Call of Duty: World at War

1. supersniper

   Dec 21, 2011

   10

   this is one great game that shows the wii is able to host cod title the controlls are good the online is good and the campaign is simplythis is one great game that shows the wii is able to host cod title the controlls are good the online is good and the campaign is simply amazing it is a must have title on the wii… Expand

   • 1 of 1 users found this helpful
2. YosoufM.

   Nov 18, 2008

   9

   An absolutely fantastic FPS game for the Wii. While it doesn't have everything the 360/PS3/PC versions have (limited co-op mode, no An absolutely fantastic FPS game for the Wii. While it doesn't have everything the 360/PS3/PC versions have (limited co-op mode, no split screen multiplayer, no zombie mode, etc )due strictly to hardware limitations, it still has great controls, a memorable story mode, and by far IMO the best online multiplayer FPS experience so far for the Wii!… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
4. Rickracer43

   Dec 17, 2020

   9

   Now I'm gonna say this if I played this game on the Xbox it'd undoubtedly be a 10 but I played it on the WII & hot damn the game is hard withNow I'm gonna say this if I played this game on the Xbox it'd undoubtedly be a 10 but I played it on the WII & hot damn the game is hard with the motion controls other than that the game is awesome & stunning with incredible enemy strategies & storytelling a must-play for any hard COD or WWII fans… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
5. RyanS

   Sep 8, 2009

   8

   I enjoyed the game with it's great single-player and extensive multiplayer, but I was a little surprised about what Treyarch left out. I enjoyed the game with it's great single-player and extensive multiplayer, but I was a little surprised about what Treyarch left out. Unlike in the PS3 and XBOX 360, it doesn't have zombie mode, death cards, or anything else that the other consoles had.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
6. Yojimbo2015

   Jan 11, 2023

   7

   FPS based upon the war in the Pacific during WWII that ticks all of the requisite boxes. The only real downside is that it all feels quiteFPS based upon the war in the Pacific during WWII that ticks all of the requisite boxes. The only real downside is that it all feels quite familiar as a lot of games have trodden this ground, but it's well executed.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
7. notoco42

   Feb 26, 2016

   6

   I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE FACT THAT THE SOVIETS ARE GLORIFIED IN VIDEO GAMES AS LIBERATORS. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THEY ENSLAVED, NOTI FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE FACT THAT THE SOVIETS ARE GLORIFIED IN VIDEO GAMES AS LIBERATORS. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THEY ENSLAVED, NOT LIBERATED, CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE. THERE IS NO DENYING THAT THE AUTHORITIES OF THE SOVIET UNION, AT LEAST DURING THE STALINIST ERA, WERE AS TYRANNICAL AS THE AUTHORITIES OF NAZI GERMANY, IF NOT MORE. AND YET THE WESTERN GAME DEVELOPERS, WHO DON'T KNOW JACK ABOUT HISTORY, PAY HOMAGE TO THOSE RED FASCISTS.
   
   World at War comes as a… bag mixed of single- and multi-player campaigns. As of the day I'm writing this review, Nintendo is about to shut down their wi-fi connectivity. Due to obvious reasons, I don't wanna tease myself with something that'll be taken away from me for keeps, so I skip the multiplayer mode. Anyhow, the Wii has never been known to have a top-notch online play, so why bother with it, right? Let's erase what is left to the displeasure of its fans. Although multiplayer, easily, constitutes like a good half of this product, and "Wi-fi connectivity" proudly announces the cover, never more will you be able to enjoy it. Poof, vanished into thin air.
   
   So, what is the single-player campaign like? Right off the bat, if this is the future, or rather the present, of first person shooters, then do count me out. Granted, old school shooters couldn't boast of epic storylines but they, at least, would give you some freedom. Maps were yours to explore, or so I remember. In WaW, you have none of this freedom. The game is scripted and fixed beyond belief. Devs err on the side of caution not to let you roam free. You're being led by the hand at all times. Oh, you wanna take a stroll to the left. Not a bright idea - a felled tree blocks your path. To the right you can't go either, a boulder won't let you pass this time around. Mind you, there's a background for you to admire,. This forest, with all certainty, goes somewhere; only, where remains shrouded in mystery.
   
   Cause them devs know good that all you wanna do in a game like this is jog straight ahead. And all the potential of the FPS genre is tapped when you hide away behind some cover, lying in wait for the enemy to reload. Then charge and hope you'll be a quick enough runner and gunner to make a pitiful attempt at shooting your enemy. Or, alternatively, wait and have your squad mates, actually, complete the whole game on your behalf. Then… it goes full circle, until the very end, with so little variation that the tank level strikes you as being from a different game. The outcome is that, thanks to some control freaks who made this game, you get an experience even more linear than the original Red Steel. I'll say it like I mean it, it is a simplified, if not simplistic, fps game. I recall playing the first installment to the Call of Duty franchise, and compared with it, World at War feels tenfold as linear.
   
   So I heard someone in the audience say that the original Medal of Honor games were predictable as well, if not more, and generic, for that matter. Rationalize all you want, there was something to the first two MoHs that in WaW is gone missing. If only its programmers had the guts to let some fresh air in, the game could benefit from it, cause by the looks of it, they can't seem to take it in stride. The storyline gotta be so down to earth from beginning to end. MoH, in contrast to WaW, was tongue-in-cheek, almost like cabaret, which doesn't exactly mean that it could not take itself seriously.
   
   It has become a stock phrase as far as this console is concerned - WaW is "graphically appealing for a Wii game." That said, on a bigger flat screen TV, textures are as blurred and muddy and bland… and what not that it gets you thinking. I myself have been thinking, which isn't every day, and what I came up with is that the Wii limitations as a piece of sh… hardware are no excuse for this game's looking far worse than the Call of Duty classic, still less of an eyesore that WaW, which came out five years later.
   
   The AI deserves an honorable mention. To say it leaves much to be desired won't do it justice. Enemy soldiers have a strong inclination to get stuck in a rut every so often and squat as if it were a PE class, as if they believed would overcome an obstacle in front of themselves by performing an infinite number of squats. Sometimes, they stand motionless, without any intent to attack you. It's a sad view to look at. But what can you do? You saw it, you would agree. A wise thing to do under such circumstances is reset the level, start over and take it like a man.
   
   Is it worth playing? Yes, as a curiosity, as a herald of the advent of more linear, repetitive and frustrating gameplay. I can only recommend this game, if you find it at a reasonable price.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
8. ojinneal

   Nov 4, 2010

   1

   I liked the story but I couldn't get over how bad the graphics were. It looked like they took the Xbox360 game and dropped the graphics toI liked the story but I couldn't get over how bad the graphics were. It looked like they took the Xbox360 game and dropped the graphics to where it's barely playable but able to work on the Wii. I'm sorry Wii-mote lovers but I feel like I have more control with a mouse or two analog sticks. If you like FPS's then do yourself a favor and get Goldeneye because it's a billion times better.… Expand

   • 0 of 1 users found this helpful

See all 35 User Reviews