IGN review - Call of Duty: World at War = 9.2

http://pc.ign.com/articles/929/929002p1.html

and it's done by none other than our old boy Ocampo. in short, he praises the game as an action packed and varied experience that builds on all the strengths of the franchise. the healthy multiplayer content just further sweetens the deal.

personally, i'm not really interested in this game. but i'm still glad that Treyarch has managed to pull this off. your thoughts?

Saw this review earlier, and i must say finally Treyarch!

I trust Ocampo's reviews

http://pc.ign.com/articles/929/929002p1.html

and it's done by none other than our old boy Ocampo. in short, he praises the game as an action packed and varied experience that builds on all the strengths of the franchise. the healthy multiplayer content just further sweetens the deal.

personally, i'm not really interested in this game. but i'm still glad that Treyarch has managed to pull this off. your thoughts?

Jinroh_basic

Haven't actually played it personally, but I am hoping to pick it up as soon as possible, most things i'm hearing about it have been positive.  I'm a sucker for CoD and WW2 FPS as well, so I'd feel bad if I didn't get it eventually :P

ps, Your last poll option made me laugh.  Not very PC, but still pretty funny :P

I may get it, I still have to get L4D, and this weekend I have hunting trip, so I will hopefully be stocking my freezer full of venison.

Basically, instead of shooting at computer generated targets I will will be using a Yugoslavian SKS to drop one of Bambi's friends.

Well, I just purchased Fallout 3, still working on Dead Space, while playing a little bit of Gears of War 2 (running it through on hardcore this time, and playing mostly HORDE), and I think I've already decided to put a break on Warhammer Online (getting a little boring). With so much on my gaming plate, and already having set my sights on Left 4 Dead, World at War will not be forgotten, but it will definitely take a back seat. Just too many games man, too many games. Perhaps, Christmas, or next year. I'm already bummed about Mirror's Edge PC being pushed to January 2009 but that should buy me some more time.

Jason Ocampo is a reasonable, sensible, fair reviewer. And he's been around for a long time. His reviews are always spot on for me. He hasn't let me down once.

I probably should have gotten CoD WaW instead of Fallout 3. I can see why people like Fallout 3, but I just don't find it that entertaining. I outright hated Oblivion and I guess it's my fault for buying another game similar to it. I wish I could still return PC games...Swiftstrike5

You can sell it on eBay for a minimum of $35. That's the going rate for used Fallout 3. Why let it collect dust and be of no good? You can put that money towards L4D or WaW. Cheers.

My graphics card doesn't meet the requirements. And I waited so long for a CoD with the Pacific campaign. :cry:CommanderShiro

i feel you mate. as crowded as the WW2 fps scene is, the pacific theatre is still relatively fresh. i might just get this game if CoD4's online population drops considerably.

I played the first three missions, in the Pacific theatre, and the beggining of the first Russian mission.

This game is da bomb.

It's a huge step forward for CoD. It feels fresh, it's VERY gritty, and the part of the Stalingrad mission I played was absolutely jaw-dropping. I can't describe the awesomeness of how it begins.

*goes searching for the Enemy at the Gates DVD*

is this the same Ocampo who gave Total War Kingdoms an 8 which had enough content to be a new game who main faults he said was and i quote "Hard-drive hog if you've got limited disk space" and "Tedious installation process" but not the actual game!!.?

I will never let go of that one!

I just picked it up today and so far have played the first three Pacific missions. It's about what I expected, a solid mix of CoD2 and CoD4. At this point, I think 9.2 might be a little high... but I'm probably only a third of the way through the single player and haven't gone online at all yet.

I'd probably give it an 8.0 as of right now. It's a solid and entertaining play but nothing exactly groundbreaking. Fans of CoD2 won't be disappointed but people thinking "WW2 again?!?" after falling in love with CoD4 could probably pass or wait for it to hit the bargain bin.

It got 8/10 in PCpowerplay too. biggest_loser

Just saw that today, awesome score.

My own mini review:

Single Player

Graphics - 9 - even on lower settings the graphics are good, and the settings immersive
Sound - 8 - mostly very good but sometimes the dialogue fades, you can't hear some of the shots
Story - 9 - a more cohesive story than earlier CoDs, and a good deal of variety throughout the campaign.
AI - 7 - animation of characters was mostly fine, but in terms of intelligence they haven't improved a great deal from the 'pop out and shoot' mechanic prevalent in the series.  Enemies also still keep respawning until you move forward.  Sometimes they just stand about without attacking (both enemies and allies).
Replayability - 8.5 - because I wanted to play it again after finishing, you unlock a bonus zombie game mode (which you can play solo or co-op), and you can play through the SP campaign in Co-Op mode with buddies.

SP Campaign - 8.3 - let down by some poor AI, bugs, and nades that kept landing at my feet, and it was too short, but overall a great blast.

Multiplayer

Map design - 10
Weapons - 8 - still need some balancing, and some better sounds
Sound - 8 - some problems with sound occlusion, missing footsteps on some floors in maps, lagging footsteps etc.
MP features (game types/modes/etc.) - 8.5
Server tweaking & browser - 8.5

MP score 8.6 - some glitches and other niggling little issues that mount up to strip a point off an otherwise great multiplayer experience.  Excellent maps to play on.  Much prefer this to CoD 4.

Overall score - 8.5