Xbox 360 Call Of Duty : World At War - Now With Zombies

Come on what's wrong with nazi zombies??? Multiplayer has super mutant combat dogs that are massive killers.

 

Seen it all before

 

Nah, would have been if it weren't for respawning enemies, I think they killed every CoD single player they've been in.

 

Anyone else got it?

I have to say, sorry, but... it's actually really good. Single player is very different from CoD4 - no subtle special forces stuff here, it's full on grand battles with tanks and explosions and dozens and dozens of bad guys to shoot. Loads of nice touches like the enemy seemingly having the Last Man Standing (?) perk from CoD4, the flamethrower, some new WW2 weapons (Trenchgun and a biggggggg **** off machine gun - although the bazooka is ****), and the crazy Japanese ambushers in trees and playing dead. Having said that, it lacks the drama of the CoD4's single player for some reason... feels less tense and more about the OTT action. Oh and the music is just incredible - a mix of classic orchestral stuff with a more modern crunchy rock thing - a la Black Hawk Down. Don't buy it just for the single player though.

Multiplayer is as good as CoD4. Mainly because it's no different bar the weapons and maps. The attack dogs are great, and the maps in general seem to strike a good balance between vintage CoD goodness and CoD4 intricacy. I've had several moments tonight of getting pleasant flashbacks to hours and hours on CoD on the PC.

Overall, Treyarch have done a good job. Nowt earth shattering but it's certainly the best WW2 shooter I've played. Doom merchants, be gone!

 

Wooo cheers for that mook, I look forward to getting it now

 

Also the cut scenes are a work of art. You'll not see stock footage used so well in any other game - like the rest of the game they're very slick indeed.

I'd recommend you buy it if you like shooters, and don't have that 'fashionable' dislike for WW2 games. I'm really enjoying it.

 

About 3 of my friends are bumming this game at the moment. I may have to get it, but not for a while yet as I have to wait and see what santa brings.

I love WW2 games, I remember my mate coming round one day and saying about cod4 (before release) and saying how WW2 games are getting soo old, and I was thinking to myself that he doesn't really even play shooters and has never owned a single WW2 game. Then later...on the internet I see where he was getting his new found views on WW2 shooters.

I cannot get enough of WW2 games as I love the history and there has always a sense of pride for me, unless its MOH:airbourne, in which the most awesome Americans beat down the nazi death force with gas masks and MGs that might as well have been grafted on to make them more evil, what the heck was that about.

 

It's pretty sad when the bonus zombie game is more fun than the entire main game itself, ive spent more time playing the bonus zombie level than i have on the entire game itself

the game failed to meet my already tragically low expectations , yeah it looks pretty some of the actual game play is fun but its just stale imo its been done to death and not even the CoD4 engine could save it

there is no epicness about it at all, CoD4 had me on the edge of my seat, this one made me yawn and i love military shooters to start with so i usually like these things more than the next person

 

I would suspect that if you've played the zombie bit more than the main game, and it's only been out a couple of days at the most, then you need to go back and play the single player campaign properly. I don't think it's as good as CoD4 - but I've not played another console shooter that is yet - but it is extremely good, non-stop, hectic fun imho.

I'm not directing this at you, but there was a massive portion of gamers set to claim they dislike this game before even playing it and regardless of the quality I get the impression that a lot of people will simply refuse to change their public opinion on it. What's amusing to me is that the multiplayer is IDENTICAL to CoD4 bar the weapons and maps ( and neither of those elements are inferior) and yet some people are STILL whining about it.

 

I haven't played it on multi yet so i can't base my opinion on that, i can only comment on the single player, as for hating it before it come out i agree i have seen a lot of forum hate directed at it but i never buy into that chain of thought myself i always give it a fair go

I like some things about it immensely such as it actually showing the horror of war too many games gloss over that, i was shocked to see a german soldier blown in half by my grenade and i don't shock easily it actually made me stop and think hey this is different its not just a detached slaughter, while its controversial it's not too over the top for me as a big war buff, yes some of it really isn't politically correct but was itself isn't so its refreshing to see it presented that way

Yes its a bit rough on say the japanese showing the way they treated prisoners but its what really happened (my uncle died as a pow working on the burmese railway so i may see things differently) so they showing it is just showing the way it was and making you feel like the soldiers did towards tojo during the war

I know a lot of people won't agree with me here but it was good to see a game with a dose of real history in it rather than just rocking up and blowing the bad guys to hell rambo style without seeing the consequences of your action, people dont just fall down dead they get torn apart and that might be distasteful to some its how it really happens and im sick of games that don't present that reality for the most part because its hard to think about your actions or the real horror that is war when the people fall down dead like a b grade 80's action movie

But with all that said it didn't make up for it just feeling stale to me for the most part like its been done a thousand times before, would it have been too hard to base the game on a modern conflict like vietnam or even now like cod4 did? At least then it wouldn't feel so overdone but thats just my opinion and i respect others may not agree with that and its cool i just think if your trying to do a real war game do it full saving private ryan style and show the horror and sacrifices the real heroes had to endure and honour them by not glossing over what they suffered even if its just a game

I liked call of duty 4 because it just felt epic and fresh but world at war just lacked the true epicness of what it should have been, i think if they pulled off the epicness i would overlook the flaws in single player and rate it much much higher, while the ww2 genre is saturated if they had managed to make it feel like cod4 did it would be an instant classic imo but it fell too short for me

 

puff, why a xbox360 tag.....

playing it on PC with my 2 other friends over LAN. what's the highest Zombie mode you've got to?

i got to level 20, only 3 players! i think we can get to level 25 if we have a 4th player.

 

I'm so disgusted by the fact that they have gone back to a World War 2 structure that I'm not even going to both buying it. Yes Mookboy I'm judging a game before buying it, sorry.

 

Nazi Zombies is awesome, played it split screen with a friend earlier and we were hooked. Only made it to level 9 though

 

Despite my fears of this game being average at best I've bought this (£22.50 for a sealed new copy on xbox 360... couldn't refuse) If I don't like it it'll be soon sold.

If anything the game will probably provide a few mildly amusing hours then I'll go back to CoD4s online

 

No worries. You're atleast one step up the ladder from the people who judged it before it was even released.

I just don't get the sudden requirement for people to hate the WW2 setting - people have such short memories after lapping up the first couple of MoH and CoDs. Bizarre. "OMFG if I don't join in with the haaaaating, peeps are gonna think I'm a ***** or something! WW2 is for homos!" It's not like half the people who claim to be put off the WW2 setting can give a worthwhile reason beyond "it's been done before" - um, yeah, and CoD4 was the first game to ever use modern weapons and what not?

I'm not saying it's the best thing ever - but, hey it's pretty good nonetheless. Single is good, but not amazing - a good way to waste a few hours - so no different to a load of other good, but not extraordinary games that have been released this year. Like I say, multi is no different to CoD4. Don't even know why I'm bothering to reply, apart from being irritated by people who can't think for themselves.

 

Uh, perhaps missing the point there. This is, what, call of duty 4.5? Basically the 5th in a series that has almost entirely focussed on WW2. That's just in the CoD series, there have been a myriad of other games most of have played based in WW2. Being the valiant american who shoots nazi's or those imperial japs gets boring after a while. Especially when you're looking at single player experiences as poor as CoD 2 (or, despite it's different setting, CoD 4).

There are so many other interesting and hardly done settings for wars that could be used from the last 100 years. Companies basically seem to think that if it's WW2 with America saving the world (as was exactly the case, of course...) then it'll sell. Unfortunately it's probably true. Korea, 'Nam, The Falklands, Gulf War 1, and plenty of other conflicts and wars could all be much better settings.

 

Yeah, fair enough. I think it's just random how people have fixated on WW2 though and harp on about CoD4 offering something different... different to the rest of the CoD series, yeah, but killing stereotypical arab terrorists and comedy Eastern Europeans hardly comprises original. Give me a game that lets you kill lots and lots of people, regardless of era or history period and if it's half decent I'll give it a look.

The reason CoD4 was so good was because of the multiplayer, not the setting. The setting was it's weakest feature imho. The story was so dull and generic it was unreal. But the action and pace is what saved it and made it a blast to play.

What IS disappointing is that aside from the Pacific setting and the bells and whistles, there is nothing at all different in the single player mode. The Russian bits could have been in earlier games to be honest, bar the massacres and general war crimes the game lets you commit. What they should have done is to focus on one something like the SAS raids behind German lines, or I dunno... a group of Canadian commandos or SIS operatives in France. I get the point about this game retreading old ground, and I agree it's lazy. But it doesn't make it a bad game - just as something like Raindow Six Vegas wasn't a bad game for portraying yet more SWAT-esque action, or Ghost Recon 2 for using yet another mundane tinpot dictactor...

I'm rambling here, without good reason.

One thing I will say is, I do hope they don't go into the future as some people have speculated...

 

Was round my friends house when he got the game on Sunday and we played through some of the single-player campaign and of course a whole lot of split screen multiplayer & live.

The single player campaign is very different to COD4 in my opinoin, like one of the other guys on the first page said its very OTT on the action & its the Japenese soldiers fight like crazy. I was getting shot left, right and centre when i first started playing it.

That said though its a great game and i'm getting it straight after work today.

The mulitplayer is wicked, just like COD4 but harder in some ways. Some of the guns are pretty w&nk and its hard to shoot and the players are really hard to spot when you play some levels.

Live is great also, but it was hard at first as everyone i was playing were like lv45+ and they had great weapons with all the attachments and i had nowt and was getting my arse wipped but it was all good fun.

 

God, i love this game! Only ever played burnout revenge and COD4, now its just purely COD5.