New Call of Duty Review - Did We All Underestimate Treyarch?

Wow, this the third review of the game I've seen give a score above 9. Perhaps we were too quick to underestimate Treyarch?

http://n4g.com/pc/News-229434.aspx

I'll be frank: Idid not expect Call of Duty: World at War to even come anywhere close to the bar set by Modern Warfare. With Treyarch's mediocre past entries and adeviation from the successful Modern Warfare setting, many would have expected this game to fail to capture the hearts of shooter fans this holiday season. Shockingly, Treyarch has proven the naysayers wrong, building on the success of all previous Call of Duty games and introducing their own successful features and twists, thus creating one of the most fully-featured, high-quality value gaming experiences of the year: I'll never automatically rule out abig-budget Treyarch project ever again.

Score Breakdown:

Gameplay: 9.0 – The most refined and feature-complete Call of Duty yet. The linear campaign remains, but the combined additions of aJapanese foeand some new weapons don't hurt. New modes like Co-op, Nazi Zombies, and War add alot of variety and options to the game.

Presentation: 9.5 – Surprisingly visceral and violent, World at War captures the impact and emotion of 20th-century military conflict. Be warned: this game is not for the squeamish.

Graphics: 9.5 – Great looking characters and environments with nary aframe drop in sight. Smoke and environmental effects are spectacularly dense and the new tropical island setting is anice new direction for the series.

Sound: 9.5 – Spectacular sound effects and voice acting really capture the intensity and desperation of the battlefield. Music is emotionally-fitting and appropriate as well... excluding the occasional rock/metal elements.

Value: 10 – World at War is the most feature-complete installment of the franchise. With adecent-length campaign, three cooperative modes (including the pulse-pounding but addictive Nazi Zombies) and afully-featured multiplayer suite with ranking system and unlockables, World at War offers quite apunch for each dollar you spent on it.

Wow, this the third review of the game I've seen give a score above 9. Perhaps we were too quick to underestimate Treyarch?

http://www.poland.us/strona,33,3327,0.html

I'll be frank: Idid not expect Call of Duty: World at War to even come anywhere close to the bar set by Modern Warfare. With Treyarch's mediocre past entries and adeviation from the successful Modern Warfare setting, many would have expected this game to fail to capture the hearts of shooter fans this holiday season. Shockingly, Treyarch has proven the naysayers wrong, building on the success of all previous Call of Duty games and introducing their own successful features and twists, thus creating one of the most fully-featured, high-quality value gaming experiences of the year: I'll never automatically rule out abig-budget Treyarch project ever again.

Score Breakdown:

Gameplay: 9.0 – The most refined and feature-complete Call of Duty yet. The linear campaign remains, but the combined additions of aJapanese foeand some new weapons don't hurt. New modes like Co-op, Nazi Zombies, and War add alot of variety and options to the game.

Presentation: 9.5 – Surprisingly visceral and violent, World at War captures the impact and emotion of 20th-century military conflict. Be warned: this game is not for the squeamish.

Graphics: 9.5 – Great looking characters and environments with nary aframe drop in sight. Smoke and environmental effects are spectacularly dense and the new tropical island setting is anice new direction for the series.

Sound: 9.5 – Spectacular sound effects and voice acting really capture the intensity and desperation of the battlefield. Music is emotionally-fitting and appropriate as well... excluding the occasional rock/metal elements.

Value: 10 – World at War is the most feature-complete installment of the franchise. With adecent-length campaign, three cooperative modes (including the pulse-pounding but addictive Nazi Zombies) and afully-featured multiplayer suite with ranking system and unlockables, World at War offers quite apunch for each dollar you spent on it.

Final Score: 9.5 – World at War is simultaneously the best and most value-packed installment of the franchise. It takes the intensity of Modern Warfare and adds enough modes and extra content for hundreds of hours of fun and intense shooting action.

dgsag

is this the only review for this game?

Everyone knew it would be good, how popular is the question.Koalakommander

i still think COD4 is better

I thought it looked pretty good and I was looking foward to it being in the Pacific theater. But I know a majority of people looked at the developer making it, treyarch, instead of infinity ward and just said meh.

I hated CoD4, even the graphics were mediocreFirstDiscovery

From what I've seen, Treyarch has used better textures and lighting effects this time around, as a result of iterating on the COD4 tech, most likely.

[QUOTE="FirstDiscovery"]I hated CoD4, even the graphics were mediocredgsag

From what I've seen, Treyarch has used better textures and lighting effects this time around, as a result of iterating on the COD4 tech, most likely.

CoD2 is still the best in the series

Treyarch haters are going to be owned by this game.

I always knew it was AAA material

cod3 was rated in the 8s and it was one of the worst games i've ever played.Heydanbud92

Judging from the BETA, COD5 is going to be really good. I think that 9.5 was very deserving.

COD:WAW looks like it'll be a solid game.

As for Treyarch, it was nothing but a cut-n-paste job.

Awesome,cant wait to play it :D

I finished COD 4 in like 1 sitting and it was great,bit linear but well

COD:WAW looks like it'll be a solid game.

As for Treyarch, it was nothing but a cut-n-paste job.

MortalDecay

Not really, considering they had to design the pacific theatre elements from scratch and program and balance the entire co-op experience. They had the engine, but they've done a great job creating a game different enough from the last one.

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"]

COD:WAW looks like it'll be a solid game.

As for Treyarch, it was nothing but a cut-n-paste job.

dgsag

Not really, considering they had to design the pacific theatre elements from scratch and program and balance the entire co-op experience. They had the engine, but they've done a great job creating a game different enough from the last one.

If you actually played the beta, you would know that the main multiplayer experience is definatley cut an paste.

That being said it is still good, it just doesn't prove that Treyarch is a good developer considering that the other game they made based off the Cod 4 engine (Quantum of Solace) was quite awful.

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"]Everyone knew it would be good, how popular is the question.imelitenow

i still think COD4 is better

And you are one to judge, why? I'm sure you've played both extensively.

How is modern warfare and WWII assets similar? If you look closely, they are all different. Aside from some code sharing, I think Treyarch completely implemented and incorporated their own brand to the game.qdeskimo

Own brand to COD? Why not make a new engine and IP then?

How is modern warfare and WWII assets similar? If you look closely, they are all different. Aside from some code sharing, I think Treyarch completely implemented and incorporated their own brand to the game.qdeskimo

Own brand to COD? Why not make a new engine and IP then?

Looks like Treyarch patch up there mistakes in the past and finally made a great game.

lets celebrate there success by playing the mutilplayer all night long when release

This time they a long time unlike cod 3 where it was only 6-8 monthsEnglandfc1966

Yeah, the 2 year development cycle really made a difference. :)

I think Treyarch did good this time because they had a good sholder to lean on..

Same engine as CoD4

Good influcence from CoD4

Same sound/Graphics/Gameplay as CoD4

I think that the only reason why W@W is good is because they had a good ladder to step on..all they had to do was imitate CoD4 and there golden.

Everyone knew it would be good, how popular is the question.Koalakommander

Totally agree, most people knew it would be good, since it's using the same awesome formula as COD4, it's just that most people don't want the WWII setting anymore.

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"]

COD:WAW looks like it'll be a solid game.

As for Treyarch, it was nothing but a cut-n-paste job.

dgsag

Not really, considering they had to design the pacific theatre elements from scratch and program and balance the entire co-op experience. They had the engine, but they've done a great job creating a game different enough from the last one.

Also rebuilding the AI to use Japanese tactics 

I actually found the beta quite enjoyable. I personally am looking forward to this . . . I really think treyarch is about to redeem their name tomorrow with WaW's release. I'm picking this title up in the next few weeks, and I don't think I'll be dissapointed.

As for those of you that said CoD 4 graphics and textures were lack-laster, you either have one sh**ty graphics card or have never played it on an HDTV. High-Definition Modern Warfare = WHOA 

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"]Everyone knew it would be good, how popular is the question.imelitenow

i still think COD4 is better

have you played the full game? the single player as well as co-op and the multiplayer have you? or have you just played the beta and are basing it on that?

nope. this game will be bland. i will call it right now.

i really don't see a shovelware dev trying inventive ideas working.

it hasn't worked in the past, and it isn't working this gen with the wii.

and if they do suceed it is entirely due to infinity ward's work on the cod4 engine.

All Treyarch did was slap a WWII skin on CoD4, and IMO WWI weapons are boring. This game is an expansion, they couldn't even name it CoD5. Don't give Treyarch credit, where credit isn't due. Yeah, they workd radar into WWII nicely, and killer dogs are the perfect replacement for a helicopter :roll:Couth_

IT would have been amazing if this was an expansion to CoD4..

OMG..can you say best idea ever?

[QUOTE="Couth_"]All Treyarch did was slap a WWII skin on CoD4, and IMO WWI weapons are boring. This game is an expansion, they couldn't even name it CoD5. Don't give Treyarch credit, where credit isn't due. Yeah, they workd radar into WWII nicely, and killer dogs are the perfect replacement for a helicopter :roll:Pinkyimp

IT would have been amazing if this was an expansion to CoD4..

OMG..can you say best idea ever?

I hopethats what IW has planned for CoD5

I did not underestimate Treyarch. Sure give me all the tech and build of CoD4 and see if I can't make a good just as good.

All this is, is a new skin for CoD4. After two weeks of the beta I found that out.

It doesn't deserve that score AFAIK.

The beta was fun, but man it really felt like a CoD4 mod. It's just a complete lack of effort from Treyarch with a few tweaks. They're mainly riding on the success of CoD4.