Seeing a nuke detonate while in a helicopter and then climbing out of the smoking fuselage is a better sequence than anything that World at War has to offer, though it makes some nice attempts at equaling the flair. If you remember, Modern Warfare had the same high production values and scripted events in its campaign but it had two things that World at War does not: an original storyline and current technology powering the weapons. Again, World at War's campaign is a great experience with scripted events that are of a higher quality than most other series, but that doesn't change the feeling that you've played the scenarios before. I've held an MP40 in my hands before, I've shot Panzerschecks before and I've seen the hallowed out shells of buildings in 1945 before. World at War, while it presents what is easily the most frenetic and chaotic World War II we've ever seen, still can't separate itself from the throngs of other releases based on the same time period. We've played through WWII how many times? It feels like well over a thousand. For me, that immediately handcuffs what the game is going to be able to deliver. Call of Duty: World at War puts players in the familiar setting of World War II.
0 kommentar(er)
