

CoDWaW is 70 dollers of ****. It's a dumbed down, worsened version of an already bandwaggon, mediocre game. I can respect CoD4 for what it is development wise, though I don't like it. CoDwaw is a failed copy version of CoD4. The game lacks host lag balance, respawn settings, and general game balance in general. The whole concept of CoD is mass market to shitty gamers to make them feel better about their abilities and continue buying maps and games. How do I know I'm right? A CoD every november. Justify that one.

 

Maps are horrible, vehicles ruin all CoD gameplay, most added perks are useless, lack of weapon diversity (Everyone uses MP40), WW2's been done, although not with so much emphasis on the Japanese campaign, Campaign is soulless, meaning that you do not feel anything on a personal level.

Only thing I think they did in that game that I would've liked to see in CoD4 was something similar to **** Zombies.

 

exarctly. except i hate **** zombies. too slow and annoying. i dont play multiplayer that much because i really only enjoy about 3 maps. weapons arent balanced at all, its easier to kill someone cross map with an smg than it is a sniper. the only multiplayer i enjoy is search when im with friends, cause of second chance. and forget about the campaign, it was somewhat decent the first time through, but theres just no desire to do it again, like there was in cod4.

 

Way to not be biased.
In other words, i'd be able to say...

People payed $60 for a top of the line WW2 game thats realistic and unlike any others.

The new halo maps is a worthless piece of crap that happens to cost almost 80 bucks. Halo 3 is a non realistic shooter coppying the famous Halo 2. The whole Microsoft company is just a big scam to get people to buy more things which should have originally been put into the disk. Halo just wants you to feel good about yourself by selling more maps and games all the time. How do i know i am right? because all of you keep spending money on a few maps every few months.
Justify that one.

Seriously, i'm not saying i hate halo. I'm just being like you and being completly biased, using false facts.

Thats your opinion, maybe i think all the halo maps suck, people always veto the shitty maps right? Vehicles = tank? i dont know why vehicles would be plural then. Halo = Tank, warthog, mongoose, gauss, etc... If you cant figure out how to blow up a tank in Cod with 6 people then i feel bad for you. Yes they do get annoying, but they're only on a few maps. MP40, in Cod4(the one you liked) everyone would Mp5 or M16. You have to be good with weapons to use them, only noobs use Mp40 all the time. Halo has been done...Halo 1,2. And once again, Saying campaign is souless is your opinion. Can you tell me how Halo 3's campaign touched you?

Not saying anything about you, just proving how your argument is not very strong.

 

*/Move to debate/ ?

 

This is an opinionated topic, no one's going to post and say "It's a decent game and I'm pretty indifferent." If that's how they feel they wouldn't post.

This...this...it's plural because there's more than one tank in the entire game, therefore there are vehicles in the game.

Anyways, I didn't like it because the respawning enemies in the campaign was just flat-out retarded. The multiplayer wasn't fun because the higher level guns and perks were unlocked at a higher level, and in order to get there you have to play against people with better everything, which just makes the game horrendously boring to play.

 

No, Tank.

And yes the respawning is bad. Most guns, just like Cod4, are unlocked at higher levels, but most of the good guns are unlocked at the beginning. Also, its rewarding players who play the game. Halo allows you to go up in rank, but for what? when i'm playing with a 50 they usually suck half the time. Not to say that level 65's in Cod dont suck.

 

It was inevitable. COD:WAW has been flamed since it was revealed that WAW was a WWII shooter. Its comparisons to COD4 were inevitable, which is the main reason people flame it. They always compare it to COD4 and do not think of it as its own game made by a completely different developer. COD:WAW is probably one of my fav games, and will remain in that position no ten year old flaming on forums about how imbalanced the BM1919 is (which I've heard on XBL) can change.

EDIT-After reading the posts before mine in this thread, it appears we have much of the latter.

 

In my opinion, there just wasn't enough effort put into it to have it up to my standards. They used the EXACT SAME engine as CoD4, which made it repetitive. If you've played one of them, you've played the other.

Basically, it is just new maps, weapons, etc. Just another crappy game to hold you over until CoD: MW2.