Main Content

Customer Ratings & Reviews

Call of Duty: World at War - Xbox 360-Front_Standard

Customer rating

Rating 4.3 out of 5 stars with 514 reviews

87%
would recommend to a friend

Pros

Cons

Customer ratings & reviews

Filter:
Page 1, showing1-20 of 514 Reviews
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

    one of the best games I have ever played

    Posted
    jjt7035

    I dont know why people keep bashing this game , it plays just like COD 4 . the weapons are WW2 weapons but what did you expect with a WW2 game. there are plenty of weapons to choose from you just have to unlock them making it that more challenging. some people say that you start out with junk weapons but that is definately not true and you unlock the MP40 after being promoted after the first few promotions which is one of the best weapons , the next to unlock is the type 100 which is another fast shooting great weapon. people are also grumbling about the tanks because they say they are nearly indestructible which is of course not true. All you have to do is shoot it twice with a rocket launcher amd then a grenade and it is destroyed. this is true 99% of the time. I mean what did you expect ,it is a tank and its not supposed to be killed with a few shots from your gun or a grenade or two , it doesnt happen in real life why should it happen in the game. people also gripe about some of the boards being to dark and bad graphics. look all you have to do is go into the options in the game and go to brightness and turn it up all the way and it will be plenty bright enough ( I guarantee the people that say it is to dark never tried this). and talking about the graphics , the graphics on the game are great people that dont like the game are just trying to find more reasons to bash the game. the artillary strikes you get after 5 streight kills is just awsome much beltter than the air strikes on COD 4 , they are just devastating to an enemy if plced right. all you have to do is wait for one of your teamates to get a recon plane so you can see where the enemy is and then pumel them with your artillary strikes. after 7 streight kills you get to call the dogs to action and this is another great additive . call your dogs and follow them and they will lead you and your teamates to the enemy plus giving you extra kills like the helecopter on COD4. people also say the dogs are nearly indestructibe and this is also not true , you can either shoot them or if you don't want to give your position away kill them with your knife, its that simple , but learn to time your knife attack right or they will kill you , but it only takes a few times to get the hang of it. the boards are also just awsome, they are alot bigger than COD4 giving you more places to hide and move around in stealth to find the enemy. also in march treyarch the creator of the game is coming out with new map packs to download so you will have more boards to play on. ( I CAN'T HARDLY WAIT !!!!!!!!!!! ) . all I can say is that this is a great game and one that I can't wait to get home to play after I get home from work. I will not bash COD 4 because I own this one also and have enjoyed this game for many hours and still play it with my friends, we tend to alternate between the two but COD5 is my favorite. so if you buy this game and I think you should dont give up on it after the first few minutes because the more you play the better it gets , and believe me it is great. for the people that keep posting negative junk they either are not any good at the game or dont have the patience to unlock the better weapons on the game and think it should be handed to them like on COD4 . so dont listen to the negative junk and try it yourself buy it or rent it it doesnt matter you wont be disappointed. what I have just said in this review is based mostly on the online multiplayer part of this game but dont get me wrong the campaign is also one of the best.

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

    So-so, it's hard to explain

    Posted
    ziggybozbo

    The multiplayer of this game is pretty cool, but if you've played COD4, you'll want to go back. The two worst things about this game by far are your AI teammates and the enemy grenade spam. I'm not kidding about either of these; it is the most annoying thing in any video game. The teammates are COMPLETELY useless. Okay, they do occasionally take out a guy, but I've had COUNTLESS times where I run up, then get shot by an enemy next to me or behind me; BUT the worst thing is that my teammate is standing RIGHT NEXT to the enemy, and doesn't do anything. Grenade spams in this game are like no other. You are prone (or crouched, doesn't matter) behind a box or trench, then one by one (or three by three,) grenades start POURING on top of you. If you're playing on veteran, you get shot if you try to run away; so you just start tappin' the right bumper as fast as you can, hoping to get every grenade out of your face. The enemies really don't care about your teammates (neither should you) and start chucking the grenades RIGHT at you (right is capitalized because they hit your face, then bounce to the ground because the enemies have such good arms) I decided to say i would reccomend this because, it still has good gameplay during multiplayer, but, i would reccomend it to them in the future, because this game is NOT worth $60. You don't feel immersed in the game; You feel like you're playing a video game (funny). If you want to hear about some bad stuff in multiplayer, there's a few topics. One of the good things is that they've fixed the spawning problems (MOST of the time) where you spawn next to an enemy a lot. But, i played an entire round with only two kills, because I couldn't find anybody. That's just boring, spending a whole round LOOKING for enemies, and not killing enemies. One of the worst aspects of CODWAW is the (multiplayer) tanks! they're so annoying! the bazooka is useless (it might be better if using the extra explosion damage perk, i dunno), because it takes about FIVE bazookas to kill one tank. Seriously. and you only spawn with two. So, in short, it might be a good game for christmas, but maybe next christmas when the price goes down. And you may think, "how could the mess up COD that bad? it cant be THAT bad." But it is that bad. If you don't have COD4, get it before you get this. You'll be happy you did.

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

    Not a "call of duty" quality game

    Posted
    Halbert986

    If you think Call of duty 4 when you see this game think again. First of all the story doesn't make you care about whats going on. The pacific story is almost a joke they got it all wrong. You don't get to fight on the famed island of iwo jima. The enemy AI doesn't coordinate the infamous banzi charges. Which are supposed to be an entire company charging at you, no they go single file one at a time. The sound is awful. Cod 4 did an amazing job with the sound. But the sounds of the guns in this are like clicks, airsoft guns, paintball guns just not guns. The flame thrower is cool for all of 5 minutes. Not everything in the environment is burnable. Certain trees and bushes will burn but 60 percent of the stuff just doesn't burn. The enemy always knows where you are in this game. Grenades will constantly bounce of your face and snipers will shoot a hole in the cover your behind right where your head is. Your allies might as well not even be there they'll stand as a soldier charges by them to stab you, and sprint out in the open and die. The gameplay consists of endless enemy respawns until you move forward to trigger something. It has the old you against the world feeling most of the time. The one redeeming quality of the single player is that you can affect the story in think fast moments. Save members of your squad from enemies if you shoot first and think later during certain moments. Theres a new mode called zombies where you and up to 4 people survive wave after wave of zombies while holding up in a house earning points to purchase guns, ammo, repair barracades it's more fun than campaign. The multiplayer is entertaining but not a cod 4. The maps are big. Much more room to move around and not the two or three possible paths cod 4 had. Tanks have made a comeback and can be used on many multiplayer maps. There are a lot of unlockable guns and new perks. However the higher level guns clearly dominate the field. The m16 problem of cod 4 is gone and no one gun is that good anymore. It has spawning problems though often placing you directly in front of an enemy or in the middle of a crossfire. The time limits are not long enough in my opinion, especially in time consuming games like war. Prestige now has a purpose. As you gain prestige you unlock open custom slots. If it didn't have the slogan call of duty on it i doubt it would be doning as well as it is. Overall it's an entertaining game but compared to the other holiday releases i would recommend to wait for the price to drop. Not worth 60 bucks.

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

    Have you played COD Modern Warfare?

    Posted
    MESTRETCH

    I would say the review of this game depends totally on whether you have played COD4 Modern Warfare much. If you have not spent alot of time playing COD4 will probably love it. Graphics although shadowy and grainy at times are intriguing and it is probably the best WW2 multi-player game ever made. Although the solo gameplay is relatively short the multi-player can go on forever and takes substantial time to level up and unlock all the weapons, perks and challenges. If you spent(d) hour after hour on COD4 as I did(do) I believe you will be extremely disappointed with Cod5 World at War. I don't know anyone that has purchased this series for the solo play alone, so I base this mostly on the multi-player online gameplay. The good side is there are more game types such as war, capture the flag, and veteran to go along with the COD4 standards. There are also 4 hardcore game options. Although tanks add a new exciting experience they usually end up getting you killed if you don't have ground support troops to help protect you. The gameplay thoroughly disappointed me. after playing the beta I half expected a small letdown, but figured the many new areas and weapons would make up for it. I was wrong. MAny of the maps have a shadowy grainy feel to them. Often I see the graphics move for no reason which often can be mistaked for enemy movement. Several of the maps sprawl which may be nice in some Ground War and Free for All games, but tends to be annoying in most others. There seems to be a definate power shift to sub machine guns in my opinion which makes it harder to level up other guns and annoying while getting shot from accross the map with an MP40. I have many issues with the power/fire rate/range of the weaponry. I'm sure you have experienced watching a replay in COD4 feeling like you shot someone way before they shot you only to see in the replay you never pulled the trigger. I experience that about 5x more often in COD5 which has almost single handedly made me return to COD4. There are reports of cheats available to allow up to 6 perks(only shows 3) which would explain players seeming invincable without the fireproof and/or juggernaut perks on. I can't substantiate these claims, but I can say I get frustrated playing the online game more than I enjoy it. To end my review let me say... I hope the rumours are true and can't wait for (praying) Infinity Ward to finish COD6 hopefully in time for Chistmas 2009. I will never pay full price for a multiplayer game developed by Treyarch again.

    No, I would not recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

    GREAT GAME

    Posted
    william09
    • Top 250 ContributorTop 250 Contributor

    i am not a big fan of first person shooter games. i have played halo 1 and 2 and thought they were kinda dumb. also wasnt to into resistance 2 either. something was lacking from both series for a NON FPS fanatic. i bought this game a week ago, and then bought call of duty 4 since everyone said it was better as well and to be hoenst both of them are fun to play. the graphics are amazing on both games and the weopons are fun and plenty. the online mode features an "experiance" type system use dto "level up" and unlock new weapons and "abilities/ perks". that makes the game excellent and keeps you busy. the downside for a new player is when you first start out online, you dont have the good weopons becuase you have not "leveled up" and unlocked them for use..so it is a little frustrating at times to be unloading on someone with a gun and get shot once and die when you just pumped 2 shot gun shells into them or 20 machine gun rounds. it is still fun and expected to have a little trouble starting out but like in real life it isnt really about skill but about who has the bigger guns in the end but it is still possible to level and get kills, just harder. it is still fun to play and makes the game a little more chanllenging and worth playing to level up and get access to better weopons. i am not a big fan of FPS games but this game and COD 4 is an exception. i would advise anyone who can play a FPS game and understand the controls to play the game at least once. in my opinion both were worth buying, i havent played them long enough to say 4 is better than 5 like some people say, to me they are about the same except one is modern and the other takes place during WW2. they are both great games and worth picking up.

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

    It's about time

    Posted
    JBaller

    To me, this is one of the most exciting franchises to hit the Xbox 360 console. Call of Duty 2 was where it all started for me. I remember that was before I even had an Xbox and i was stuck playing on the computer. I didn't know what to expect when I began playing but I was hooked almost instantly by it's action and heart pounding intensity. The reason I'm refering to Call of Duty 2 is because this new Call of Duty: World at War will take place in World War II. I've read alot of complaints about that fact, but I cannot be more excited. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was in my opinion the best Call of Duty title to date, and the game engine used in that will be the same engine you see in Call of Duty: World at War. I've seen gameplay on this new thrilling title, and for the first time in any Call of Duty game there will be weapons in which you will never get bored with. Take for instance, the flamethrower! Yes, I said it, a flamethrower will be present in this amazing title. I watched a gameplay vid on this flamethrower, and I was impressed. This guy, torches a field and burns up a tree while soliders run around on fire dying, screaming, it's complete brilliance. The AI looks so intelligent it's disgusting. I couldn't take it all in immediately. They move like you and I. They hide, they ambush, they flank. I'm sure if you watch the gameplay videos you will be more impressed than my short and unsatasfying review. Please, I urge you to get this game. If you are going to spend $350.00 on a console, you might as well get the best it has to offer. Read my review on Fallout 3 as well. That is another title you won't want to miss!

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

    A slight step back from COD4

    Posted
    Shibbyshwa2118

    Overall, World at War was a good game. It was however, a little bit of a letdown after the big shoes COD4 left to fill. While it is possibly the best WWII game on the market, it lacks a few aspects. Even though it has been done many times in other games, I think at least one of the major battles of D-Day or iwo Jima should have been added. Which then leads me to the fact that there is no US vs Germany. I know the differences in the time periods of the war, but I think they should have included a few battles in the game, and online play. Some of the graphics are good in the game (i.e. some landscape, tanks, etc.), while others aren't very good at all (dogs, some random objects throught the map...) The weapons are a little more challenging to use sometimes, but there is a good variety and have most of the major guns of the era. The M1 Garand, M1A1, Kar98K, Springfield 1903, MP44, etc. The tanks are also a good addition in online play. They can be annoying at times, but it presents a different kind of challenge and mixes things up a bit. As far as real damage, I love the fact they made it more realistic with physical damage to the character, however, I wish they had more physical surrounding damage by flamethrowers, tanks, etc. The flamethrowers can burn some trees, but not others, and I believe the tanks should be able to cause damage to some buildings and such. Overall, it was worth the money, more-so for the online play, but I think there are a few things they could have done better if they would have taken more lessons from COD4.

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

    CoD 5

    Posted
    Chris730

    Look, for everyone bagging on the game before it's even come out, get a grip. Have you ever played any of the old school CoD games? Call of Duty 1 and it's expansion pack United Offensive laid the groundwork for what a CoD game should be. UO had vehicles, huge maps, and new weapons. Between UO and CoD2, UO had the better game engine as far as physics and hit detection. CoD2 was a good game, but it got rid of two things UO had gotten right: sprint and vehicles. CoD3 was alright, it was poorly implemented. CoD4 is probably the best game in the series to date. Best campaign I've played, most diverse multiplayer I've played. CoD5 is just going back to the roots of Call of Duty. How can you complain about being able to n00b it up with a flamethrower, or vehicle camp/spam like none other? It adds a new, challenging dimension to the game and I honestly can't believe why people are knocking on it. Since it's using the CoD4 engine, it's basically a full conversion mod for Modern Warfare. It also covers a theater of WWII CoD hasn't touched yet. Bottom line: New perks + new weapons + 4 player co-op + new gameplay + new storyline + vehicles + game engine that's seen successful action = Game of the year shoo-in and NO reason to be complaining about it.

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

    Not as good as cod4, but good

    Posted
    NateD

    If you liked cod 4, then you will like this game. it is made by treyarch, which is the alternate team to infinity ward, who made cod 4 and cod 2. treyarch made cod 3 and call of duty big red one. (they have a thing for weird names). The multiplayer is based on the same game engine as the call of duty 4 one, so expect all the same features, like create a class and perks. one difference though, is the addition of more classes for higher prestiges, and an extra perk for vehicles. The multiplayer is fun, but some of the guns feel underpowered compared to call of duty 4's modern weapons. the mp40 is probably way overpowered though. my only real complaint about multiplayer is that there are a lot of unfair glitches, like getting under the map, which can make it impossible to win. also, tanks in this game are WAY to powerful. it takes 2 shots from a bazooka and one grenade to kill them in normal team deathmatch. also, the flamethrower is not fun in multiplayer because it has bad range. but the dual barreled shotgun is fun. also. shooting peoples limbs off is satisfying. The campaign is fun too, but not as realistic or believable as cod4's. (BUT JACK BAUER IS IN IT LOL). also, the zombie multiplayer mode is fun. you unlock this by beating the campaign, and you and your firends can take on hoards of undead (they wont let me say it but its spelled N*A*Z*I*S). Overall this game is fun, a must have for any FPS fan.

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

    Best Call of Duty Yet

    Posted
    CMan23

    Call of Duty: World at War has reached many new heights with this World War II related installment. Graphics, gameplay, and AI actions are just a few of the improved aspects of yet another COD game. The graphics mechanism used here is the best that I have seen used yet. The forests of Japan come to life as the Banzai raiders attempt to oust you, the American forces, from their homeland. Trees sway in the wind and smoke rises from the fallen fighter plane while the driver sits unconcious. Ambush is ripe in the Japanese homeland. COD5 also takes you on an adventure to Geermany and the Russian offensive on the German front. You will fight as a Russian soldier and push the Germans back to Berlin, while eventually storming the capital itself. Great weapons have been added to World at War that will make you jump from your seat. A flamethrower has been added. Yes...a flamethrower. Now, you can scorch the enemy (more like scorch the enemieS) with the new device. There is also a bayonet which always comes in handy while dealing with Japan's close quarter combat. Overall, Call of Duty: World at War stands out among all of the other installments in the series. It has superior gameplay, features, and graphics compared to all the rest. Even the campaign mode is replayable over and over again, which makes this game is a must have. When will be your Call of Duty?

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

    Modern Warfare's WWII Counterpart

    Posted
    Tommy870

    This is my favorite WWII game on consoles. Everything is very well done even if it is built off the Call of Duty 4 blueprint. Co-op is awesome, the campaign is very good with many "Oh Snap this is awesome" moments. The last two levels are the highlight for me. I wish people would stop calling this Call of Duty 5 and getting mad at it being WWII. It's made by Treyarch, not Infinity Ward (the studio that developed Modern Warfare). This game is basically the WWII counterpart to Modern Warfare and is unique as well, mostly due to the time era. Bayonets, gore and attachments on WWII guns are awesome. Oh and attack dogs are a sweet adition. I gave graphics a 4 because better looking games were already out (see MGS4 in true, native 1080p) but this is a beatiful and very well done game, as well as being the game that showed that Treyarch is a competant development studio after all. Oh and one more small point: tanks don't ruin the gameplay, obsessively hardcore players do. I love getting together with a buddy or two and trying to take one down with satchel charges and what not. People who complain just don't like dying after one hit, which makes me wonder why they are playing Call of Duty and not Halo in the first place. Oh sorry, ADD moment. I would recommend this to anyone who likes WWII shooters or good games and I give it 4 stars.

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

    One of the Best War Games Ever

    Posted
    TripleTrinity06

    Well I know it went back in time but it is a great tool to understand your history better. But However what I didn't like about this is the replacements of the knives with sword. Also, the laser sights didn't come out in until 1950's about 5+ years after this game is setting for which is realistically something that I relied on playing CoD4. But it is a great game don't get me wrong. Flamethrowers if they had this in the past game for CoD4 then it could have been that much better. Also, flamethrower tanks that is cool. But when CoD6 comes out then it should be with the next war after WWII. Then shortly build up from then to this War on Terror but that's just me. Also, I have waited till the map pack for Call of Duty 4 came out then I have the map packs for CoD4. But with this another way to get me to buy this game is if it comes with map expansions and that DVD of Saving Private Ryan or Pearl Harbor or even Enemy at the Gates which would be a great combo for another excitement. That would be a great insentive on buying the game or even raise it by $10 then I would totally get it. Or do what Halo 3 did with different 3 different editions for this game would be a great way to sell. But I love this game and the future of Call of Duty games to come too. It will be close or tie for a game of the year type game.

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

    Hands down better than COD4!

    Posted
    DaHmEr1285

    COD:Waw is the better pick of the two. People that say COD:4 is better are probably sniping someone right now because they are scared of a little action. I'll admit that the spawning system in Waw is flawed and a sometimes you are spawn killed. DRINK WATER! The only reason that is happening is because someone on the opposing team is pressing the action and kicking your teams butt! It is good to make some friends that regularly play this game and that you can rely on to have your back. That way you are never playing with a bunch of nublets and 10 year olds that are more worried about sniping and shooting nub tubes. You have to learn what perks and weapons work best with what maps. That is why the prestige system is so much better. The more classes you can create, the more options you have to switch to mid-match. But if you are playing by yourself, they have mercenary match options where there are no parties allowed. COD:Waw keeps the pace going in each match. Rewards for kills are also alot better in this game becasue there are few places you can hide from a pack of dogs. Nub snipers never win in this game, if you're team has more than 1 or 2 snipers, get out of there because you are about to get beat!

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

    It's alright

    Posted
    Lorenze

    It's alright, It's definitely no COD4. If this game had came out before COD4 I probably would have been really impressed. I was hesitant at first to even buy it because I was kind of sick of the WWII games. I was impressed with the graphics on it, especially in multiplayer some very cool maps. The zombie mode that is unlocked when you beat the game is very cool and you can play with your friends which is fun also. The guns are ok I guess, they can be frustrating in Team Deathmatch because it takes your entire clip to kill somebody, it was much more fun in Hardcore Team Deathmatch. They aren't kidding about the knife, you can have your hand inside somebody and knife them and it still seems like you have to get lucky for it to kill them. I was really hoping they fixed the spawning issues that COD4 has where you'll appear right next to the other team and be shot before you can respond but on a lot of maps it was the same thing. After playing COD4 and Gears 2 though I was definitely missing the fast action those games bring. Because of how few bullets you have in this game or any WWII game you have to pick your shots and people camp a lot more. I would reccomend it to a friend that already has COD4 because it's still fun to mix it up somtimes but if you're thinking one or the other go with COD4.

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

    Good solid game

    Posted
    kfown

    Reader should know that I have played a very limited amount of COD 4, and have never played a WW II game. Up until now, my favorite shooting game is Gears 2. Having said that, I was very pleasantly surprised by WAW. The graphics was amazing, the campaign really puts you in the middle of the action, you will feel like you are fighting more for yourself and your country. The AI are not as sharp as the ones in COD 4, but hey, that means more kills for me. One upside it has from COD 4 is that you can play co-op in the campaign (up to 4 players), that will definitely come in handy for the veteran level. However the weapon choice isn't as fancy as its predecessor, basically there is a rifle (one bullet at a time), a machine gun (multiple bullets with one click), and flamethrower. Perhaps there will be more selections later on in the game. I haven't explored the online play too much, so I cannot really give an opinion on it. This game probably isn't worth $60, if you have that much to spend, I'll recommend Gears 2, but when you can buy it for $35, it's definitely a good deal! I would recommend this to anyone, and hope you can get it before the end of this week for the deep discount.

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

    Terrible as expected.

    Posted
    bave

    Hmm. Seems the same problem I had with call of duty 4 persists in COD5. The problem is that, you die instantly. Lets see, you die from 1 shot from an ordinary weapon like a rifle, long range. That's so dumb, that means, this game will just be all camping, and whoever see's the other person first gets the kill. This means its a no-skill game, and not worth paying for. I don't know how many people play with their volume up on their tv, obviously most, but your not going to want to with this game. Every few seconds their will be screeching and VERY ANNOYING mortars. You can also expect to get spawn-killed, over and over and over, another thing they didn't correct when I am sure its possible to correct, if only they would spawn you in a safe area. Another thing that's stupid about it is, theirs no more helicopter when you get 5 kills in a row, instead, you just gain the ability to release dogs, that more then half the time don't even attack anyone, they run in circles and glitch to walls. The makers of this game really embarrassed themselves with this one, don't know why people are rating it good, maybe they haven't played the beta yet. Anyways, I wouldn't recommend buying this at all, unless your just doing it for more gamer-score points rather then having fun.

    No, I would not recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

    WW2....AGAIN!

    Posted
    Moodath

    When I first heard that Call of Duty 5 was not going to be developed by Infinity Ward (the creators of Call of Duty 1, 2, and 4) i died a little inside.... i knew that Treyarch would get their grubby hands on this awesome series and set the bar back that Modern Warfare raised. And i was right...kind of... This is indeed just another WW2 shooter....same story...same bad guys...same ending as the first, 2nd, and 3rd COD, as well as every other WW2 game. That being said, its probably also the best WW2 game around, though, this late in the game, thats honestly not saying that much. I finished the singleplayer campaign on hardcore in 4 hours. This game is SHORT. It has absolutly no replay value whatsoever. But you do get a nice reward for completing the game. You unlock Zombies. In this mode you try and defend a broken down house from waves of zombies. They grow in numbers and in strength the longer you survive. Its fun for the first 10 or 20 playthroughs, but after that it gets very boring. The multiplayer is mediocre, and you should stick with CoD4 for that. The only reason i'd recommend this game to anyone is the online Co-Op campaign. But thats about it.. 6.3/10

    No, I would not recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

    WWII again? Really? ...no seriously, your kidding

    Posted
    TheSpaz

    The Good: Multiplayer...its amazing how multiplayer saves some games. Single player is worth a play to kill time if nobody is is online (or to unlock the zombie level). But honestly the only reason you should buy this game is for the multiplayer. It has all of the aspects we loved about CoD4 plus extra classes for prestieges, a couple extra perks and drivable vehicles. The Bad: If you liked Call of Duty 4: Modern warfare, expect this to be nothing like it. Sorry to disappoint but Infinity Ward, even though they did use the same engine. The single player is swapped with enemies and if you stand in one place for more then 3 seconds expect an MG-42 or a squad of banzais to kill you. And really, why did we go back to WWII? Modern Warfare was the best game of the year, mainly because it wasnt a WWII game. The Ugly: Graphics arent bad, especially if you like shades of gray and beige. They didnt at all try and expand the use of color in this game in some cases the only thing on a map that isnt gray brown or black is the flag that your supposed to capture. Still waiting for CoD: Modern Warfare 2....

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

    Takes some getting used to

    Posted
    wesley830

    Everybody keeps giving this game bad reviews because it takes place during WW2. Hello!? You knew that before you bought/rented the game!! If you didn't want to play another WW2 shooter, why did you decide to play it? Anyway, when I first started playing this game I wasn't really into it much. The guns were really hard to use and didn't like the addition of tanks. By the way the tanks are nearly indestructible. As I started to play the game more and more I started to like it. You'll have to level up a little bit to unlock some decent weapons but that just makes it more challenging. People need to stop comparing the game to COD4. COD4 was and still is the best multiplayer war shooter out there. The two games take place during different times and I think people got used to the M16 and the M4. Hello people!! Those kind of guns didn't exist back in WW2!!! GET OVER IT!! At least there were still automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The best sniper rifle I have ever used however, is in COD5. The PTRS. One word, AWESOME! Anyway, long story short, buy the game. AND STOP COMPARING THE TWO!!!

    I would recommend this to a friend

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

    Did i accidentaly buy COD 4 with a hint of 5

    Posted
    BestBuyGamr

    I was really lead to buy this game considering how awesome COD 4 was. The multiplayer was great, graphics were great, campaign was great, overall GREAT. Shortly after playing COD 5 i was caught off guard by the un responsiveness while playing online. I don't know if my character is equiped with a rubber knife or what but 3 out of 4 times my knife dont register. Also the weapons are very inconsistent. Not realistic at all. The MP40 using the 9mm round. Will easily outshoot the STG-44 which uses a 7.92x33mm which is ALOT more powerful. About 3 out of 10 times you can kill people in no more than 3 bullets while using the MP40. Which is VERY aggrovating. Bullet Lag is off also. Sometimes you shoot behind them and kill them. Or you are leading them like you are supposed to and it doesnt register. There is no diversity to campaign hardly at all. I am someone who wants some change from level to level to keep me on my toes. This game gives little but not much. I think they need to update the game quite a bit. The game needs it.

    I would recommend this to a friend