Video Game Analysis: Call of Duty: World at War

I'm starting a series of threads, each beginning with "Video Game Analysis". These threads will be used to discuss and debate about how good a game truly is. Readers are encouraged to tell us what they think about a game as well as respond to others thoughts. If you do so, however, be sure to post your reasoning and not just blindly praise a game

If anyone else wishes to start one of these threads for a game that I have not done (likely because I have not played it), feel free to do so. All I ask is that you make the title in the same fashion as I have.



Call of Duty: World at War is the fifth major installment in the Call of Duty series. For the most part, it is a complete copy off of Call of Duty 4, but taken back in time to World War 2. Because of this, a few changes had to be made, such as replacing helecopters with dogs and adding bolt action rifles. The most notable additions to the series, however, were the introduction of the flamethrower and the ability to drive vehicles in select multiplayer maps.

Another highly anticipated addition to the game was the ability to unlock to Nazi Zombies game after completing the campaign, which was effectively the World at War equivalent to the Epilogue game in Call of Duty 4. This started out as a bit of an afterthought, locking a small team of men in a building, but it grew into the biggest contributing factor in separating Call of Duty: World at War from Call of Duty 4.

Because of the inability to logically incorporate many of the favored weapons and tactics from Call of Duty 4 into a World War 2 setting, most people dislike playing Call of Duty: World at War's online matchmaking system. The well defined storyline from Call of Duty 4 also disappeared, leaving gamers with a lot of glitter but no plot for the World at War campaign. The deathcards and online co-op helped to preserve the fun in replaying the campaign, but the loss of a basic plot holds it back.

Three map packs have been released for the game now, each conveniently named Map Pack 1, 2, and 3. I have purchased all three, but can honestly say that I don't care at all about the mutliplayer maps. The true highlight of the map packs are the Nazi Zombies maps, which are constantly outdoing eachother. While I almost never play matchmaking on World at War, I find myself playing Nazi Zombies almost as much as every other game combined.

In the end, if you have Call of Duty 4, I would not suggest spending $40 on World at War. The only reason I play it is because of the three additional Nazi Zombie maps, which cost $10 each. I would not suggest spending $70 to get these four games. However, if you already have World at War, I highly suggest buying at least the two most recent map packs (which come with Shi No Numa and Der Riese) as the Nazi Zombie games alone will likely give you your money's worth.

Well you pretty much hit it on the spot.

Oh and, vehicles fucking suck monkey cock.

I didn't like WaW, at all. CoD 4 is great, I love it. So It's not that I don't like the games and that I'm a Halo fanboy. But WaW was boring.

Can't wait for MW2 though.

Well...

I really hate everything other than Nazi zombies excluding russian campgain.

Red Orchestra > CoD: World at War

I love World at War!

I stopped playing CoD 4 for the most part when I got it.
Say what you want about it, but it will always have two things that CoD 4 can never have: Kiefer Sutherland and Sgt. Reznov.

Captain Price > Sgt. Reznov

...
Why must you turn my office into a house of LIES!

Its true

A vat of acid to the face> WaW.

LIES!

I kinda like it, but yeah, it IS just a C+P of CoD 1, 2, 3, 4.

Vigil wrote:A vat of acid to the face> WaW.

Why?

CivBase wrote:

Vigil wrote:A vat of acid to the face> WaW.

Why?

Would you like the list?

Not that you'll listen. As you are very bias.