Ruslan74
14th November 2008, 10:12 AM
This one from Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=297415) :
It's easy to be impressed by World at War. It's a game designed for maximum initial impact and, while it wobbles along the way, it delivers precisely the sort of carefully stage-managed carnage that fans will expect. The addition of a robust and varied co-op option helps to mitigate the disappointment of the by-the-numbers traditional multiplayer modes. However, looking back to Kristan's review review of Call of Duty 3 you'll find the exact same complaints being raised two years ago. Corridor gameplay. Outdated features. Flaky AI. They're all still here, albeit masked by even more whiz-bang effects than ever before. World at War certainly benefits from Modern Warfare's beefier graphics engine, but when it comes to the crunch it lacks the crucial innovations - both in gameplay and concept - that made its immediate predecessor so deservedly popular.
They were very kind and gave it a 8/10.
It wont dethrone GoW's or CoD 4's online gameplay it seems.
It's easy to be impressed by World at War. It's a game designed for maximum initial impact and, while it wobbles along the way, it delivers precisely the sort of carefully stage-managed carnage that fans will expect. The addition of a robust and varied co-op option helps to mitigate the disappointment of the by-the-numbers traditional multiplayer modes. However, looking back to Kristan's review review of Call of Duty 3 you'll find the exact same complaints being raised two years ago. Corridor gameplay. Outdated features. Flaky AI. They're all still here, albeit masked by even more whiz-bang effects than ever before. World at War certainly benefits from Modern Warfare's beefier graphics engine, but when it comes to the crunch it lacks the crucial innovations - both in gameplay and concept - that made its immediate predecessor so deservedly popular.
They were very kind and gave it a 8/10.
It wont dethrone GoW's or CoD 4's online gameplay it seems.