How many rockets does it even take to destroy a tank?!
I haven’t even started the single player to Call of Duty: World at War yet and have already dove into the multiplayer with a few of friends. Having played the three levels in the beta/demo, I kind of knew what to expect. Unlike some of my other friends who I notice get on to play it pretty often, for some reason the game is just not clicking for me like Call of Duty 4 was. It wasn’t clicking much for me in the beta, and the addition of the new maps in the retail has not really changed that feeling. My biggest gripes seem to be the addition of tanks and the changing of unlocking a sight from 25 kills to 75 kills. The game in general just seems really imbalanced from a multiplayer standpoint.
This is all coming from someone who did decently in Call of Duty 4. I had a k/d ratio of about 1.5, a max kill streak of 20 or 21, was able to use every weapon in the game, and did the F.N.G. time in a little over 16 seconds. I’m not just some guy who sucks at these types of games. They’re practically my bread and butter.
The tanks are just ridiculous because the maps aren’t big like in Battlefield Bad Company to actually warrant their use. On several maps we played, if one team manages to get most of the tanks on the map, it ends up dominating and I’m not even a fan of this “archaic tank” warfare where it takes like 15 seconds before you can fire another shot. I feel like I have to get in a tank when I see it just because I don’t want the opposing team to use it. But it’s not even really fun to use since it moves so slowly and has such a long reload time. On top of that, rockets do very minor damage to the tank – you can’t even kill one with the two you start with. I really wish tanks were removed from the game altogether, but I guess that’s not going to happen. At least, that would have solved one problem.
I also hate that I’m practically pigeon-holed into using a particular rifle because you have to really commit to one to get the sight. Unlike one of my friends who primarily uses the SMG because he prefers short to medium ranged fighting, I prefer medium to long range fighting so the rifle is a must. Aiming down the sights for long range is just nowhere near as effective as with a sight. So while I try to get my 75 kills to unlock the sight, I have to fight medium to long distance against players with sights when I don’t have one.
Call of Duty 4 was a lot more balanced because at 25 kills, you could unlock the sight early on for any new weapon you unlocked. That allowed me to actually use every assault rifle and level them up without being penalized too much. With World at War, I unlocked the sight for the starting semi-automatic rifle but upon moving to the second unlocked semi-automatic rifle, I was again at a clear disadvantage since I no longer had the sight and would need 75 kills sight-less before I could get one again. It almost made me want to just stick with the single semi-automatic rifle I started with for the rest of the game because I finally got the sight on it and was able to kill effectively.
It’s so annoying to me that World at War does not encourage variety. Instead, its structure is: play all of these adversarial modes and if you persevere long enough in using your weapon, we’ll finally reward you with something to level the playing field. Oh and when you finally unlock the sight for that starting weapon, you’ll be going up against higher level opponents who not only have superior Perks, but weapons superior to your own as well. You are basically always playing catch up, until you can max out at 65. Unlike Call of Duty 4 where I gladly went Prestige when I hit the cap, if I do end up hitting the cap in World at War I’m going to really think about it since you lose so much more in WaW by starting over.
Some people complained that Juggernaut was imbalanced or “noobish” in Call of Duty 4. Well, it’s even worse here in Call of Duty: World at War. With WWII weapons that are weaker and have less ammo capacity than in modern combat, Juggernaut shines a lot more since the probability of me having to reload when firing upon a player using Juggernaut is that much higher. The argument can be made, “Well, you can use Juggernaut yourself to balance it out.” But that doesn’t solve the bigger problem of imbalanced Perks. It just forces us to all use Juggernaut and if we don’t, we’re practically penalized for it. It’s similar to the tank race. I don’t like using the tank because its gameplay mechanics are poorly designed and not enjoyable, but I have to use it when I see one because the other team will have an advantage if I don’t. The concept of choice in this game is all an illusion because you’re penalized so heavily for not making use of the most “imbalanced” stuff.
After all that venting, I can still admit that I had a little fun – but how can you not when you’re playing anything with friends? CTF is a welcome mode in WaW, one mode that was present in Call of Duty 3 but not 4. I like how much strategy is required and it made me feel a lot closer to my buddies as opposed to Team Deathmatch where we all ran off on our own. Unfortunately, the imbalanced level rewards in the game meant that our side was dying left and right to teams with high-end weapons and Bouncing Betties planted all over their flag base while half our guys didn’t even unlock this Perk yet. I guess the way to go is to just get to 65 through simple Team Deathmatch or FFA, then take all of your unlocked rewards and play with a clear advantage in the more objective based gameplay. Grr. I’ll stick with the game some more but I’m almost more inclined to start Left 4 Dead for my online fix at this point.
