is everybody too scared to admit that cod5 failed

[QUOTE="ufcfan1987"]

[QUOTE="SHEATHED_BLADE"]it failed in the wake of modern warfare in terms of everything- have you played the game?? its sad!! levels remain linear, weapons POORLY animated, the nozzle flash is a second-long freeze frame, which breaks the immersion comletely (yes im picky), anyone shoot anyone in the head with the .50 cal? majorly lame, or maybe thats just the weapon itself? expressionless japanese people come screaming at you with KATANAS!- you stab them in the neck... not even an eyebrow raises, multiplayer is a carbon copy of and still worse than worse than cod4's, sales figures are simply a bi-product of cod4's amazing success. this is how its failed people!!SHEATHED_BLADE

I think your just pissed because your parents got you a game that you didnt like so your trying to tear it apart. You say the same things about world at war that can be said about 4. call of duty 4 is not the best out of the series. so go return it and move on with your life.But last time I checked world at war is at the top of the list and last played by alot of people on here so how does it fail?

you make it sound as if im super-young (actually 20), and said that my mother got me the game, not parents- i mention this as you must not be paying much attention to what im actually saying- HAVE YOU READ MY POSTS!?! i explain perfectly why it failed in an easy-to-read format, no i wont repeat them you can search seeing your so interested, as for all reading this post- i have not heard a single reason why cod5 has succeded only that my opinion is wrong and that thiers is special because of the numbers behind the game- give me reasons why its so good that are better than i just like WWII games its better than cod4 in my opinion... oh havent got any?? thought so

[QUOTE="SHEATHED_BLADE"][QUOTE="ufcfan1987"]

I think your just pissed because your parents got you a game that you didnt like so your trying to tear it apart. You say the same things about world at war that can be said about 4. call of duty 4 is not the best out of the series. so go return it and move on with your life.But last time I checked world at war is at the top of the list and last played by alot of people on here so how does it fail?

ceells87

you make it sound as if im super-young (actually 20), and said that my mother got me the game, not parents- i mention this as you must not be paying much attention to what im actually saying- HAVE YOU READ MY POSTS!?! i explain perfectly why it failed in an easy-to-read format, no i wont repeat them you can search seeing your so interested, as for all reading this post- i have not heard a single reason why cod5 has succeded only that my opinion is wrong and that thiers is special because of the numbers behind the game- give me reasons why its so good that are better than i just like WWII games its better than cod4 in my opinion... oh havent got any?? thought so

[QUOTE="ceells87"][QUOTE="SHEATHED_BLADE"]

you make it sound as if im super-young (actually 20), and said that my mother got me the game, not parents- i mention this as you must not be paying much attention to what im actually saying- HAVE YOU READ MY POSTS!?! i explain perfectly why it failed in an easy-to-read format, no i wont repeat them you can search seeing your so interested, as for all reading this post- i have not heard a single reason why cod5 has succeded only that my opinion is wrong and that thiers is special because of the numbers behind the game- give me reasons why its so good that are better than i just like WWII games its better than cod4 in my opinion... oh havent got any?? thought so

KorruptRaiden

ok, whats your point. IDK what y'alls opinions are and i'm not trying to change them. But his opinion is his only reason why he keeps saying the game's a failure. Once he changes his statement to "WaW failed to live up to my expectations", thn he'll have a solid ground to walk on. Till then he needs to quit gripping at others for disagreeing with him

The game is just fun. I can't stop playing it. Sure it's not very original, but it took a winning formula and made a great addition to the series. That's my opinion. Many people seem to share this opinion, because COD WaW is frequently the #1 most played game on Live.

Why does it have to be a failure just because you personally don't enjoy it? Any of your reasons for not enjoying the game are purely subjective- Poorly animated, linear levels, muzzle flash..? As compared to what? By what standards are you making these claims? These reasons are simply opinions, far from proven facts. Any comment you make about the quality of certain aspects of the game design will only be an opinion, an opinion which is open for discussion and can be disputed by anyone, there is no system or scale by which to measure it.

One of the only (if not THE only) objective standard by which you can judge a game is by how many people are playing it- these are cold hard facts, numbers. And by that standard, COD WaW is an immense success.

[QUOTE="ufcfan1987"]

[QUOTE="SHEATHED_BLADE"]it failed in the wake of modern warfare in terms of everything- have you played the game?? its sad!! levels remain linear, weapons POORLY animated, the nozzle flash is a second-long freeze frame, which breaks the immersion comletely (yes im picky), anyone shoot anyone in the head with the .50 cal? majorly lame, or maybe thats just the weapon itself? expressionless japanese people come screaming at you with KATANAS!- you stab them in the neck... not even an eyebrow raises, multiplayer is a carbon copy of and still worse than worse than cod4's, sales figures are simply a bi-product of cod4's amazing success. this is how its failed people!!SHEATHED_BLADE

I think your just pissed because your parents got you a game that you didnt like so your trying to tear it apart. You say the same things about world at war that can be said about 4. call of duty 4 is not the best out of the series. so go return it and move on with your life.But last time I checked world at war is at the top of the list and last played by alot of people on here so how does it fail?

you make it sound as if im super-young (actually 20), and said that my mother got me the game, not parents- i mention this as you must not be paying much attention to what im actually saying- HAVE YOU READ MY POSTS!?! i explain perfectly why it failed in an easy-to-read format, no i wont repeat them you can search seeing your so interested, as for all reading this post- i have not heard a single reason why cod5 has succeded only that my opinion is wrong and that thiers is special because of the numbers behind the game- give me reasons why its so good that are better than i just like WWII games its better than cod4 in my opinion... oh havent got any?? thought so

And no, you have not yet explained how it failed. You've explained why you don't like the game (through a list of highly specific annoyances and vague descriptions of the series).

As for how it succeeded, that's already been explained numerous times. It sold very well and is played by thousands.

This discussion will go on and on because people don't seem to understand what the definition of "opinion" is. Let me elaborate... "Orange is the best flavor". "A Mustang is better than a Camaro". "COD: WaW is a failure". THESE ARE OPINIONS. "1+1=2" "The capital of Virginia is Richmond" "COD: WaW is the most played game on Xbox Live" THESE ARE FACTS. Some people just don't understand how someone could have a different opinion than they do, and simply believe their opinion is fact and they are the smartest person to ever walk the Earth. This discussion would go much easier if everyone sat down and evaluated the meanings of opinions of facts.dirtydishko2

It would also help if anybody new which facts matter in determining whether something is good or not. Whenever any restaurant critic goes to work they take into account taste, presentation, and a whole bunch of other factors that I'm not privy to, but one thing they don't care about is how often that certain dish is ordered. Because like it or not the popularity of the dish does not make it good, but what does make it good (and what matters in the overall score) is its content and substance. So, yes everyone will have different opinions on whether or not a game is good, but dismissing one person's opinion as wrong because they have no hard facts (or even facts that are meaningless) is pointless because you bring nothing worthwhile into the conversation but numbers that mean nothing to the other person who wants to hear actual testimony as to why you oppose them. After all aren't all ratings based on some other person's opinion? Numbers mean nothing to a system that is based on someone's own feelings.

[QUOTE="SHEATHED_BLADE"][QUOTE="ufcfan1987"]

I think your just pissed because your parents got you a game that you didnt like so your trying to tear it apart. You say the same things about world at war that can be said about 4. call of duty 4 is not the best out of the series. so go return it and move on with your life.But last time I checked world at war is at the top of the list and last played by alot of people on here so how does it fail?

Englando_IV

you make it sound as if im super-young (actually 20), and said that my mother got me the game, not parents- i mention this as you must not be paying much attention to what im actually saying- HAVE YOU READ MY POSTS!?! i explain perfectly why it failed in an easy-to-read format, no i wont repeat them you can search seeing your so interested, as for all reading this post- i have not heard a single reason why cod5 has succeded only that my opinion is wrong and that thiers is special because of the numbers behind the game- give me reasons why its so good that are better than i just like WWII games its better than cod4 in my opinion... oh havent got any?? thought so

And no, you have not yet explained how it failed. You've explained why you don't like the game (through a list of highly specific annoyances and vague descriptions of the series).

As for how it succeeded, that's already been explained numerous times. It sold very well and is played by thousands.

And to all those who feel that opinion is a majority topic- no, people could be interested in say...turning point- a game that thouroghly sucked c**k, now i could come along and say that no it was bad, they'ed all disagree but i would know that it was bad compared to other games- it's THIS very topic put into contrast , you like it because you could'nt bear that a cod title be called gay.

[QUOTE="SHEATHED_BLADE"][QUOTE="ufcfan1987"]

I think your just pissed because your parents got you a game that you didnt like so your trying to tear it apart. You say the same things about world at war that can be said about 4. call of duty 4 is not the best out of the series. so go return it and move on with your life.But last time I checked world at war is at the top of the list and last played by alot of people on here so how does it fail?

ceells87

you make it sound as if im super-young (actually 20), and said that my mother got me the game, not parents- i mention this as you must not be paying much attention to what im actually saying- HAVE YOU READ MY POSTS!?! i explain perfectly why it failed in an easy-to-read format, no i wont repeat them you can search seeing your so interested, as for all reading this post- i have not heard a single reason why cod5 has succeded only that my opinion is wrong and that thiers is special because of the numbers behind the game- give me reasons why its so good that are better than i just like WWII games its better than cod4 in my opinion... oh havent got any?? thought so

no offense if your religeous

Failure?

What?

Everybody probably feels its a let down after playing cod4 and having these massive expectations for the next one in the series..

I would say it was a good game, not nealy as good as cod4, but still a very good game that will consume your uneventful life for at least a couple of weeks...

so no i dont think it was a fail...

First of all, Call of Duty 5 isn't released yet. Secondly, Call of Duty: World at War definitely did not fail.OfficialBed

I can see hwy people feel that it is a disapointment simply because its from ww2! Call of duty 4 was amazing because there were new ideas that were executed really well. However there were no ideas in call of duty 5. Same weapons,same environments etc.

I refude to buy the game and waited for my brother to buy instead. I played it through (getting achievements!) and didn't enjoy it half as much as call of duty 4.

However it is a very popular game partly because of cod4's success, the title of call of duty and the fact that it is the best game if you want to access a multiplayer instantly. It is super quick whereas others are slow. This i feel is one of the attractions.

Anyways looking forward to call of duty modern warfare 2 this xmas!!!

[QUOTE="ufcfan1987"]

[QUOTE="SHEATHED_BLADE"]it failed in the wake of modern warfare in terms of everything- have you played the game?? its sad!! levels remain linear, weapons POORLY animated, the nozzle flash is a second-long freeze frame, which breaks the immersion comletely (yes im picky), anyone shoot anyone in the head with the .50 cal? majorly lame, or maybe thats just the weapon itself? expressionless japanese people come screaming at you with KATANAS!- you stab them in the neck... not even an eyebrow raises, multiplayer is a carbon copy of and still worse than worse than cod4's, sales figures are simply a bi-product of cod4's amazing success. this is how its failed people!!SHEATHED_BLADE

I think your just pissed because your parents got you a game that you didnt like so your trying to tear it apart. You say the same things about world at war that can be said about 4. call of duty 4 is not the best out of the series. so go return it and move on with your life.But last time I checked world at war is at the top of the list and last played by alot of people on here so how does it fail?

you make it sound as if im super-young (actually 20), and said that my mother got me the game, not parents- i mention this as you must not be paying much attention to what im actually saying- HAVE YOU READ MY POSTS!?! i explain perfectly why it failed in an easy-to-read format, no i wont repeat them you can search seeing your so interested, as for all reading this post- i have not heard a single reason why cod5 has succeded only that my opinion is wrong and that thiers is special because of the numbers behind the game- give me reasons why its so good that are better than i just like WWII games its better than cod4 in my opinion... oh havent got any?? thought so

is your mother not a parent? thought so.also how can this game be such a failure if its the most played game constantly on xbl. if it was a failure then no one would play it.its funny because the people that complain about the game are the ones that are pissed that it went back to wwII. if thats the case dont play the damn game and get over yourself and your rant. thought so.

[QUOTE="ceells87"][QUOTE="SHEATHED_BLADE"]

you make it sound as if im super-young (actually 20), and said that my mother got me the game, not parents- i mention this as you must not be paying much attention to what im actually saying- HAVE YOU READ MY POSTS!?! i explain perfectly why it failed in an easy-to-read format, no i wont repeat them you can search seeing your so interested, as for all reading this post- i have not heard a single reason why cod5 has succeded only that my opinion is wrong and that thiers is special because of the numbers behind the game- give me reasons why its so good that are better than i just like WWII games its better than cod4 in my opinion... oh havent got any?? thought so

SHEATHED_BLADE

no offense if your religeous

graphics- they are the EXACT same as 4's. To say otherwise is nothing short of hypocrisy. All the critics agree it looks just as good as MW did. SO their is your "food critic" retort. A professional game reviewer is the same as a food critic in this situation.

gameplay- plays just like every COD in the past execpt tighter and more precise. The guns dont fire and miss. You do. I've never had any problem hitting a target that i actually had a good shot at. If your game lags a bit then blame the internet service not the game. The gun barrel flashes work everytime is shoot at the exact moment i shoot so i dont know why you keep looking away from the TV when you shoot and miss them. The level designs were just as constricted as 4's were. 4 did not have some amazing open-ended levels you could go at any way you wanted likenyour suggesting. The tank level was a tank level. IDK how you think it was bad other than you didnt like blowing stuff up and driving around. It wasnt buggy or horribly laided out. It ran fine with plenty of people i know. The fire catches plenty on fire and complaining about that is just you looking for something to b1tch at. guns- personal preference. I do infact like that era of weaponary compared to modern times because i dont have to go out and fight with them, and niether do you so dont start saying older guns make a game a failure. MW weapons in WaW would have been stupid whether you would have like it or not.

story- Who cares about the story in a COD game anyway but for you lets run down it. It actually felt like COD not some military rip-off action movie that MW was. How many movies have been released where its americans fighting in the middle east or russia. And you people say its fresh. Get out more for god sake

WW2 v MW- lets get this clear. Treyarch didnt go "Hey activision we're gonna make a WW2 game k." It was actually, "hey treyarch, your going to make this game because we own it's license and are paying you to do it." IW does not own COD, if they did the Activision sticker wouldnt be on EVERY game. They'd be able to produce their own games without a publisher with the amount of money COD has made over the years. MW is nothign new except to COD. Tom CLancy has been poppin out MW games for years now using all the same weapons and more that are in COD4, and so have other developers. Go to your local game store and ask them for a list of modern set shooters compared to WW2 shooters and the list will be about the same. I did that for a reserach paper last fall. So no, WaW is not a failure because it was made to be like COD4, infact considering it did so well with critics and gamers alike while still going back to your "play out" setting it did phenominal in terms of what people expected. And sales figures because of a previous installments success doesnt make it a failure. Makes it a freakin sequel. Thats what they do genuis. They ALL ride on previous games success. Just like 3 did after 2, and whether you liked 3 or not 4 did after 3. So it's obvious to anyone who wasnt a nimrod that 5 would sell well.

And there you have it. MY opinoin on why it's not a failure. So bring it on little man. I'd love to see what crazy stunt you pull next to show how much of a failure WaW is. And one other thing. It doesnt take balls to talk big on the internet. it actualy takes a pu.....well you know what i mean. Grow up and dont address people like that. Cause one day your going to do it to the wrong person and feel the error of your ways

[QUOTE="SHEATHED_BLADE"][QUOTE="ceells87"]so your OPINION is right compared to everyone elses huh. Because the numbers and reviews show the game succeeded and only your opinion is backing up that it failed. WHy don't you come up with some facts and not what you THINK about the game before getting in anyone elses face.ceells87

no offense if your religeous

graphics- they are the EXACT same as 4's. To say otherwise is nothing short of hypocrisy. All the critics agree it looks just as good as MW did. SO their is your "food critic" retort. A professional game reviewer is the same as a food critic in this situation.

gameplay- plays just like every COD in the past execpt tighter and more precise. The guns dont fire and miss. You do. I've never had any problem hitting a target that i actually had a good shot at. If your game lags a bit then blame the internet service not the game. The gun barrel flashes work everytime is shoot at the exact moment i shoot so i dont know why you keep looking away from the TV when you shoot and miss them. The level designs were just as constricted as 4's were. 4 did not have some amazing open-ended levels you could go at any way you wanted likenyour suggesting. The tank level was a tank level. IDK how you think it was bad other than you didnt like blowing stuff up and driving around. It wasnt buggy or horribly laided out. It ran fine with plenty of people i know. The fire catches plenty on fire and complaining about that is just you looking for something to b1tch at. guns- personal preference. I do infact like that era of weaponary compared to modern times because i dont have to go out and fight with them, and niether do you so dont start saying older guns make a game a failure. MW weapons in WaW would have been stupid whether you would have like it or not.

story- Who cares about the story in a COD game anyway but for you lets run down it. It actually felt like COD not some military rip-off action movie that MW was. How many movies have been released where its americans fighting in the middle east or russia. And you people say its fresh. Get out more for god sake

WW2 v MW- lets get this clear. Treyarch didnt go "Hey activision we're gonna make a WW2 game k." It was actually, "hey treyarch, your going to make this game because we own it's license and are paying you to do it." IW does not own COD, if they did the Activision sticker wouldnt be on EVERY game. They'd be able to produce their own games without a publisher with the amount of money COD has made over the years. MW is nothign new except to COD. Tom CLancy has been poppin out MW games for years now using all the same weapons and more that are in COD4, and so have other developers. Go to your local game store and ask them for a list of modern set shooters compared to WW2 shooters and the list will be about the same. I did that for a reserach paper last fall. So no, WaW is not a failure because it was made to be like COD4, infact considering it did so well with critics and gamers alike while still going back to your "play out" setting it did phenominal in terms of what people expected. And sales figures because of a previous installments success doesnt make it a failure. Makes it a freakin sequel. Thats what they do genuis. They ALL ride on previous games success. Just like 3 did after 2, and whether you liked 3 or not 4 did after 3. So it's obvious to anyone who wasnt a nimrod that 5 would sell well.

And there you have it. MY opinoin on why it's not a failure. So bring it on little man. I'd love to see what crazy stunt you pull next to show how much of a failure WaW is. And one other thing. It doesnt take balls to talk big on the internet. it actualy takes a pu.....well you know what i mean. Grow up and dont address people like that. Cause one day your going to do it to the wrong person and feel the error of your ways

wow. best response by far thank you for explaining why it is not a failure but the player is

I just finish this game yesterday and thereis nothing special about it .HCL2

This topic is way out of line.

Call of Duty 5 is an excellent shooter with a terrific story as well as enticing multiplayer.

It well deserves a 9/10

WatW is a joke compared to Modern Warfare. I really hope this is the last WWII game made by them. An the only reason it sold so many copies, is because Modern Warfare was so good. All my friends played 4, and all my friends bought 5, but none of them are still playing it whereas they played 4 for almost a year after i came out....

Failure as a game, but it sold so its good for the company.

Cant wait till Modern Warfare 2!

[QUOTE="SHEATHED_BLADE"][QUOTE="ceells87"]so your OPINION is right compared to everyone elses huh. Because the numbers and reviews show the game succeeded and only your opinion is backing up that it failed. WHy don't you come up with some facts and not what you THINK about the game before getting in anyone elses face.ceells87

no offense if your religeous

graphics- they are the EXACT same as 4's. To say otherwise is nothing short of hypocrisy. All the critics agree it looks just as good as MW did. SO their is your "food critic" retort. A professional game reviewer is the same as a food critic in this situation.

gameplay- plays just like every COD in the past execpt tighter and more precise. The guns dont fire and miss. You do. I've never had any problem hitting a target that i actually had a good shot at. If your game lags a bit then blame the internet service not the game. The gun barrel flashes work everytime is shoot at the exact moment i shoot so i dont know why you keep looking away from the TV when you shoot and miss them. The level designs were just as constricted as 4's were. 4 did not have some amazing open-ended levels you could go at any way you wanted likenyour suggesting. The tank level was a tank level. IDK how you think it was bad other than you didnt like blowing stuff up and driving around. It wasnt buggy or horribly laided out. It ran fine with plenty of people i know. The fire catches plenty on fire and complaining about that is just you looking for something to b1tch at. guns- personal preference. I do infact like that era of weaponary compared to modern times because i dont have to go out and fight with them, and niether do you so dont start saying older guns make a game a failure. MW weapons in WaW would have been stupid whether you would have like it or not.

story- Who cares about the story in a COD game anyway but for you lets run down it. It actually felt like COD not some military rip-off action movie that MW was. How many movies have been released where its americans fighting in the middle east or russia. And you people say its fresh. Get out more for god sake

WW2 v MW- lets get this clear. Treyarch didnt go "Hey activision we're gonna make a WW2 game k." It was actually, "hey treyarch, your going to make this game because we own it's license and are paying you to do it." IW does not own COD, if they did the Activision sticker wouldnt be on EVERY game. They'd be able to produce their own games without a publisher with the amount of money COD has made over the years. MW is nothign new except to COD. Tom CLancy has been poppin out MW games for years now using all the same weapons and more that are in COD4, and so have other developers. Go to your local game store and ask them for a list of modern set shooters compared to WW2 shooters and the list will be about the same. I did that for a reserach paper last fall. So no, WaW is not a failure because it was made to be like COD4, infact considering it did so well with critics and gamers alike while still going back to your "play out" setting it did phenominal in terms of what people expected. And sales figures because of a previous installments success doesnt make it a failure. Makes it a freakin sequel. Thats what they do genuis. They ALL ride on previous games success. Just like 3 did after 2, and whether you liked 3 or not 4 did after 3. So it's obvious to anyone who wasnt a nimrod that 5 would sell well.

And there you have it. MY opinoin on why it's not a failure. So bring it on little man. I'd love to see what crazy stunt you pull next to show how much of a failure WaW is. And one other thing. It doesnt take balls to talk big on the internet. it actualy takes a pu.....well you know what i mean. Grow up and dont address people like that. Cause one day your going to do it to the wrong person and feel the error of your ways

Well said, SHEATHED_BLADE must have a stick up his butt. WaW was awesome, MW was awesome; I don't see his problem with varied opinions.

in my opinion it is an epic failure also. cod4 was something so much better. it was a jump to the future with new technology and had a great ammount of people playing it. way more that cod5 could ever hope for, and everyone knows it's just a BUNCH of people playing zombies, the only reason i bought the game for a low price. all they have done is brought cod4 back to an overly-used WWII game which made a great ammount of people leave back to cod4 which was more than a spray-fest. thank you.

all they have done is brought cod4 back to an overly-used WWII game

As opposed to the countless numbers of modern shooters such as Rainbow 6, Ghost Recon, SOCOM, Delta Force, Battlefield, etc. that preceded COD4?!

It's a good game. It's slightly worse than 4, and still very similar to 4 to the point that I understand why some people don't care for it. However, it certainly doesn't suck, and it certainly didn't fail.Englando_IV

Coming from a person who is not a fan of CoD and has a bad taste in the mouth for the CoD franchise since the first one, (I played 1 and 2 on PC 3 abysmal on 360) I would say CoD 5 is definetly not a failiure. That game has done well and seems to be well recieved by all fans of the series.

I tried to get into 4 but it was just so boring I couldn't bring myself to finish it or care to play online. Just never have liked the style of the games. I prrefer Gears of War 2 for my online shooting needs.

It was mediocre compared to COD4 imo..I enjoyed 4 much better.

[QUOTE="OfficialBed"]First of all, Call of Duty 5 isn't released yet. Secondly, Call of Duty: World at War definitely did not fail.WingedHero

There is no such game called Call of Duty 5: World at War like you said. Only Call of Duty: World at War.

[QUOTE="WingedHero"][QUOTE="OfficialBed"]First of all, Call of Duty 5 isn't released yet. Secondly, Call of Duty: World at War definitely did not fail.OfficialBed

There is no such game called Call of Duty 5: World at War like you said. Only Call of Duty: World at War.

[QUOTE="BattleSword1"]

Copies sold =/= Quality

CoD:WaW failed epicly in terms of the game itself, but not in terms of fans. Besides, it's not like it was a complete disaster, anyway.

def_mode

i will say this again and again CoD 5 is a mod of CoD4 that they charged $60 for. yes, it is stupid but true. allt hey changed was the setting and the guns. that is a mod right there.SF_KiLLaMaN

Its not that its a bad game, its just WAY too overhyped. The gameplay was good, but sadly, it was nothing new.iwantasong

just like every other cod