![]() – Multiplayer maps and addition of tanks poorly designed – Multiplayer still has addictive perk and rank system of Call of Duty 4 – Presentation is still top notch and it’s hard to tell WaW has a different developer than COD4 – Enjoyable campaign and interesting Pacific front ![]() Of course, maybe it’s the more hardcore gamer within me that notices these things and the general gamer will overlook them. It’s odd because on the surface it looks nearly identical to Call of Duty 4’s multiplayer, but apparently I’m “seasoned” enough that the imbalances I see make the online game lack the addictiveness that Call of Duty 4 had. My only beef is with the multiplayer, and to be honest, I’m just trying to hit the first Prestige so I can be done with it. While I was initially hesitant about what Treyarch would do, I found the campaign to be pretty enjoyable for the most part and had very little issues with it there. ![]() I’ve dabbled a bit in the co-op modes as well as the Zombie mode, and leveled up to about 40 or so online. It was definitely frustrating at parts, but I don’t recall it being any more annoying than Call of Duty 4’s Veteran mode. While Call of Duty: World at War’s campaign is enjoyable, the multiplayer ultimately proves to be more frustrating than it should have been.Īfter several hours of attempts through the Veteran campaign’s last two levels, I can finally say I completed the game’s single player campaign.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |