You guys are looking too much into deep, complicated **** that plays little effect each to create a mild stain on COD:WAW. MOST OF THE GAMES ON THE MARKET RIGHT NOW HAVE SPAWNING ISSUES, HOST CONNECTION, AND OF COURSE LESS SKILLED PLAYERS WHO EXPLOIT THE SYSTEM. Most of you guys are comparing WAW to games like COD4 or Halo 3. Halo 3 has all the same spawning, griefing, lagging issues as WAW, if not more and worse. Bungie has tried to fix them, and in my opinion is going on and off with it. COD4 comparisons are one sided anyway. Of course it would have better guns, better perks, etc. It's based on modern day for Christ's sake! The only issue in my opinion that WAW has that COD4 doesn't have is a minor host issue that can easily be fixed by changing your matchmaking settings. And all these campaign issues like infinite respawning enemies, enemies that can drop four simultaneous grenades in your pocket, or simply the low amount of damage that can be taken all account to making a greater challenge. We're all forgers here, we should all be accustomed to patience, persistence, skills, and luck. Besides, WAW is difficult, not unbeatable. This is coming from a guy who beat WAW on Veteran AND is creating a guide for it as we speak for a site called Next Gen Walkthroughs. Remember, comparisons are inevitable. If you look past this game as a game that isn't as good/fun as, for example, COD4, Halo 3, or (personal favourite) Rainbow Six Vegas 2, and think of it as an individual game, I'm sure you'll see the lighter side of things. The first game that actually caught me on to gaming was 007 Nightfire. Compared to todays games, it's ****,but I friggin loved it! I could (and still can) play against the AI bots for hours on end, and have an amazing time. And there are no weapons so imbalanced in a video game as the samaurai laser or the AIMS-20 grenade launcher in 007 Nightfire. People need to stop complaining about how this game is better/worse than the other and enjoy their games as they are individually. If COD:WAW truly sucked as much as some of my colleagues on this site have made it seem, I guess WAW would never have topped XBL most played games list, and still remain in the top five since its release. And finally, one of the most uttered phrases in game-flaming thread history: IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE GAME THEN DO NOT PLAY IT.
i basically stopped reading after that first part, it just annoyed me. nobody is saying the guns are better as in more powerful in comparison, that would just be stupid. since the game is completely set in wwII, the power of the guns is no different. its not like one team has modern weapons and the other has WWII weps. we are saying the weapons are unbalanced, as in a few guns just dominate and the rest are like fighting with a nerf gun. and many perks are useless. and that last part you wrote, its true, we dont play it. that is why we are saying its bad. I decided to continue reading, and how is nightfire ****? its still a great game today. outdated graphics dont make a game ****, its better than a lot of games today.
Yeah, the weapons are the same... Chilli makes a point. But, all the weapons can be good if used correctly. And all perks have their uses also, name a perk and i will try to think of a time it can be used correctly.
yes, if you are good, you can use most weapons. but most people dont. well, i dont know why im arguing about that, that not why i dont like it. i just dont like the maps that much. and the perks, they all can be used, but some can only be used very little. such as the flare reducer one, its really a waste to have that perk.
i concede that, the guns are sort of unbalanced, but everyone knows that the only good weapons in matchmaking are snipers and SMGs. honestly i woulda liked the spread to be larger so i would have some incentive to use the BAR or m1 garand, but its not. other games have balance issues too though. and these guns you actually have to earn, not like halo 3 where you just spawn, grab a mongoose and grab the splazer. in cod5 you actually have to level up to get any worthwhile weapons. does this make new players have a disadvantage? yes. does that ruin the game? no.
Cod waw is the most realistic ww2 game. Halo 3 is so wierd sometimes because it takes 5,000,000 shots to kill someone. And tanks are awesome in cod and easily killed by a couple of bazooka shells or sachel charges, so there not cheap. Plus, it has zombies. **** zombies.
yes, but halo and cod are completely different. halo is not class based. and you dont just grab power weapons, they are fought for, and placement of them balances the map and creates strategy. and im not saying gaining weapons as you rank up is a bad thing, it gives you an incentive to rank up. its what i loved about cod4. that was somebody elses weak arguement.
spam. you failed to give a legitimate reason and prove the stereotype of most halo 3 players being stupid mindless minions of teh interwebz. try supporting your comments with details please.
I believe that it is a great game, but I hate the campaign and the maps for the multiplayer. CoD4 had better maps and an amazing campaign that I was really into from the very beginning. Personally I enjoy CoD4 much more but **** Zombies and Live on WaW is enjoyable. Modern Warfare 2 will still kick ass more than CoD4 and CoD:WaW I hope.
I find that WaW blows because it's obvious that not as much care has gone into the map design. Where as it's obvious IW did a lot of QA on their maps as you don't see places where you think you can get to but you can't really get there. In WaW, this is not there. One example is the Airport map, there is this bunch of rubble that's piled up next to a wall. The first time I saw it, I thouht it was a place where you could snipe from. Instead, there was an invisible barrier. It's those small stuff that make an amazing game into a just above mediocre. My other problem with the game is the bonus. I really don't know what to say about it really. They could hve done much better things for it but instead they chose the stupidest thing and they proudly proclaim that this is the greatest thing you'll ever play. It holds nothing to Mile High. Where as Mile High had me on the edge of my seat, **** Zombies just made me laugh at how stupid those things looked. My final problem is just how bad the campaign is. They announced that the game would be more brutal then ever with body parts flying all over the place but brutal and gritty doesn't come from random enemy No. 1 and Teammate No. 2 blowing into tiny chunks. It comes from having highly detailed carecters getting blowen to bits. Not to mention that voice acting can help... And so can actually showing the grit.
Yea compared to the two shots that take to kill you in Cod5 in which you have no time to react unless you are looking at your enemy. No one actually uses Anti-Tank perks anyways. I just hate the fact that it's obvious that Treyarch did it for the money, to obvious. Even the new maps are cheap, the subway map is just a pile of dirt, and the one with the river is one-sided the only good one is the lightfire.
i really think the tanks ruined most of tank maps they take no skill and all people have to waste a perfectly good perk for rockets or charges. nazis and zombies, what more could you ask for? i think most people that flame cod are either halo fanboys that have never played or people that really suck at it
How can you suck in a game such as that, just three wild shots could get you a kill. The problem with that game is the simplicity and the false advertising and the horridly unfair advantages.
If you want, i could get a team of 4-5 of my team and you could get a team and we could play eachother. To prove it takes skill.
actually, i use bazookas and satchels all the time. several times i have ben on non-tank maps and been with entire teams that have bazookas on our backs. the fact is anti-tank perks are used. i just need to learn to hurriedly add a bazooka to my sniper in the cathedral tower multiplayer level......
i like WaW... but sometimes the spawns do fail and shots don't register. Other than that it is an awesome game!