| |
 Chrissy Snow
I started playing video games, and now I play them for YOU!! Tell us what games we need guides for!!
|
|
|
|
CALL OF DUTY: WORLD AT WAR THE ONLINE WALKTHROUGH GAME STRATEGY GUIDE is now available for you right in your embers area and compatable for the Microsoft XBOX 360, PC, PS3, Wii Platform. GameGuideDog.Com is dedicated to helping gamers through games. We are confident our support and guides are absolutely the best gaming resource anywhere!Game Guide is here:
After a look at the single player portion of Call of Duty: World at War at the Eurogamer Expo and a lot of time on the multiplayer beta, I thought I'd write up a brief preview of the game. While being dismissed in many places as "another WW2 shooter", I feel that the game deserves a bit more than that.
As a rule, World War 2 shooters have never been something I enjoy; slow and clunky weapons, drab visuals, and an overly sober tone are characteristics that they tend to share. However, I am enjoying World at War at the moment, for a number of reasons. Hit the jump to hear them.
The first I played of Call of Duty: World at War was a portion of the singleplayer mode. I'm not sure how far into the game it was, but the level was set in a jungle, and I was fighting troops geared up in camouflage and with bigger guns than me. Straight away, I started noticing similarities to Call of Duty 4- examples include the grenade indicator, the aiming mechanic, and the reticule notification of a hit. Perhaps it was because of the weapons (slow and clunky- it is a WW2 shooter, after all), but it was pretty difficult.
There were a lot of explosions, smoke, and plants around, which made it hard to spot where the enemies were coming from. Patrick and I also encountered an irritating spawn glitch- the game had autosaved right before an enemy knife-killed us, meaning that every time we died, the enemy would insta-kill us right as we spawned.
While the single player portion of the game that I played was sub-par and very similar to any other WW2 shooter, the multi-player beta that I have been playing is certainly worth a look. If you could only know one thing about it, it would be this: It's Call of Duty 4 in WW2. Many of the same perks and challenges have been ripped straight from Call of Duty 4, the engine is identical, and it generally feels like the same game.
It might sound like a criticism, but Call of Duty 4 is a fantastic game, and all of it's juicy goodness has been gathered up and put into Call of Duty: World at War. The guns may be a little dated, but since everyone has to deal with that, the proverbial playing field has been metaphorically leveled. It's still fun leveling up and getting better weapons and attachments, and doing so isn't so difficult as to frustrate.
The maps in the beta are a little small, but some, especially Castle (a Japanese stronghold), are beautiful to behold, and provide a variety of tactics. Hopefully the full game will provide a better selection of maps, as I've only played three so far. There is a good selection of weaponry in terms of function, but it seems like some, like the shotguns, need a lot of practice before they become useful- the maps tend to facilitate long rage weapons over short range ones.
I'm actually looking forward to this game now, after a skeptical start (when I heard the setting was back to WW2, and who the developer was). As long as the single-player has some better locations, and the story isn't too awful, I'm confident that will be decent. Call of Duty: World at War is shaping up to be a great game: it does very little new, but why change something that has shown to be a lot of fun?
|
Visitor's Comments !
Posted by Crormasax on October 23, 2009