Comments on: OhGizmo! Review – Call of Duty: World At War

By: Phlow

Phlow — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:31:04 +0000

harsh blairf

By: Phlow

Phlow — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:31:04 +0000

harsh blairf

By: Phlow

Phlow — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:31:04 +0000

harsh blairf

By: Blairf Felgenheimer

Blairf Felgenheimer — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:56:37 +0000

I cant really say anything that hasnt already been said by others in the comments here. I suspect Luke and the others have shot their literary wad on CES material and thought this would be a viable piece of techno-fluff news. As pointed out theres so little difference between this COD and the last one to garner a blurb in OhG. That coupled with the game being in the store for over two months and Im wondering when the OhGizmo review of Baldurs Gate is going down?

By: Programmer

Programmer — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:10:11 +0000

Two things. First, about the only thing that this game has over Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is that it has co-op single player. Other than that, it doesn't stack up in any area. Single player or especially multiplayer (the addition of tanks, dogs, and crappier weapons is awful). And second, CoD4's subtitle is Modern Warfare. They are the same game.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:05:47 +0000

Yeah, definitely too short on the single player side. Finished it within a day and then played around with multiplayer for a week. After that I got rid of it. Back to COD4 for me. It didn't bring anything worthwhile to the table, pretty much the same gameplay just with crappier weapons. Hopefully this will be the end of COD's WW2 era.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:05:47 +0000

By: Engineer

Engineer — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:50:08 +0000

It's great yeah, graphics, gameplay and the non-stop action… but it was waaay to short!

By: Engineer

Engineer — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:50:08 +0000

It's great yeah, graphics, gameplay and the non-stop action… but it was waaay to short!