Why didn't anyone tell me!?
-
-
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
No love for Medal of Honor?
World at War is pretty nifty, I'll say that. -
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
I hate how the Japanese are personified as horrible monsters.
Inb4 Nanking pictures.Last edited by marcus; 01-06-2009, 12:02 AM.
Comment
-
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
who isn't a horrible monster
And this is the first time I heard World at War is better.Comment
-
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
The only thing that'll probably get me to play this game is
that it's unique.
You shoot Japanese instead of Germans.Comment
-
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
I've been on the fence on getting this game for a while now. It seems almost everyone on my PSN friends list has been playing it often.Comment
-
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
I'll wait till it's $30 like I did for Modern Warfare....and that's why.Comment
-
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
I prefer modern warfare.
Hopefully modern warfare 2 will be better then both.Slapfunkah :
Nickelback is the Twilight of music.
It sells like crack
it sucks balls
only little girls like it.Comment
-
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
Ehh, they were pretty bad doofus.Originally posted by marcus View Post
Anyways YAH, I picked up the game for 39$ at Target about a week ago.
Honestly, World War II has never been so fun. Though I don't ever want to play a CoD title placed there again.Comment
-
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
For WW2, i go Medal of Honor (except for Rising Sun. I couldnt get into that one).
CoD4 was awesome for changing the time period and including newer types of weapons, maps, ect. World at War going back to WW2 made me sad.Comment
-
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
You're an idiot Bigfoot.Comment
-
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
Overall, World at War does appear to be a vast improvement compared to Treyarc’s last game, the incredibly mediocre Call of Duty 3. But then again, when you can legally steal all of the good from the last game and throw some Zombies into it, there’s little excuse to make another forgettable game.
I’ll probably pick this up when it’s a greatest hit. I played the multiplayer beta awhile back and it was noticeable uglier than 4 and the game just didn’t feel as tight.
It would really surprise me if World at War had anything comparable to the numerous memorable moments found in Modern Warfare such as the Chernobyl sniper segment, or the denotation of the nuke.Last edited by Chrono; 01-06-2009, 01:48 AM.Comment
-
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
Maybe I just got really bored of the middle eastern setting after 80 hours of online play? I'm just really surprised by this game.Comment
-
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
*empties tommy gun into someone without effect, is killed by dog bite*Last edited by Garr123; 01-06-2009, 03:36 AM."At first it just looked like a picture of a bunch of lily pads, but then I started scraping at it with my pocket knife and the whole painting just sort of spoke to me," Schmidt said. "For the first time, I finally understand what Monet was trying to get across in her work."Comment
-
Re: World at War is better than Modern Warfare.
Oh, and I'll also add that the gunship level in this game is one of the coolest moments of gaming ever.Last edited by Biggie; 01-06-2009, 03:59 AM.Comment
Comment