aledhughes
Mai 2007 ist beigetreten
Willkommen auf neuen Profil
Unsere Aktualisierungen befinden sich noch in der Entwicklung. Die vorherige Version Profils ist zwar nicht mehr zugänglich, aber wir arbeiten aktiv an Verbesserungen und einige der fehlenden Funktionen werden bald wieder verfügbar sein! Bleibe dran, bis sie wieder verfügbar sind. In der Zwischenzeit ist Bewertungsanalyse weiterhin in unseren iOS- und Android-Apps verfügbar, die auf deiner Profilseite findest. Damit deine Bewertungsverteilung nach Jahr und Genre angezeigt wird, beziehe dich bitte auf unsere neue Hilfeleitfaden.
Abzeichen2
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Rezensionen6
Bewertung von aledhughes
When creating Call of Duty: World at War, Treyarch didn't stand a chance. If released two years earlier this title would be a game that everyone would be waxing lyrical about. However, it followed in the footsteps of the fantastically addictive Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Anyway, what is done is done and Treyarch tried to make the best game they could.
As happens on all games the first impression you have is of its graphical capabilities. World at War has a different feel to those of Modern Warfare as its set in World War II but the graphics are still impressive. They take some getting used to if you've played Modern Warfare meticulously but the details on everything are very realistic and its refreshing to see a game set in different locations such as Russia and Japan. The sound quality in the game is as impressive as its predecessor as well.
Now the most important factor whats the game-play like? For those who delve into the campaign, its almost on a par with Modern Warfare. It lacks the intensity and brutality of Modern Warfare's campaign mode but makes up for this with its interesting set pieces on the Eastern Front and in the Pacific. One level replicates the fantastic Chernoybal snipers levels from number 4 but moves the action to Stalingrad. It doesn't hit you with the same 'wow' factor as the levels in the predecessor but its still a great level. Overall, the campaign mode is incredibly enjoyable to play through but the main criticism is, its even shorter than the campaign mode in Call of Duty 4. And that was short.
Now to the online mode. Franky it is excellent, the problem is if you are not a newcomer to the series: it is no Modern Warfare. The matches are a lot of fun and contain a good mixture of close quarters combat and long distance shooting. Tanks spice proceedings up nicely too. The maps are generally well constructed, however some are just too big. A particular level called Outskirts is insanely large and there are few kills to be made on this map. The weapons just aren't as fun to play around with as those in Modern Warfare either. I understand that Treyarch are vying for realism but the inclusion of more powerful weapons would have been welcoming.
To conclude, World at War is a game that should be played in isolation. Forget that Modern Warfare came before this title and you'll have a lot of fun playing through this. This should be viewed as a great game and a good stop-gap before Modern Warfare 2. However, it is easier said than done to forget how good Modern Warfare is. You will most probably go back to play it but give World at War a chance - especially you Mr Taylor
As happens on all games the first impression you have is of its graphical capabilities. World at War has a different feel to those of Modern Warfare as its set in World War II but the graphics are still impressive. They take some getting used to if you've played Modern Warfare meticulously but the details on everything are very realistic and its refreshing to see a game set in different locations such as Russia and Japan. The sound quality in the game is as impressive as its predecessor as well.
Now the most important factor whats the game-play like? For those who delve into the campaign, its almost on a par with Modern Warfare. It lacks the intensity and brutality of Modern Warfare's campaign mode but makes up for this with its interesting set pieces on the Eastern Front and in the Pacific. One level replicates the fantastic Chernoybal snipers levels from number 4 but moves the action to Stalingrad. It doesn't hit you with the same 'wow' factor as the levels in the predecessor but its still a great level. Overall, the campaign mode is incredibly enjoyable to play through but the main criticism is, its even shorter than the campaign mode in Call of Duty 4. And that was short.
Now to the online mode. Franky it is excellent, the problem is if you are not a newcomer to the series: it is no Modern Warfare. The matches are a lot of fun and contain a good mixture of close quarters combat and long distance shooting. Tanks spice proceedings up nicely too. The maps are generally well constructed, however some are just too big. A particular level called Outskirts is insanely large and there are few kills to be made on this map. The weapons just aren't as fun to play around with as those in Modern Warfare either. I understand that Treyarch are vying for realism but the inclusion of more powerful weapons would have been welcoming.
To conclude, World at War is a game that should be played in isolation. Forget that Modern Warfare came before this title and you'll have a lot of fun playing through this. This should be viewed as a great game and a good stop-gap before Modern Warfare 2. However, it is easier said than done to forget how good Modern Warfare is. You will most probably go back to play it but give World at War a chance - especially you Mr Taylor
Casino Royale was exactly the film the Bond series was crying out for after the entertaining, yet disappointing Die Another Day. It certainly was a film that replicated the style of the Bourne series with its 'harder edge' and its darker tone. But what propelled Casino Royale to its status of being a great 007 flick was the fact it still felt like you were watching a James Bond movie. Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, does not feel like a James Bond movie and is not an enjoyable action title either.
The car chase that opens the film replicates the plot of the film perfectly. It is nigh on impossible to work out what on earth is going on and the film continues to transcend into this fashion. The film has plenty of action but contains no substance. A large proportion of these action sequences don't move the confusing storyline forward in any way. As a fan of mindless action films of the 90s this would normally prove to be an acceptable mishap but the fact of the matter is: the action sequences aren't exciting. Forster seems to be obsessed with shaking the camera and cutting to a new angle every other second. This leads to confusion as its difficult to tell the characters apart when the fists are pumping and the bullets are flying.
The other main qualm about Quantum of Solace as alluded to above, is the fact that this does not feel like James Bond anymore. Casino Royale had an absence of gadgets and omitted certain other elements as well. Bond had become colder and more brutal which was a refreshing change. Yet, the series still retained its glamour and its bond trademarks such as Bond's famous introduction, the gun-barrel sequence, the Vodka Martinis etc. All Quantum of Solace retained was the titles sequence. In Quantum, Bond is also far too cold, he has always been a womanizer with a certain amount of 'coldness' about him but the character has become overly brutal in this film. Also to mention the other characters, Dominic Greene is a very weak villain who just does not come across as the slightest bit evil. Gemma Arterton is irritating and Olga Kurylenko's character, Camille is just not particularly interesting.
This is not the worst film in the world and maybe if it wasn't dubbed as a James Bond film maybe I'd call it a decent film. However, Quantum of Solace is just a tremendous disappointment. The plot does not make any sense, the action sequences are filmed poorly and this just is not a James Bond film despite what the the title may say.
P.S. Why the hell does the film end with the gun-barrel sequence and how come Felix Leiter has suddenly become black in the last two films?
The car chase that opens the film replicates the plot of the film perfectly. It is nigh on impossible to work out what on earth is going on and the film continues to transcend into this fashion. The film has plenty of action but contains no substance. A large proportion of these action sequences don't move the confusing storyline forward in any way. As a fan of mindless action films of the 90s this would normally prove to be an acceptable mishap but the fact of the matter is: the action sequences aren't exciting. Forster seems to be obsessed with shaking the camera and cutting to a new angle every other second. This leads to confusion as its difficult to tell the characters apart when the fists are pumping and the bullets are flying.
The other main qualm about Quantum of Solace as alluded to above, is the fact that this does not feel like James Bond anymore. Casino Royale had an absence of gadgets and omitted certain other elements as well. Bond had become colder and more brutal which was a refreshing change. Yet, the series still retained its glamour and its bond trademarks such as Bond's famous introduction, the gun-barrel sequence, the Vodka Martinis etc. All Quantum of Solace retained was the titles sequence. In Quantum, Bond is also far too cold, he has always been a womanizer with a certain amount of 'coldness' about him but the character has become overly brutal in this film. Also to mention the other characters, Dominic Greene is a very weak villain who just does not come across as the slightest bit evil. Gemma Arterton is irritating and Olga Kurylenko's character, Camille is just not particularly interesting.
This is not the worst film in the world and maybe if it wasn't dubbed as a James Bond film maybe I'd call it a decent film. However, Quantum of Solace is just a tremendous disappointment. The plot does not make any sense, the action sequences are filmed poorly and this just is not a James Bond film despite what the the title may say.
P.S. Why the hell does the film end with the gun-barrel sequence and how come Felix Leiter has suddenly become black in the last two films?
