More Reviews
REVIEWS Samurai Warriors Chronicles 3 Review
Have you played Dynasty Warriors or Samurai Warriors before? Of COURSE you have. So what makes THIS one different?

FINAL FANTASY XIV: Heavensward Review
Final Fantasy XIV's first expansion has arrived, and it delivers a new adventure with plenty of dragons to battle.
More Previews
PREVIEWS Etrian Odyssey 2 Untold: The Faf Preview
Etrian Odyssey 2 Untold: The Fafnir Knight has a long name, but don't make fun of it. It can kick your ass.
Release Dates
NEW RELEASES Lost Dimension
Release date: 07/28/15


LEADERBOARD
Read More Member Blogs
FEATURED VOXPOP whytenoiz ~~        When I was eleven years old, it was a very good year, and I can remember my daily routine vividly. These were the years before I owned a Sony Playstation, and I used to venture to my friends house - everyday after school - to watch him play through Final...

Call of Duty: World at War Member Review for the Xbox360

ACDC345 By:
ACDC345
02/18/09
PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
EMAIL TO A FRIEND
GENRE FPS 
PLAYERS 1- 18 
PUBLISHER Activision Blizzard 
DEVELOPER Treyarch 
RELEASE DATE  
M Contains Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language

What do these ratings mean?

Slowly I settled down on the couch to play Call of Duty World at War. The first thing that ran through my mind was, "Dude, this is basically Modern Warfare, in the 1940s!" I'm not entirely sure if this can be considered a good or a bad thing. To start off, I'd say that this game for the most part was, okay. Believe me, this game wasn't all that bad, it just felt, used. Think back to Medal of Honor:Rising Sun. That was one of the worst games I'd ever played, and Japanese, well they just don't feel like something that belongs in World War 2. The same goes for Call of Duty World at War, for the most part. The Russian levels, were, familiar, but they were familiar enough that they were more enjoyable than the American levels . The only problem I had with the Russian levels was the tank mission. If they were doing as Modern Warfare did, they should have completely left out the tank mission(if you want to avoid the tank mission, and have a friend or friends, more than one controller and somerwhere for them to put their butts then I advise playing this game in split screen multiplayer or online). The American levels, they got boring pretty fast. The biggest kick I got was using a flamethrower to burn out a group of Japs, and impaling them with a bayonet. Otherwise, the American missions were basically fighting Nazi's that are in the jungle, and charge out of nowhere at you. Enough ratting on the American levels, now lets move onto the zombie part of the review. Yep, I said zombies. As rediculous as it may sound, on a multiplayer, or singleplayer leisure mission, you fight, Nazi Zombies. Basically you and 3 other dudes fight off zombies in an old building, resembling one of the buildings in one of the American levels. If your reading all of this just to hear about the online multiplayer, then boy do I have a big dissapointment for you. I don't play online so if you want to here about it either go back and play Modern Warfares online play, or read GR's review. So all in all Call of Duty World at War is almost a play it safe sequel, and it just wasn't as good as Modern Warfare.


More information about Call of Duty: World at War
 
comments powered by Disqus

More On GameRevolution