Fun Stuff > CLIKC

Call of Duty: World at War

<< < (8/9) > >>

Dimmukane:
Man, don't make a statement like that.  80 people worked 60 hour workweeks for 8 months so there would be a Call of Duty 3 that year.  It wasn't entirely their decision, and I'm pretty sure they know how poorly their efforts were received.  I know I'm making a big deal out of this, but that was a tremendous effort, and it was still a pretty good game, but because it wasn't as amazing as the IW titles, everyone shits on it.


/rant



Anyway, I know several people personally who played those games because they were WWII buffs.  To them, it was just as good as the others.

Melodic:
The fact that Treyarch managed to complete Call of Duty 3 in under 8 months is a feat unto itself. I didn't particularly like the game, but it was a decent FPS in an extremely small time period.

clockworkjames:
I could spend 60 hours a week polishing my dads car with a brillo pad for 8 months and it would not mean it is a good thing to do, just because someone worked damn hard at something doesn't mean it cannot be put down, the game was not great and never got a PC release (this is a big thing, don't say platform is irrelevant) when I played it controls sucked, gameplay was sub par and visuals were okay.

Dimmukane:
Washing a car with a brillo pad is not an apt comparison.  This is more like trying to fill a dolphin tank with your semen in 8 months.

ackblom12:
Call of Duty 3 wasn't that bad. Not up to snuff, but pretty amazing considering the time crunch they were on. Seriously, if you wanna talk bad games, talk about Two Worlds.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page