Avis sur le produitCall of Duty World at War BC - Microsoft Xbox 360

Call of Duty: World at War

Note that this is a review of the single player campaign, as I don't have Xbox-Live Gold. Running on the Call of Duty 4 engine, World at War is essentially a World War II version of the Modern Warfare series; not only is it identical graphically, the cut-scenes preceding every mission is done in the same style, beginning with an overview of the globe, and eventually zooming in to the character that you'll be playing as. Naturally, Treyarch decided to go with that style after the success of Modern Warfare and the sub-par results from Call of Duty 3. The gore level has also been increased as well, making the game more realistic and gritty, such as arms, legs, and heads being blown off. Even though it is niether surprising nor exciting that Activision opted to go back to the second world war, they decided to do something different this time: that is, you play as an American soldier in the Pacific front against the Imperial Japanese. I was also pleased to find that you get to play as a Soviet soldier in both the Soviet Union and Germany, which was one of my favorite series of missions in Call of Duty 2; it was nice to finally play a role in one of the final battles of the war, which was the taking of the Reichstag, since in all of the other games you only seem to pave the way to a later victory. The addition of the flame-thrower, along with the ability to set palm trees ablaze using it, also added spice to the run-and-gun gameplay. Some of the levels were also quite challenging on Veteran, particularly Burn E'm Out and The Heart of the Reich, forcing me to adopt new tactics that weren't necessary for lower difficulties. Like Treyarch's other Call of Duty game, the soundtrack is good, although the game itself is just a few paces behind Infinity Ward's releases. The Nazi Zombies bonus game found at the end of the campaign is also an effective way to add some variety to the standard World War II shooting gameplay, although its best played with others. Hopefully Activision will move away from World War II, and make a Call of Duty game based on some of the other wars in history, like the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, the Korean War, Vietnam, or the Gulf Wars.Lire l'avis complet...

World at War (Call of Duty 5) Medal of Honor is Better!

Yes EA has declined in their quality with the Medal of Honor series, but there has yet to be a sucessful challenger overall. WAW just feels like Modern Warfare with a WWII patch. The graphics are good, but the gameplay and controls are second rate compared to MOH. I mean you can't even duck behind cover and peek out, you have to actually move (slowly) into the open and back in a shootout. I believe MOH has allowed you peek since at least Frontline (Best WWII Shooter of all time, too bad it lacked multiplayer). I think even Goldeney on the N64 had the feature. I don't understand why COD doesn't. Anyway, take a lesson Activision. EA, also, take note, get your act together and clean up the MOH franchise with your next release, go back to what made Frontline and European Assault, even Rising Sun (at least it had decent online play) Classics, with HD graphics and solid online/multiplayer and Medal of Honor will be restored in its Honor. Peace.Lire l'avis complet...

Call of Duty: World at War-Better than Modern Warfare?

Ever since Call of Duty 4:Modern Warfare, the Call of Duty Series have been known by many to be the best War game out there. But, can Call of Duty: World At War keep the fire burning?

First off, let's talk about the single player campaign (which is also playable with 3 other players over Xbox Live/PSN). The campaign is short, being about 5-6 hours long. There's great voice acting by actors Kiefer Sutherland (24), and Gary Oldman (The Dark Knight). You follow the stories of two different soldiers in the Russian and American Armies. The campaign is short, but sweet. The addition of the flamethrower in some levels is likely to keep players busy because the environment is destructible (meaning that you can set trees on fire and engulf people). If you are good enough to beat the campaign, then you unlock my favorite part of the game, "NAZI ZOMBIES." It's a game mode where you are trapped in a building, and endless waves of zombies attack the building (this is also playable with 3 other gamers on Xbox Live/PSN). I rate the campaign mode- 3.5/5

Now, multiplayer mode is where the game really shines! If you were a fan of the previous installment's online multiplayer, then get ready to have that same experience over again! It's based on a ranking system where you rank up every time you earn a certain amount of points, while the more you rank up, you unlock things like better weapons and perks. Perks are upgrades to help you have an edge on the battlefield. Examples are "Stopping Power," which makes your bullets do more damage, and "Martyrdom," which makes you drop a live grenade after everytime you die. If you do well with your weapons, then you can add things such as scopes, bigger ammunition cartridges, bayonets, etc.
There are 9-10 maps, and there are different game modes such as:Team Deathmatch, Free for All, Search and Destroy, Sabotage, War, Headquarters, and more... It doesn't matter if you are an experienced Call of Duty player, or a beginner who wants a bit of fun, this game is well suited for about everyone's tastes. I rate the online multiplayer- 4.5/5

I decided to buy this game because I was a fan of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, so I expected the same thing, and what I got was the same thing with a WWII twist. But, this game is rated M (for mature). There is a lot of Strong Language, and this is definitely the most graphic, and violent war game ever created. So, look online about the game's content, and if you think it's OK for your kid, or whoever you are buying it for, then just get it...

Overall, the game is a: 4.5/5Lire l'avis complet...

Not Too Shabby

As a game efficianado, I want to get my money's worth for every game I purchase. Some of the major titles out today are great, but they are not exactly worth the $60 dollar price tag. World at War falls into that catagory. It's not the best FPS in the world, but it is a very good one.

Call of Duty (5):World At War is yet another installment to the WWII timeline in Activision's shooter franchise. While I do like the Call of Duty series, I must say that the division, Infinity Ward, the creators of the original COD, COD 2, Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2, is the much better developer than Treyarch, the creator of COD 3 and COD: WAW. Infinity Ward as a knack for giving player a fun and challenging shooter with a cinematic feel to it. There are many times when I played Modern Warfare and COD 2 and was impressed by the solid gameplay, surprises, and the presentation of how visceral the battlefields of war truly are. Treyarch really doesn't have that feeling.

Treyarch's COD 3 and WAW are fun, but they aren't really the best. They have the same solid gameplay, but the story in their COD games are sub-par. You take the role of some random soldier and basically grab a gun, shoot/blow up/knife everything that stands in the way of your objective. Characters aren't really drawn out and everything is over before you know it.

The new addition of the flamethrower makes the combat interesting, but it gets a little old after a while. The missions that involve the flamethrower are all the same; nothing new ever happens with it. All you do is burn trees, bunkers, and fields to defeat waves of enemy units. That's about it. Its a fun weapon to use, but I think the usage could have been improved.

One last issue with the game is the fact that enemies can have endless amounts of reinforcements. I've been playing Veteran mode, the toughest setting, and have gotten a tad bit annoyed with this problem. I cleared out many areas, and double checked to make sure I was safe. The second I try to reload my weapon, another horde of Banzai killing machines spring from no where and attack. This doesn't end, unfortunately, until you progress to your next objective, where even more soldiers come...with grenades! Lots and lots and lots and lots of grenades. Most of my deaths have been from grenades in this mode. I toss one grenade back and I get five more to dodge...while I'm stuck behind cover. It's very frustrating.

The game has many good moments though. The gameplay is addicting, the multiplayer is a lot of fun. The best part of this game is the Nazi Zombie mode. You can join up with three other players and defend a position from invading nazi zombies. It sounds rediculous at first, but the game mode is great. It's all about survival and how well you defend yourself, as well as your friends, from zombicidal maniacs.

The game is overall very good, but this goes back to my original point. This game is not worth the $60 price tag, trust me. I got this one for the price of $30 and I am very happy with this purchase. It's a fun game if you want multiplayer and something short to go through the weekend with. It has some good moments, such as nods to WWII movies like Saving Private Ryan and Enemy At the Gates, and it features a great voice cast, including 24's Kiefer Sutherland as Sgt. Roebuck. It's great game for 30 bucks and it should be picked up by fans of the COD series and WWII history buffs, but don't expect the best thing you've ever played.Lire l'avis complet...

Subtle improvements to multiplayer and a solid campaign

Let me begin my review by saying COD: World at War is quite a game. It's a big challenge for the series for two reasons: first, Treyarch is developing it, and we saw what a smoldering piece of ... you know, that Call of Duty 3 was. Second, the game is YET AGAIN going back into World War 2, which has already been lived BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of times in a video game. So when I first heard about its announcement, it scared me that the Call of Duty franchise might be headed on a downward course.

Instead, Treyarch delivers with a unique game. The campaign is quite good, and while I haven't finished it, it has been challenging and enjoyable. Plus, who can complain with the addition of a flamethrower and Molotov Cocktails? Practically no one, unless you are afraid of fire, and if you are, this most definitely is not the game for you. As many game reviewers have said, I concur of its more brutal feeling. The game opens with a brutal torture scene and Americans laying down raunchy language (a lot I do not recommend if you are under 17) and stays brutal throughout the level. It really gets you into the campaign. The co-op mode is solid as well, but the lack of the achievements in co-op means that you'll have to keep playing the levels again and again, and most likely only hardcore completionists will do that.

Finally, to the multiplayer. Let me tell you I have spent 3 prestiges on CoD4 and have enjoyed every minute of it. Now, onwards to CoD: World at War. Treyarch has fine-tuned the experience and has created a much better multiplayer experience. The first addition I really liked is the assist-kill system. Instead of getting only two points if you assist in a kill, like in CoD4, you get the amount of points out of 10 based off of how much damage you inflict. This is a very welcome addition which means you'll get more points if you push a guy all the way into Last Stand, for instance, and someone else kills him. Second, the way you unlock weapon upgrades feels much better, and you unlock a silencer before a scope. I like this because I like to be sneaky instead of loud. But that's just my preference. Finally, the addition of vehicles is welcome as well, as it mixes up the action. The only issue I have is that I feel the tanks are invincible if you aren't in a tank as well. Also, the order in which you unlock tank perks are weak, as it will take you many levels to upgrade your tank to a faster speed.

Overall, Treyarch did an admirable job. It still is not addicting as Call of Duty 4, but for those looking to extend the experience, you have a wealth of options available to you. Hopefully the next game brings another war besides World War 2.

GRAPHICS 10
GAMEPLAY 9
STORY 8
ONLINE 10
OVERALL 8.5/10Lire l'avis complet...

Not as good as COD4, But almost.

Call of Duty: World at War is essentially a WWII version of COD4 but with a few extra features. Though COD4 had allot of blood and gore, COD5 took that a step farther by adding detachable limbs. The AI in COD4 were smart, but lacked the element of surprising you from cover, in COD5 the enemies will use everything from tall grass to the uniforms of dead soldiers to surprise you.
In COD4 the the multilayer weapons were more machine gun based. the multilayer in COD5 is more rife based making the online much more challenging and just as fun. The only down side to the multilayer in COD5 is that the maps do not compare with those of COD4 at all, they lack the vast variations of terrain and cover seen in COD4. The maps (in both multilayer and single player) are much more dismal and destroyed without much beauty or work put into designing them.
Another downside is that most guns lack the ability to shoot through walls like they did in COD4, this may be because Activision was trying to make the game more WWII realistic but I still see it as a flaw.
The sound acting lacks realism and is a bit dry. For instance, the quotes said at the end of a multilayer that differ between what team you were on and whether you won or lost lack all enthusiasm and are somewhat monotone. The voice acting in single player is not much better, because it is the same actors playing the roles.
The largest flaw in the game is simply the fact that it takes place in WWII. There are so many WWII games out there that it almost makes me sick every time I play one, because we all know how the game is going to end (with the victorious allies, or the victory at Normandy, just plain German and Japanese butt kicking, blah blah blah). For this reason mostly, I believe the game should get between a 4 and 4.5 out of 5. If Activision had not put the game in the overcrowded WWII genre, then I would have probably rated it 5 out of 5 because the game is really well done.
Though the game is not as good as COD4, it comes close. And after all COD4 is allot to live up too with its 10 out of 10 rating.

This review in a nutshell:

Highs:
Better death animations
Better AI
More Rifle Based

Lows:
Maps aren't the best
Dry Voice acting
WWII Genre

Rating:
4 to 4.5 out of 5 (about an 85%)Lire l'avis complet...

An excellent addition to the CoD franchise

While CoD 4 was undoubtedly one of the best strategic shooters ever made, it had it's one downfall in the CoD universe. It was modern. CoD was and always has been a WWII shooter game, putting the player directly in the trenches with naught but some grenades, his favorite rifle, and maybe a faithful friend or sergeant at their back. It was a decadent cross between fast passed run-and-guns (Halo, anyone?) and strategic survival games. Well World at War does what we CoD 4 failed to do, bring the greatest strategic shooter into the days of Nazis, Red Army Conscripts, and colorful American nicknames (I can think of five good nicknames for Sgt. Roebuck). The same fast paced play that made CoD 4 a success is still very much evident and the utter lack of health in multiplayer puts an emphasis on strategic use of weapons, sights, and the ever faithful HUD. There is hardly an update (if any at all) to the graphics of 4 but the different setting and almost Film Noir look brings the 40's to life and accents between the two games. All in all it is an excellent game that i think should be in the library of every FPS player worth his saltLire l'avis complet...

Call of Duty: World at War (Xbox 360, 2008)

This is a great game to get. People say that Call of Duty Modern Warfare is great but this is a classic. We reviewed the game here are some great features about the game
~ A nice selection of good weapons
~ One of the best graphics for World War II games
~ Great multiplayer action and still has about 25,000 people playing this game online
~ Nazi Zombies, one of the great features about the game. A endless wave of zombies and fun!
~ The game is not too long or too short. Perfect gameplay
~ Challenging Veteran Gameplay (Check out our walkthrough and tips for Veteran Gameplay for Call of Duty: World at War)
OVERALL RATINGS:
Multiplayer: 8.5/10
Graphics: 8/10
Storyline:9/10
Weapons: 8/10
Bonus Feature Nazi Zombies: 10/10
We give the game a good 9/10
You should definitely consider getting this game for Xbox 360.
Please checkout our other reviews and definitely our items as they start out at a low price of only $0.99!
Thank you very much,
~prime-electronics-storeLire l'avis complet...

Call of duty WAW (review)

Call of duty: World at War, by Treyarch, is an excellent game of the first-person shooter genre.
However, I was initially dissapointed by some of the characters in the game. Treyarch's excellent story in call of duty 2, big red one led me to expect more from the plotline of this game; in fact, some of the characters in the Russian campaign are unpleasent to play with. This is offset somewhat by the cooperative campaign play, which is not often seen in games of the genre. This play mode is enhanced, of course, by the infinite wave defense of the popular Nazi Zombie mode.
Noncooperative multiplayer offline, however, is hampered by the fact that like most FPS games, there are no bot opponets in local play. And since this game has no active radar, there is little action in that play mode, and it really seems a waste of time, because all the maps are large enough to never find another player.
The campaign is also short, and a bit tiresome at some parts, but only challenging at the highest difficulty settings.
Essentially, if you like to play FPS games with your friends, you can't go wrong with this game. If you are looking for really engaging plot, call of duty 2, for xbox 360, and Modern Warefare 2, are far better choices. An impressive showing, but as usual, Infinity Ward has Treyarch looking more like a cheap Indy company than they really are. If my expectations weren't so high, I'd probably consider it a better game; as it is though, there are better options for WWII fps gamesLire l'avis complet...

Waw

Waw is a good game on Xbox live it's 20 dollars here it's six you can't get much better that the graphics are great campaign is fun week the graphics are as good as bo1 you can only play tdm on multiplayer due to not enough players but the zombies is great witch is the only reason I bought a this game it's also backwards compatible for Xbox one so if your getting hyped for cod ww2 good thing to keep you busy:)

Lire l'avis complet...

Achat vérifié :  Oui | État : occasion | Vendu par : uniontradingcom...