Talk:Call of Duty: World at War

The picture for the M7 Grenade Launcher seems to be incorrect. It's showing the M9A1 bazooka

I think a double barrel shotgun varient can be used in the nazi zombies bonus level, but I can be mistaken

You can get the double barrel shotgun in the Nazi Zombie game, but you can only get the sawed off double barrel from the magic box as I call it, among other guns. Excalibur01 06:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you get the full length one. If you can fend them off with the .45 and the knife long enough to open the door and grab the boomstick, zombie mode gets a lot easier. I think the zombie mode could have had more potential, maybe more levels and some open spaces. - Gunmaster45

Guns that aren't here but should of been

I wonder why the M3 (Grease gun) wasn't in this game. Or why the Tommy are using the 20 round mags and not the 30 round mags? What about the PPS-43? We also don't see the paratrooper verison of the M1 Carbine with the folding stock and pistol grip. I can understand in single player Marines in the Pacific might not be armed with the paratrooper verison of the carbine, but the Russian single player shoulda gotten the PPS-43, or even in multi player, it would have just been an extra gun to use. Excalibur01 06:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you expect, Activision doesn't know shit about guns. Did you notice how a lot of the gun reloading animations were stolen straight from COD2? And for some reason, they did choose to issue 20 round mags with the Thompsons far more often then the 30s. During the Normandy invasion, 30s made their shine. Keep in mind, the gun in the game is the M1928A1 Thompson. Those were issed 20 round sticks. Then again, it would have been cool if you could use a Thompson with a drum. Personally, I was disapointed by this game. Two campaigns? No U.K.? I was expecting Pacific, Europe, Russia and UK. I guess they were so excited that they got Keifer Sutherland, they didn't think they needed another campaign. I think this game was way too short. I beat it in a day. At least it was better than COD3. Activision is getting a little better. - Gunmaster45

To be fair, COD4 Modern Warfare was a great breath of fresh air to the franchise and rather accurate when it came to weapons. But it was also handled by a different, much more capable developer (Infinity Ward, instead of COD3 and WaW's Treyarch). Frankly, if they haven't fired off every single round possible when it comes to WW2, then they're down to their last few bullets, so to speak. The COD franchise needs to replant itself back in modern times (or at the very least, sometime other than 1941-1945) and possibly, focus on maybe law enforcement areas and not just military aspects. Just my opinion. --Clutch 07:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I say Vietnam, or Korea next, maybe even the First and second Gulf War. Excalibur01 09:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Korea, yes. Vietnam will be touchy at best and possibly disastrous at worst to handle. The First Gulf War, I can see. The second...well, I think that COD4 touched on that basis already with the Marine levels... ----Clutch 00:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I can't disagree with these arguments. While not a bad game by any means, about the only pros about W.A.W. were that you could take control of a tank or two, because it added a new game play dynamic by forcing players to use explosives for more then just pissing people off while they giggle like little boys in the first grade who have just heard the word p3n15 and think its just fr1661n6 hilarious (anyone can make a kill with a gigantic grenade that can fly you pint of annoyance!), the voice acting was well done (I'm sorry, but Keifer Sutherland as a marine that shoots copious numbers of people, well, he's played both parts of that combination very well, i.e. A Few Good Men and 24 and does a fine job of combining the two), the Nazi zombie level, the Co-op action, and the extra upgrade slots that you unlock when you use Prestige mode. personally, I'm pretty sure the L-E angle is well covered by Rainbow Six and SWAT, if you have a good enough PC. one idea that i haven't seen would be to have combined arms campaigns, probably Infantry, Vehicular, Aviation, and maybe Naval or Artillery to round out the spectrum. kinda like battlefield, but you would have to remain in that area until the campaign was over, instead of respawning as a different class, and of course you would have to customize your character for each mission, e.g. upgrades, weapons, perks, etc., and that would be single player. You could then take (one of) your Player Character(s) over to multiplayer. If Electronic Arts can do it several times over without making the series as bland as their sports games like madden, then Infinity Ward and Activision could probably do it, but make it better.

Another idea, which is a bit more in line with the topic of this discussion (sorry about that, I'm very tangent-prone), would be several small campaigns over the past century leading up to some fictional conflict in the year 2015, keeping the same character, with all of the progression of equipment, uniforms, weaponry, etc. with upgrades, and you can keep your say, FG-42 and bring it into Korea or The Middle East, either unmodified or with some modernizations, ex reflex sight. i have no idea how you could rationalize that, (I'm thinking Captain Price, before we were told that they were two different characters :) or maybe Wolverine, even though he's making his own movie/game at the moment), and i have no idea why you would bring a 60-ish year old battle rifle when there are better weapons, but you would probably have your reasons.

Some of these ideas sound good. Others, like the last paragraph...well, I just have to ask...How the hell did Wolverine get into this conversation? :) ----Clutch 00:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)