Comments on: Review – Call of Duty World at War

By: StevieG

StevieG — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:14:06 +0000

Historical accuracy is good, but I do not see what the problem is. The system is designed to fit with the types of gun, not the exact detail. So the FG42 has been put in as a machine gun because that is what it fits as best. Same for the PTRS 41. Evidently, therefore, a war game does not need to be perfect to be succesful

And how is "Destroy all Humans 2" more accurate? Comparing it to the actual invasion of Earth - oh, sorry, there hasn't been an invasion of this Earth. What planet are you on?

And you spell "lieing" lying, by the way

By: Commander Mike Hunt

Commander Mike Hunt — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:06:13 +0000

There are several issues with this game regarding historical inaccuracies.

Firstly why is the FG42 classed in the 'machine gun' category when it is clearly a rifle. The FG stands for Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 which translates as 'Paratroop Rifle'. Therefore it is not a machine gun.
.
Secondly, there are no officers in the game, they are all NCO's. This is not how it would have been

Also i reject to Treyarch's portrayal of the sniper scene in 'Enemy at the Gates', as it is not faithful to the respective film.

Thirdly, the sound which the M1 Garand makes when all rounds are ejected is an E sharp when it is so obviously a G flat. This is disgraceful and an outrage to the weapon and those who used it in combat.

Lastly, WHY is the PTRS 41 categorised as a 'Bolt Action Rifle' when is so clearly a semi-automatic, due to there being no manual cocking required to reload the weapon in between each round.

As a conclusion, i would like to express my distaste for this game, as, if a war game is to be successful, it needs to included all of the relevant material and be faithful to the history which it follows. Anyone looking to buy this game should completely ignore the review given here, and opt for a more realisctic game, my recommendation being 'Destroy all Humans 2', since this is an accurate depiction of invasion to the Earth, rather than this piece of tosh being totally out of its depth.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to convey my often disregarded opinions, and I look forward to complaining more on this lieing review site.

By: Nometet

Nometet — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:10:37 +0000

This one seems like they took a step back to me. But people are still going to buy it because of COD4. But I don't think the COD4 servers will empty out just yet.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:49:58 +0000

Yes, there are some issues with the game, but I think 8.1 is a fair reflection. Its not just a random figure plucked out the air, the impressive voice acting bumped up the score, as did the visuals. The single player whilst not brilliant, was fair. Its the multiplayer that keeps the score up.

By: Cheb

Cheb — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:49:38 +0000

First of all, Treyarch didn't develop the first CoD, Infinity Ward did. Treyarch only did the third one and it was utter crap. Like this one. The multiplayer is good but the single player is completely rubbish. You're caught up in the hype. Have you ever actually played a good video game? 8.1? Are you trying to tell us it was fun? The singleplayer campaign actually made me angry it was so bad.