Enter a Contest

Free Downloads



I have seen a lot about the new dashboard and can't wait 'til it comes, but I've also heard that it might not be coming to the ...


The Xbox 360's new Dashboard will be a worldwide launch, so no need to worry about it not reaching the UK. Altho...MORE

Ezilylost13 says:

"Why don't I like Fallout 3? I just am not getting into it. I'm about 4 hours in and I'm supposed to be looking for a radio station. I am taking my time, doing some exploring and really trying to enjoy it. While I'm playing though, all I can think about is wanting to play something else."

Posted on: Nov 12, 2008

Call of Duty: World at War

WORDS BY: Ryan McCaffrey

Has Call of Duty become the Star Trek of videogames? Because when you do the math, the even-numbered installments in the series are always the best. And while following up the 10-rated, Game of the Year–nominated Call of Duty 4 can’t be easy — after all, there’s really nowhere to go but down in the minds of many players — World at War’s step back in time from Modern Warfare’s current-era landscape to World War II only makes the challenge that much greater.

For better and for worse, World at War feels like a prototypical play-it-safe sequel. Though it takes a crack at freshening up the WWII formula with flamethrowers, a slightly more tropical setting, and all kinds of M-rated blood and profanity, it takes absolutely no significant chances whatsoever, borrowing everything from the Call of Duty 4 playbook and adding nothing noteworthy of its own. It feels more like an expansion pack than a full-priced sequel.

By default, though, the similarities to Modern Warfare mean World at War is a perfectly good game. Both the technology behind Call of Duty 4 and the gameplay are cut-and-pasted into this version, so the campaign features solid gunplay, intense audio, and smooth visuals. And multiplayer delivers the same perk-packed, level-based, class-customizable romp that’s dominated Xbox Live for the past year.

The problem is that there’s nothing to truly distinguish World at War from last year’s game, which means there’s little reason to recommend it in any sort of significant way. The Pacific campaign is a bit different than the WWII games that have come before it, but not as much as you might hope or expect. Essentially, there are now enemies hiding in some trees, and you have a flamethrower to torch both people and foliage, but really — you could just be marching through another European town with a lot more trees.

Meanwhile — again in traditional series fashion — a second campaign alternates missions with the first, this time putting you in the boots of a Russian sniper as the Red Army marches toward Berlin. A by-the-numbers Call of Duty experience, its finale possesses potential for heart-thumping greatness — as you stomp up the steps of the German Reichstag — but squanders it by dragging on for far too long and becoming more of a chore to complete than a climactic exclamation point.

It is, in fact, disappointingly lacking in anything as impactful as the shocking conclusion to CoD4’s “playable” opening-credits sequence, its U.S. campaign–ending nuclear detonation, or its riveting pistol-gripping finale. World at War’s lone highlights — first scurrying back and forth between gun turrets aboard a U.S. seaplane, shooting down Imperial ships, and then rescuing adrift survivors after you splash down into the water, and later the climax of the American campaign in which you drop mortars and airstrikes on a Japanese village — serve as its too-few highlights in the solo game.

On the multiplayer side, World at War feels more like a WWII map pack for Modern Warfare. Don’t get us wrong: they haven’t broken a thing from the last game. It’s polished, balanced, and addictive over its dozen maps and almost equal number of modes — but World at War never flashes enough originality to make a name of its own. That said, big ups to Treyarch for the giddy surprise factor of the multiplayer Nazi Zombie mode (see sidebar).

World at War is like watching a fireworks show that you’ve seen a few times before. You’re simply not wowed by the buildup, the grand finale, or any of it anymore. When — not if — the next sequel arrives, it’s going to have an upstream swim against an apathetic tide of familiarity. But if the Star Trek analogy holds, at least it’ll be even-numbered.

On Xbox 360
  • Multiplayer remains topnotch.
  • Four-player co-op is appreciated.
  • Feels like a full-priced expansion pack.
  • If you had a dime for every videogame M1 Garand rifle you’ve fired…

This review is pretty close, but still wrong. It's at the very least an 8. The multiplayer is good, and so is the campaign. It has nazi zombies too which should count for and extra .5. And we do need maps for nazi zombies. A lot.

Eviltattoo is spot on.
but this mag has been going downhill.
and the reviews are unfair most of the time. they should stop sayin how much cod 5 and cod 4 are alike. because thats goood isnt it. if it was like cod 3 it would ahve sucks. the campaign was superb and i geniunly enjoy playing the game more then cod 4.
online also has less campers. but no headshhot camos is silly..

also i know evryone is crying out for more nazi zombie maps!! give us MAps!!

Definatly a solid 8.5

Well, I've just finished the single-player camgpaign, and I've unlocked the Nazi Zombies mode.
Ok, the single-player campaign was pretty damn epic...the Russian campaign in particular. Though there were some of those annoying grenade deaths and spawn points that seemed to never end.
Overall though, I really enjoyed the single-player...and the multi-player is phenomenal.
I have to disagree with MOST of the people who are tired of WWII. I thought I was too, but after playing this game, I realized that there is still quality gameplay and stories to be told in this era.
I thought the graphics were EXCELLENT. The CoD4 engine is a great engine and is put to great use here...the game really sets up some amazing visuals...again, mostly in the Russian campaign.

Treyarch did an AMAZING job with this game, but if they dropped the ball anywhere, it's in the innovation part.
I think they did almost everything right by copying the CoD4 perks, and multi-player leveling up...but where they really could have put their own spin on this, is with a true cover system.
They did it in Quantum of Solace...and they should have brought that to Call of Duty.
That's what this series needs to breathe some new life into it.
And they would have really thrown out a bit of innovation to the series again.

Still, I enjoyed this game a lot, and continue to enjoy it in the online multi-player.
Overall, as I mentioned before...an 8.5.
A great addition to any FPS fan's library, and a great value for the money.
If you liked CoD4 or shooters in general...get this game.


I think the review is harsh. I loved the multiplayer demo. I now have the game,& think it's VERY fun! I really like the co-op for the campaign, and the multiplayer has been tweaked here and there to make an even more rewarding experience. Especially if you play with friends. The blood, guts, spit, and @$$, and language has also been upped...parents be warned! I don't care that it's similar to COD4...that's why I like it! I'd give it a 9...only because i'm sick of WW2 games...COD fans...buy it! (if you'd like to see a more detailed review, go to gametrailers.com)

Review.I was not sure if you said though that at the end of the game it got bad reviews because they made zombie Natzies. I don't think i spelled it right but anyways, they got bad reviews because of it and i found it kind of weird too. So yeah. Hopefully you read my comment.


Wow IPT ghost thats a little harsh to say about OXM i agree on some stuff that you said but i think they make great magazines and that is a bunch of BS about you saying they are crapThey're one of the best video game magazines ever!

Sorry i completly disagree with the score i like this game more than i liked COD4.The campain isn't as good but as soon as i beat COD4 campain i was bored of it(exept the multiplayer) and i like the new one's multiplayer much better.I think Treyarch just wanted to put COD4's multiplayer in a World War 2 game.

Thank you for giving this game this score. I really think that they screwed up this game so much. For one, don't go back to a war that has been overused for ages now. Give us something fresh. That is why COD4 was as good as it was. It was fresh...this one is like last week's banana peels!!!

it will go through stages of checking before its printed or posted. and its just the words buy ryan.

and havent you noticed how crap OXM has become? jeez

excuse me but its not just ryan. he writes it,somone checks it, ot gets checked and read thorugh statges of stafff...what do you think happens..he writes it and sneaks it in with all his own opinions and no 1 else reading it or checking it.

i think not.

also remember, this isn't the entire magazine's view, it's ryan's, so don't take it out on the whole staff just because you don't agree with a review

dude, you're pretty harsh, i still love OXM

plus phantom is spot on. your maden reviews are pathetic. seriosuly guys shape up this magazine or your gunna lose alot of customers.
cod waw will vbe played for a ong type poeple prestiging and buying new map packs and themes playing clan matchs and havin a laugh on zombie with there mates. or playing some wingman with their buddys or teaming up for horde on gears 2. where is the so called 10 out of 10 greatest game of all time GTA, gathering dust at the botttom of your stack of game's.

and just think about this question?

what will be the most played ganmes on xbox live for the next year and a half?



this review is outrageous. Treyarch deserve props they did a great job on the game and evreything is spot on when it comes to graphics and gameplay mechanics. if treyarch had changed too much you would have moaned about it. saying they didnt think about cod4's success and all that crap. theve taken the awared winning multiplayer and theve tweaked it. theve tweaked cod 4 like rainbow 2 did to rainbow. and theres a great result. the campaign is superb, not a great storyline but the tale of WWii was spot on. i expiecally enjoyed the pacific front and the interaction with the russian sergeant resnov. excuse me, but what was the bad point about gears , something about open ended story plots. what on earth, there just determined not to give a game a ten. how does GTA IV desreve a ten. quite frankly the shooting meachanic is poor. and who plays gta anymore,online or offline, noone, everyone plays GOW and COD. therefore for repaly value and stunning gameplay these should get tens., gtA IS A RIP-OFF. COD IS A BRILLIANT GAME AND A 7.5 , THAT IS OUTRAGOUES A 9 IS JUST DESRVED and if gears dosent desrve a 9.5 + then your magazine should shut down. OXM is going downhill, poor reviews and they keep getting rid off the must buy section and bringing it back. what? is the oint its a good feature, your reviews are pathetic and biast. I HAVE OFFFICALY STOPPED BUYING YOUR MAGAZINE. read EDGE gaming and culture magazine,proper revviews,proper scores. also your demos aare crapp!!! you put soulcaliber 4 on it whcih is rubbish like 2 months after its been released. OXM SUcks.

I'm still going to get this game, but the review is still spot-on. This game does nothing new, and it is practically an expansion pack. This game will do well simply because people like COD4. I'll get it because I'm bored with COD4's maps and guns.

this game is solid and i understand its flaws, but didn't you guys give Star WArs The Force Unleashed a 7.5? This game has a lot more depth than that, how bout an 8?

oxm has been steadily going down hill this game is awsum what the hell a 7.5 ?!?!?

I have noticed that this month OXM has been neagitive nelly about their reviews. They say gears is bad because its not like the first one, then they say call of duty is bad because it is like the first one. both of these games are really great.and deserve higher! I say gears 10, call of duty 9.5.

Maybe Treyarch failed to produce adequate "swag" to the editorial staff of OXM!! lmao

I agree...this game is an 8.5, and Madden continues to score in the 9's and it's the same EFFING BS EVERY year!
I HATE Madden now, and I will NEVER buy another Madden, unless either:

A) Tiburon is axed from the project.
B) They do a COMPLETE OVERHAUL of the game and bring real ESPN presentation to the table.

This is a very good game. Not COD4 good, but VERY good, and Treyarch's best effort yet.

Madden '09 - 5.5, with a ZERO for innovation.

This month's issue of OXM is already out(I think I got it Tuesday) and the cover story is the Left 4 Dead review. That's why he mentioned Left 4 Dead

GuitarHeroics, Left 4 Dead has not come out yet. This game is Awsome, The best WWII shooter I've played in a long time, 8.5 at least. In conclusion, if you like Call of Duty, and XBL multiplayer inperticular, get this game.

Yeah, it's not a 9.5 or 10, but it sure isn't a 7.5. That score is absurd. It's a definate 8.5 in my opinion. You wanna talk about full priced expansion packs? Lets talk about you BS ratings for Madden every year! tweak the graphics a bit and update the rosters...thats great originality lets give it a 9.5 or 10.

Thank you Ryan. Its good to see that someone understands where I'm coming from. This is a totally justifiable score. This game does nothing new to innovate as COD4 did, it is a simple rehash of it. Games should be awarded top scores for innovating and inventing. Bioshock, Mass effect, Fallout 3, Left 4 Dead: all these titles innovated and were awarded for it. COD5 may be a good game, but why pay $60 for a game you already own?

You're kidding, right, Ryan? I mean, this has to be a prank or something. The game is way better than this. Seriously.

See, this is what I mean.
ColbertFanatic is stating an opinion, nobody is paying him for something as infantile as his view of World at War. I have no problem with what he wrote other than I think it's just dumb, but he is certainly entitled to it. The vast majority of reviewers took the time to go over World at War instead of regurgitating the same posting vomit that IW fanboys have been spewing for quite some time now.

Colbert Putin 08'

I can't see any problem with the review. It's as predictable a game as you could have anticipated. The pure fact that infinity ward wasn't involved should have been enough for people to see this was just a mod of modern warfare and just another way to make bucks in between the next big update. With all the other quality games in the pipeline why pick up something that i've already played for a year and invest the money and time in it. Maybe if the guns actually fired with some resemblance of a WW2 weapon like in valve's DOD or COD2 I would be able to appreciate this more. But when I'm shooting a thompson and its straight as an arrow on full auto that just doesn't do that for me. Modern Warfare was a great game but skinning it texas chainsaw style and putting a nice new coat on it does not make it anything worth talking about. It would be nice if gaming studios actually cared about the product they were putting out and not just worried about hitting a deadline to release another title. I'm all about a good sequel but don't piss in cup and call it lemonade.


I think this is deserving of passion towards this review. Treyarch obviously showed they have the skills to make a great game with a ton of features (most of which were barely even acknowledged by this guy).

The reviews that were fair, broke down the game, talked about the immersion, the co-op, the scale, the zombies and the multiplayer in depth. Some even referred to this game as nearly budget priced with everything that Treyarch offered in this game.

This review reminded me of all the idiotic posts that I have read in the past year when everyone heard Treyarch is making a WW2 CoD..."OMG, not WW2 again, this is a re-skin of Modern Warfare, Treyarch sucks" etc etc. This was the most juvenile approach to a review that I have read, followed by the most unworthy score I have seen in quite some time, by a group I thought was reliable.


I do realize people use reviews to decide what they will purchase (It's really the only reason for a review to exist or be read).
That's why I made mention that I believe reviewers should hold games to stricter standards than consumers do. I also believe that they should demand more and more from developers for each subsequent sequel.

However, as I said before, I don't think this game is a sequel to COD IV, but to COD 3. Until Activision seperates the two lines instead of presenting them as a continuing product line to cash in on the marketing, the comparisons will continue.

In the end I think it's better to find reviewers you trust, read reviews that dissent from that, try demos, then decide for yourself if you want to buy, rent, wait for the bargain bin, or pass on a game completely. As you said, their opinion is a tool for you to use to decide if you want to buy the game. It's not something to be poured over when you've already bought it and formed your own opinion. If you paid for it and love it, Yay for you! You got something that's obviously worth the money to you.

Honestly I don't see why there isn't this much passion and dialogue when a game is overrated - that's when I'd get annoyed.

I completely agree with pro and i agree with the guy who said that reviews are just opinions. Ryan, you disgust me. To the guy who said "reviews are just opinions", you fail to realize that reviews from prestigious sites such as OXM tend to determine whether people buy the games. I base how I spend my money on games i want by the average score from big game reviewers and even then I think about whether I really want the game or not. Also, how can you say CoD:WoW doesn't break any new ground? Call of Duty 4 broke no ground whatsoever, it was just really fun. Call of Duty 5 in my opinion is everything CoD4 could have been, and other commentors seem to agree. Also, you reviewed the game entirely by comparing it to CoD4. You didn't talk about Co-Op, Nazi Zombie mode, the differences in multiplayer, or even the more simplistic menu design. All it was throughout the review was "This feels too much like CoD4." How is that a bad thing, anyway? If you give CoD4 a 10 but say here that they are the same on many fronts, how does that get CoD5 such a low score? Did you even PLAY the game before you reviewed it? Compared to this review, Meghan's reviews are great. Quit your job, Ryan. It's obvious you can't put your prejudice and stupidity behind you to do something as simple as reviewing a video game.

Ok i don't mean to be mean but why in both recent reviews that you have done do you reference something else that has nothing to do with the game. In this one you do Star trek and then with Gears you reference Halo 3, which in my opinion i though was better than Halo 3. I truly believe that Treyarch bettered themselves with this game and proved that no longer have to be looked down upon. Your review does not reflect this, and I know OXM says that 7.5 is a good score but you compare it Call of Duty 3, which i though a pretty mediocre game, you say it is worse and that there really hasn't been any improvement. I have to disagree with you on almost all levels. I respect the magazine, i've a been a subscriber for two years,but this, for me, is a low point in many ways that I can't even begin to explain.

ReigninBlood, I was mainly talking to everyone complaining about the score and not you directly. I was kind of unnerved ill admit but thats because of th people complaing about the half a point difference in Gears 2. Sorry OXM about the swearing in my last comment.


I think that a review, of anything, is just an opinion. It's not a factual measurement of anything and therefore is a very tricky thing to argue against. Name your favorite movie, song, food or brand of underwear and someone out there will absolutely hate Spider-man 2, Stayin' Alive, Peanut butter-marshmallow sandwiches and boxer-briefs.
Ryan's sick of firing videogame M1 Garands, I'm not. How do you argue that?
You can debate an opinion, but you can't prove it wrong. If someone thinks King John signed the Magna Carta in 1492, you can prove them wrong, but if they think Runnymeade is a great place to dance nude...well you can disagree, but then what? They like to shake it in the buff in England, more power to 'em

On the other side of things, if a reviewer has such an extreme bias against a genre, he should take a pass on the review ( I would be a terrible country music reviewer "crap, crap, crap...she's kind of pretty um, semi-crap, crap crap.... But, I think we can't assume he just hates all WWII games - let me rephrase that obviously some people "can", so I'll just say I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And, I do agree that there should have been a mention of the co-op, because many people (myself included) specifically look for co-op games to buy. So, as another suggestion for the magazine, maybe a nice sidebar breakdown that lists all the modes and features of a game.

Your point about Ryan being a paid, prffessional reviewer is exactly why he needs to be fair and objective given his level of influence on the consumers.
Ryan is totally entitled to his opinion - but should know well enough to leave that in a paragraph or two of a review, not the entire review. And certainly not score the game on his personal opinion. Score it on its merits.
CoD5 has so many new features Ryan conveniently left out because it didn't support his opinion. That's what's wrong about this review.


I understand your point and your position. Trust me I do. Let me clarify by saying that my end comment was just to illustrate that "I" wasn't arguing about Ryan's score or trying to justify it. Not to say that others can't, or that they are wrong to. Nor even to say that I agree with his score. I've already bought the game based on my enjoyment of the beta (haven't tried it since I am, at this moment, waiting for UPS and my previously red-ringed box to arrive)

Personally, I think that as long as someone tries to be respectful and doesn't make blanket assumptions about a reviewer's reasons for giving a certain score (Evil Microsoft, ex-girlfriend works at Treyarch, Ubisoft bribes, etc.), debate and differing opinions are great. I think OXM would be wise to introduce an opposite opinion with some of their reviews (as some sites and publications do), assuming there is one.

In the end a review is just an opinion, it should be an informed one and an honest one, but an opinion just the same. Bias and expectation (positive and negative) will always exist, no matter how hard an individual tries to remain objective.

A paid, professional reviewer will, a maybe should, have a more critical and harsher standard than the consumer. I don't know if they can avoid it, look at movie critics or food critics - after so much input it takes the truly special to stand out.

In the end the only opinion that should matter is your own.

Personally I thought Halo 3 was overrated, co-op, multiplayer = great - campaign = "blah", but that's just my opinion and worth less than paper it's not printed on.

I'll start by pointing out, Ryan just reviewed Call of Duty: World at War LOWER than Call of Duty 3... Really Ryan? Really?
Ryan is NOT a reliable reviewer, and he's proved it with this single column. Allow me to explain.
First, he is not reviewing Call of Duty: World at War. He's reviewing "Treyarch's (not Infinity Ward's) Call of Duty game" - he has reviewed the game with a clear biased to a few things: Treyarch as a company, WW2 as a genre, and Modern Warfare as the "can do no wrong" bar.
First, many examples he provides for why CoD5 breaks no new ground could be used for why CoD4 has broken no ground. This franchise is built upon the cinematic, epic battle sequences. When CoD4 came out, guess what the reviews said: "The same cinematic intensity you've come to expect from a Call of Duty game!" - So why, Ryan, would you ding CoD5 for keeping that intact?
You wouldn't if you were a serious reviewer. You would realize the fact that CoD5 singleplayer is just as intense is a great, neutral factor, which shouldn't impact the score in any way. You used it to give it a negative weight.
You also ignored Co-Op, conveniently. It's only the biggest feature to hit Call of Duty since PERKs. I guess you're saving the Co-Op acclaims for when IW releases their next game. You also glossed over Nazi Zombies like it's a mode the entire world isn't clammering over.
You mentioned nothing about Tanks, Squads, or the Party improvements made in MP (everything every CoD4 gamer asked for got done) - more create-a-class slots, bonuses for prestige, "leave with party", lobby host migration, more leaderboards... You're just ignoring these because you have a chip on your shoulder either against Treyarch or WW2, or both.
The grossest part of this review is it's score. Amidst the average 9.0 ratings, as high as 10/10, and as low as 4/5, you've chosen to give it a 75% - LOWER than Call of Duty 3. So a game, which you are admitting is at least on-par with CoD4, you are claiming makes it worse than CoD3.
You, sir, are a joke. End of story.

Everyone shut the heck up, Ryan is one of the best at OXM and is not biased towards ANY game, Gears of War 2 deserved a MUCH better score than COD WAW, I'm sick of you guys all whinning, your all mad because this isnt like COD 4. And Im sorry but at the begining they said, THIS ISNT COD 4. Its different and It is not as great deserving a 7.5, Ryan you did a superb job!

Gamertag: PlayerHaterz

lately this has been happening with all of your third party reviews except for fallout three. im sorry but either you thrash a good game and praise a bad one like legendary. (how can legendary be like half life i cant find the comparison. why does gears, being superbly better than the first and only improved be considered worse than the first and receive a 9.5? how does a serious goty candidate like dead space get a 6.5? how does legendary and fracture compare to cod waw. im sorry but this magazine has lost all credibility with me. i will still subscribe because i love youra articles but i will be subscribing to game informer and gamepro for the reviews. enough is enough.

I liked what you said, up until the last part. An opinion is what we are doing, by posting. What this "reviewer" is doing is reviewing a game, one game, not two different games like he did here.

He reviewed this game while having a bias toward WW2 games in general and Treyarch, his numbers fall well below the norm of real reviews that actually judged the game on it's content. Insulting Treyarch by calling WaW an expansion pack or the fact that he doesn't like shooting garands are petty at best. Mix that with a Microsoft agenda to sell as many first party titles of Gears 2 instead of third party titles like CoD, and you have this review. I think it's shameful.

I do agree however that the CoD series should be differentiated between the two devs, so people like this can't make these kind of reviews.

phantomofthearcade. Ya. CoD 4's Campaign is better (though I must say Planting the flag is awsome). They're both Fantastic games. Oh, anyone reading this. If you like Call of Duty as a whole, you'll never regret buying this game.

Also, Greyman7, You nailed it. Make to seperate franchises. That ought to clear things up.

I think at this point, since Activision is obviously going to continue a leapfrogging pattern of Call of Duty titles between Treyarch and Infinity Ward, they need to truly differentiate the two titles. They can keep the "World at War" subheading for Treyarch's continuing games in the WWII setting and have "Modern Warfare" for Infinity Ward's present day setting games. Then the "Call of Duty" moniker can shift into a marketing tag the way "Tom Clancy's" has become for Ubisoft ( I can't wait for Tom Clancy's: Puppy Superstars!)
I mention this because I really think this title is more of a sequel to Call of Duty 3 than Call of Duty IV (I'm sure Infinity Ward would agree). I get that Treyarch pretty much copied the Modern Warfare pattern and just repainted it with Imperial Japanese and Lucky Strike toting GI's (which sounds like a very good thing considering the problems with COD 3), it just would be more accurate to judge it against Treyarch's previous game. I'm sure we'll get to judge Modern Warfare 2, um 5? 6?..whatever next year and see what Infinity Ward has for us then, which in turn will let us know what Treyarch will be copying, etc., wash, rinse, repeat.
I also would, respectfully, like to echo a request for there to be a little more care in wording the reviews to avoid giving away too many plot points. Sure, once the game is several months old, it's not really a "spoiler" anymore - but two days is a bit quick.
Lastly, none of the previous is any justification or argument for or against your score. As long as it is your honest opinion, that's all that's important.

I really want this game. But it disapponits me and i get a little angry that you give this game a 7.5. WTF!!! More like a 9 or higher come on you no that this game deserves a higher score.................

I won't pick on Ryan's review, but the 9th Star Trek film was fun, and the 10th one sucked...so there.


Give me a break. Your doing the same thing the reviewer is doing, making assumptions. Same gameplay? yea, first person shooter and it's Call of Duty, not much has separated Cod 1 til today as far as the core gameplay goes, but it has always been successful for many as being fun at its core, and you can only imagine the reviewer's score if Treyarch totally abandoned CoD gameplay.

There are two campaigns that have barely been approached in the WW2 genre of games, The Reichstag push and the Pacific campaign, both were done incredibly well, CoD4 was never on my mind when I was going through those amazing jungle areas or the streets of Berlin.

When you trivialize Treyarch's efforts, you sound no better than this reviewer, who clearly came into this review with an agenda.

I don't know I even pay to get this magazine. This was a horrible review.
This is simply another example of a reviewer using the power he or she has and instead of reviewing the game for what it is, it is constant comparison to a game that the company did not even make.

Other sites have given this game a 9.1, 9.2, explaining the wonderful graphics, presentation and the portrayal of the most realistic WWII game ever created. They did not score it higher than Gears of War 2, but they acquisced that this game had big shoes to fill (modern warfare vs. WWII) and they did it well - giving us a portrait of what some of our grandfathers went through.

I would not be saying this if I had not been noticing it lately from OXM - this is why I go else where for simply unbiased reviews - reviews that take the game for what it is and what it was meant to be - Originality??? maybe a flying saucer should beem down and zap the Japanese positions??? Please!

From what I have seen from previous WWII games, this is certainly not a "play-it-safe-sequel" but what it was.

"With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility" - Uncle Ben

-and podcast

i have one word to sum up your review...
what the hell oxm...the review is supposed to help me decide if i want to buy it or not.
now it seems like all your reviews are too short and just stink.
now adays i enjoy reading the gamesradar reviews alot more than yours.
i still greatly enjoy your magazine every month though.

Everyone needs to calm down. Seriously. Let's think about this:

All you people are saying that just because a game sticks to the original tried and true formula that it should not get a lower score. Fair enough. BUT, using this logic... Let's say I make a FPS game, and it gets a 9.5 from OXM. And then next year I put out a game eerily familiar--same gameplay, same graphics, same pretty much everything with a few new guns, game modes, and a different setting. Would OXM have to give my game at least a 9.5? No! In fact, they would and should give it a lower score, due to the fact that they basically already played it.

Plus, Ryan probably enjoyed CoD4 more than CoD:WaW, since CoD4 was a fresh experience... and isn't the review score a reflection of how much the reviewer enjoyed the game?

So people, think about what you're really saying before you criticize an opinion of someone else.

Wow, way to ruin some of CoD 4 for the people whoa re still playing it. I'm sure theres more new stuff than a flamethrower.

This video player requires Flash 9 Player or later. Please download the latest Flash Player.


The OXM Disc