Call of Duty: World at War

I am done with your magazine. You are so full of FAIL! A 7.5 is insane! I read a review that was pretty similar to Gears of War 2 that received a 9.5.

WAW was a pretty safe sequel with great MP. Gears 2 MP has been broken since day 1, and SP was a pretty safe sequel.

I call shenanigans!

shaardu
on what basis did u give 7odd..this game deserves 9.5..this has got all..i loved it more than cod 4..music,graphics,action..everything is superb...i think u hav to review this game once more...

Well, I played it and I liked it but CoD MW is still better. It deserves at least 8 or 8.5.

deserves 8.5 most 8.0 least just because it doesnt seem the 60 dollars worth for it because they didnt have to put in as much work as the people who made COD4 and my friend and i played through campaign on regular and we were done with it in like 4 hours
BTW: isnt the first time pacific campaign was first explored battlestations midway and a game that is an FPS medal of honor rising sun

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/callofduty5/review.html?om_act=co...

Here's a better review.

Pretty Bad Review Ryan This Game Def Deserved An 8.5 At Least I Don't Get It U Wanted 2 B Different Since Everyone Was Givin It Good Scores

8.5 at least. And this is CoD5. Infinity Ward is handling CoD6, so the reports say.

I was not a treyarch fan before this game because of cod3 but this game deserves an 8.5 at least. Cod4 was the best game ever made imo

this game is fun.but i still prefer COD4 just because of the cool weapons and characters.
i give it an 8.5 for:

great graphics
realistic WWII weapons
online is fun
good campaign

I heard the game was really buggy, please tell me thats not true!

This game deserves a 8.5 at least.

@g.daniels

CoD:WaW is NOT CoD 5. Infinity Ward will be developing that one.

Its the same way GTA: Vice City was not GTA IV and San Andreas was not GTA V. Their new games on the same engine.

I believe they always build a new engine (or make significant upgrades to the existing one) when these franchises have a new "numbered" game.

I somewhat agree that maybe the game should have received an 8 but at the very least I think Ryan did the just thing to do in reviewing the game. Yes, the game play was smooth, error free and looked great but many people are overlooking the main point..this is COD 5! 5 games have been released and all world at war did was take COD 4 and copy it over a WW2 backdrop. How many WW2 games have there been to date? I admit, COD 5 was fun and I did love the campaign but it seemed to short, felt like an expansion and simply didn't throw anything knew into gamers faces. There was no lasting impression after playing the campaign that, man this is a great game that did the history and scale of WW2 justice. But that's why there's the multiplayer I guess.

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.

ScreamngSilence

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)

Hey,
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.

Sincerely,
HaLo_StAr_GaMeR

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?

COD WAW and GEARS 2

so...

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.
8.5.

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'
http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/colbert-lockwood.jpg

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.

Greyman7

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.

MLGangster,

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.

proSolve980,

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.

Greyman7
---
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.

Bangboom,

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.