![]() While the presentation and story-telling remains top-notch, the gravelly voice of Kiefer Sutherland was more of a distraction than anything else I kept waiting for him to scream that THERE'S NO TIME. The controls are the same as they've always been, the game relies on a lot of scripting for those big set-pieces and cinematic battles, and you'll often feel like you're fighting the entire war yourself. The single-player game now features levels from the Pacific campaign, which is a much-needed change of pace, but you'll recognize everything else instantly. The result is a game that's very satisfying overall, but nowhere near the revelation that Call of Duty 4 was. World at War, which doesn't have the number "5" anywhere on the box, doesn't do much to push the formula forward the game simply brings the series kicking and screaming back into World War II while ripping off many of the things that made Call of Duty 4 great. Accepted wisdom states that only Infinity Ward, the team behind both Call of Duty 2 and 4, can make an outstanding CoD title. It was developed by Treyarch, the team that gave us the mediocre Call of Duty 3. ![]() Platform: Xbox 360 (Reviewed), PS3, PC, Wii, Nintendo DSĬall of Duty: World at War was supposed to be horrible. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |