Customer Reviews
COD 5 review - By: MD Wilkins, 06 Jan 2009 
I thought this game would be rubbish judging by the quality of COD 3 & the BETA, however I have been pleasently surprised by the enjoyment I get out of this game. I believe this is because Activisionin their wisdom have told Treyarch to copy Infinity Ward i.e. the recipie for success.
COD4 was by anyone's standard a masterpiece of how to make a game. World at War is very similar but has changed the dynamic of the game a lot with bigger maps & different weapons & perks & of course vehicles. I really like the mulitplayer maps, lots of places to hide & good symmetry makes them a lot of fun. Personally I always play Hardcore mode on any of these games because its more realistic & therefore more intense & more fun, so I recommend you do that.
The graphics are obviously top drawer thanks to activision but when the player runs it is actually quite funny. I don't think any soldier or even human for that matter would ever do a ballet dance tip toe run like Treyarch have designed. Its amusing.
The single player campaign is very very good, but for me its a little to easy even on vetren. Maybe I have played FPS to much now & that's why, as I know what is going to come next. Still, its great playing as three or four different characters during the game & adds variety.
I would give this game 5 stars BUT COD4 got 5 stars & its not quite there because Infinity Ward have told the makers of World at War what to do. Well done Treyarch for listening though.
Happy gaming
2 steps forward, 1 step back - By: HWNDarkside, 05 Jan 2009 The Infinity Ward-produced COD2 was one of the finest FPS available on any platform. Sublime single player action & a consistantly enthralling storyline coupled with excellent (for the time) online multiplayer.
Along came Treyarch & the very mediocre COD3. Stupid AI, boring level design & a crappy story took the franchise a step backwards, but it was propped up by a strong mulitplayer offering.
Infinity Ward then blew COD3 out of the water with COD4. Although the single player mode was woefully short it was extremely intense & well made. The online multiplayer really set the standard offering of the most intense experiences over Xbox Live.
So here come Treyarch again. Have they learnt anything since COD3? Has the extra timein development made any difference (apparently COD3 was a rush job). Yes & no.
It's World War II again. Another game with M1 Garrand. Another COD with a tank mission. Another COD with splinter storyline than doesn't help build any empathy with the characters.
In fairness though the level design is a vast improvement on COD3. The Japanese/flamethrower missions are a blast & there is an underlying feeling of dread & danger throughout the Soviet missions. Airplane & tanks missions are nothing more than filler though. There's a lot more blood & dismemberment - which is nice! Presentation is all a bit too flash though, the cut-scenes/level intros detract from the sobering stories they are trying to tell.
Unfortunately, as with COD3, it's let down by Treyarch's approach to AI. Your comrades/squad are by far the most useless & unreliable I've come across to date. They standin front of you & let enemy through to attack you, spend hours shooting but never actually kill anything, & worst of all - they push you out of cover directly into line of fire!
Enemy AI isn't much better. Treyarch stick with the chaining system that made COD3 such snooze-fest. Enemies will respawn & cover the same postions over & over until you cross The Magic Line that stops them, turning most of the game into a smoke-and-sprint to the next Magic Line or checkpoint.
The worst addition to the series though is, by far, grenade spamming. Apparently all enemies now carry at least 15 grenades each & have an uncanny ability to pitch grenades (a) at your feet despite you hiding against 4 foot cover & (b) not only at your retreat position, but the position you decided to move to because you knew the retreat position would be grenaded!! This isn't so much of a problem on the easier settings, but on Veteran it makes some levels ridiculously hard to the verge of impossible & extremely frustrating. Although Veteran on this COD is probably the easiest of the whole series certain sections are made 10 times more infuriating by grenade spamming (I'm looking at you Blowtorch & Corkscrew!!).
Multiplayer is pretty much a direct port from COD4,in fact it might as well be COD4:World War II. Decent enough maps but some really appalling respawn issues & glitches that should have been ironed outin beta testing.
Overall this is a decent game & Treyarch have improved on COD3 but haven't really added anything of worth to the series - apart from maybe a flamethrower.
Please, no more World War II!!
5 Star Game - By: Ferneyhough, 04 Jan 2009 
This game is amazing!!
The solo game is brilliant & becomes increasingly difficult as it should.
You could complete the gamein 1-2 days which is short.
But online play is what makes this game so good!
people who say its not as good as COD 4 & give it a 1 or 2 star rating for that reason are just making the game look like it's got bad reviews...but they are pointless & irrelevant reasons!!!
This is by far the greatest WW2 game that's been made so far.
Wait for CoD6 - By: J. E. Culver, 30 Dec 2008 
Was really looking forward to going back to WWII after CoD4 but this game is such a let down.All it seems to me is that Treyarch have copied the CoD4 engine..changed the backdrop & weapons to WWII & that's it...what else were they doing during the '2 years development work'..??
There were lots of errors, problems with weapon power & map glitches reported when the beta was launched but it seems no effort was madein correcting them for the proper game.
They seem to have put no work into making the perk system more original..coming up with more WWII oriented perks..instead just copied the CoD4 ones & as for putting cross hair sights & silencers on Thompsons & MP40 is daft...it's supposed to be WWII...????
As people have said before the way you are herded through the single player with little room for flanking, the way the rest of your `squad' run past the enemy makes SP a frustrating experience.....The fact my friends & I have spent more time playing the co-op missions than anything else sums it all up.
Hopefully IW will save the day again with CoD6
Call of Duty 4.1 - By: D. Walkden, 30 Dec 2008 
As has been said before, COD5 looks & feels like COD4 with the main protagonists having dressed upin 1940's garb & decided to do a bit of re-enacting on the weekend. The first time I played it, I was struck by just how similar the action felt to the previous outing of the franchise. And I don't mean that as a compliment. I feel massively short changed. We're being asked to fork out nearly fifty quid for this game & it feels like it's creators couldn't be bothered designing a new layout, prefering instead to overlay the general scenery from COD4 with a few palm trees & some bamboo grass.
Also, I wasn't too impressed with being invited to round up unarmed German prisoners & shoot them. Don't get me wrong, I have no moral qualms about dispatching hordes of evil little Japanese buggers with a flame-thrower (so long as they're armed & attacking me), but shooting unarmed prisoners just seems a bit off to me.
Overall, not too impressed.
