COD: world at war beta

[nickfil]

anyone else get a call from gamestop about the beta?

I got a call yesterday. I plugged in my info on the site and they told me that i'll be getting in the beta in a few days. Curious if I'll be seeing any racketers online fighting the war.

[HoboJoe]

I feel like this CoD won't be very good. Why? Well, it's made by the same company that made CoD 3. I sure hope that this game is very good, or else Treyarch should just stop making games. I don't get why CoD's license keeps getting thrown around considering Infinity Ward made CoD 1,2 and 4...the ones that people liked. Anyway, there's still a good chance that Treyarch learned form every mistake they made in 3 and will produce a good CoD. Only time will tell.

[nickfil]

I feel like this CoD won't be very good. Why? Well, it's made by the same company that made CoD 3. I sure hope that this game is very good, or else Treyarch should just stop making games. I don't get why CoD's license keeps getting thrown around considering Infinity Ward made CoD 1,2 and 4...the ones that people liked. Anyway, there's still a good chance that Treyarch learned form every mistake they made in 3 and will produce a good CoD. Only time will tell.

Yeah- people hate on cod 3 and WAW pretty hard. I honestly don't see why. I played cod3 on the wii and really loved playing it. Of course- perhaps the online wasn't strong. And it was a different shooting mechanic with the wii remote instead of a controller. I wasn't really playing online games until cod4, and i wasn't playing tactile shooters until i popped in cod3. I played some of the beta tonight and had a really good time with it. The maps were fun and super moody. The shooting mechanics were tight just like cod4. I enjoyed myself and am looking forward to putting a lot of time in the beta. I have about 10 or so days of online play time clocked in on cod4, and i could see doing the same with WAW.

This pretty much boils down to something that i just don't get... what do people want from call of duty that it isn't doing? And shooters in general. It is a well beaten horse. Run. Shoot. Thats pretty much it, how bad could you fuck it up? This is a honest to god question too, i'd love to talk about it. How did cod3 fail? What I suspect that many people threw on the hate hats just because it is a cod that went back to wwII. As if to say a step back in setting is a step back in gameplay. And then you know- the internet.... when it gets its hate on, it is hard to get it to stop.

To say that treyarch should stop making games is way out of left field though. I'm sure that at least the games they are making are selling well, which is the bottom line. If you don't like the games, or the communities you are in don't really like them thats one thing. To call for a closing of a studio where people are working as hard as they can, but are getting the raw deal of movie tie ins and stuff like that... What i'm saying is, they haven't done a lot of original groundbreaking games. I agree with that. They do franchises and movie games. If they don't- someone else will. Whats the harm in letting them do their thing. After all, there could be a few gems in there. Quantum of Solace looks fun. This sentiment is probably coming from being creative and working on projects that I'm not really into, but I'm a low man on the poll or just starting out so i don't have a say. There is a necessity for a company like this just like there is a necessity for a company like valve. A young programmer might get a shot at treyarch and get the experience to build a great game somewhere else someday.

no hate, i'm not trying to "call you out" or anything like that- just talkin here. Sharing opinions.

[Ack]

There's a couple of things folks want from shooters. Good enemy AI, a fun experience, competent multiplayer. That's it when it comes down to the generic shooter, but there are many sub-classes you could say. First off, WWII gets played a lot in FPS titles, and there's really only a major market for them in America. So we get lots of stagnation.

Mood is always a good thing, and I enjoy tactical FPSs where I can be a member of an army going up against other armies, but the multiplayer has to be capable of handling large amounts of people for that. Most of my friends prefer a max of 30 people in a server, I tend to prefer 30 people to one side in a server. I feel it makes the game more like a war if I'm constantly coming up against enemy soldiers. I'm cool with less, though, if I feel the maps are built for it and I can have fun with it. I also really enjoy class-based FPS titles, or ones where I can build my own class. It's part of why I liked CoD4 so much.

And then there's the crowd that despises FPS titles on consoles. I'll be honest, I fall into this group. I just think an FPS is best on PC. It's just one thing in a list of things that make a good FPS to me.

For the record, I also prefer enemies registering that I've hit them, good AI both on the computer-controlled folks on my side and on the enemy's, fast-paced action, and competent weaponry. I won't say I prefer tactical, though I generally lean towards it, because that would leave out the awesomeness that is Serious Sam.

Either way, my absolute favorite FPSs have been Doom, Half-Life, Team Fortress Classic, Battlefield 2142, Call of Duty, Call of Duty 4, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

[PacoDG]

If the beta is really what we all can look forward too, then consider this game a big pass.

It is a CoD4 mod/re-skin (I know.. Treyarch is using the same engine.. but its like they didn't use it properly).

Maps are cool. Dogs are cool. Gametypes are good too.

Just the overall feel is 'meh' ... I popped in CoD4 after leveling up to 11, and it really is just a better game.

I hope at the least, they do like they did with the CoD4 beta and allow me to level up higher so I can check out more perks, as the game has already grown stale after just a couple days play