New Call of Duty World at War pre Order Bonus!!

U

UnrealZero

CAGiversary!
i just found this for call of duty world at war.
In October, Activision will be holding public multiplayer betas for the Xbox 360 and PC editions of Call of Duty: World at War. Those wishing to participate can register at the official Call of Duty site or pre-order the game, which will include a token for beta access. So Gamestop/Ebgames and any other store should have this up soon.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote name='xBrandonx']What about PS3?[/quote]

No official word but signs point to no. There are SOCOM and Resistance betas, however, in the next two months, with the possibility of a Killzone 2 beta after that.
 
COD4 is the only COD to date that i have bought, because they got away from the same ol same ol WW2 crap. Doubt i'll be buying the new COD, though if they would stick with terrorism or something other than WW2. i'd give it a shot.
 
It might be worth it to pay for the preorder, get the beta test, then decide if you really want the game or not. If not, just get your money back from the preorder.
 
i feel like theres not that much info or maybe im not looking in the right places.
this game could be a hit or miss for most.
i think ppl are still hooked on cod4 to even attempt to move to world at war.
This game def came out to fast imo, cod4 could have alot more content added.
 
A lot of people don't realize that Call of Duty is made by two different companies. The company that made part 3 is making World at War. Infinity Ward made part 1, 2, and 4.
 
[quote name='UnrealZero']ya i know that but so soon cod4 coulda lasted with new content till 09.[/quote]
Which it will; then Infinity Ward will come out with CoD6.
 
[quote name='sixteenvolt420']COD4 is the only COD to date that i have bought, because they got away from the same ol same ol WW2 crap. Doubt i'll be buying the new COD, though if they would stick with terrorism or something other than WW2. i'd give it a shot.[/quote]

It's a real shame that you won't give COD 5 a shot simply based on the location the game is set in without even playing it. From what I've read, seen, and heard, COD 5 will be better than COD 4. It runs on the exact same engine as COD 4 only with flame throwers, vehicles, and other notable perks, but apparently because it's not set in modern times, then all of this information doesn't matter to you. Man I feel for ya because you're going to be missing out a great game.
 
[quote name='Pck21']It's a real shame that you won't give COD 5 a shot simply based on the location the game is set in without even playing it. From what I've read, seen, and heard, COD 5 will be better than COD 4. It runs on the exact same engine as COD 4 only with flame throwers, vehicles, and other notable perks, but apparently because it's not set in modern times, then all of this information doesn't matter to you. Man I feel for ya because you're going to be missing out a great game.[/quote]


I just can't stand the whole WW2 settings, it's been done too many times. I will never buy a game which is set in the time of WW2, no matter how great it is. I really won't miss it, i have almost 50 PS3 games as it is, since getting my system in january, plus there are too many other great games coming out between now and the end of the year.
 
[quote name='sixteenvolt420']COD4 is the only COD to date that i have bought, because they got away from the same ol same ol WW2 crap. Doubt i'll be buying the new COD, though if they would stick with terrorism or something other than WW2. i'd give it a shot.[/QUOTE]

if you ever play another CoD, play the first one on PC. Its still the best.
 
[quote name='SGT Killjoy']if you ever play another CoD, play the first one on PC. Its still the best.[/quote]


I don't play pc games either. My computer is about 8 years old at this point.
 
[quote name='sixteenvolt420']I just can't stand the whole WW2 settings, it's been done too many times. I will never buy a game which is set in the time of WW2, no matter how great it is. I really won't miss it, i have almost 50 PS3 games as it is, since getting my system in january, plus there are too many other great games coming out between now and the end of the year.[/quote]

Well everybody is entitled to their opinion so I'm ok with the fact that you don't like the WWII setting in games. However, the part I'm not ok with is that you won't even give it a chance based simply on a minor detail of the game. The game engine is the same, the perks are the same, the point system is the same, the leveling up system is the same, and the kill streak system is the same, only with a slap of different coat paint on it, vehicles, and different weapons. That's why I think it's a shame.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is, is that COD 4 and COD 5 will be the same exact games except in different time periods. That's it. If you like COD 4 then you will like COD 5 since there are practically no differences.

Everybody acts as if the modern warfare genre has never been done before and that's insane. Modern warfare has been done to death on every console of every generation. I can't speak for everyone else, but the idea of "modern warfare" hits too close to home for me. We're in a war right now and my girlfriend's brother was a marine until he got out for reasons I won't share on a public forum. If you want modern warfare, turn on the news.

I will personally be buying and playing COD 5 the day it comes out and COD 4 will sit on the shelf at my house. My friends and I LOVE the WWII setting and I can gurantee you two things...we won't go back to COD 4 and I can bet money that most people will do the same once they see it and play it.
 
[quote name='Pck21']I guess what I'm really trying to say is, is that COD 4 and COD 5 will be the same exact games except in different time periods. That's it. If you like COD 4 then you will like COD 5 since there are practically no differences.[/quote]



Except for the part where the weapons are COMPLETELY different... I don't think I can attach a red dot sight or a silencer to my MP44 in this game. Or use a 50 cal.
 
[quote name='Spencer35']I will pre-order to play the beta then make my decision on the purchase.[/quote]

At least you're being sensible.

I've done my fair share of judging a game before it came out and ended up buying it way later because I played it and enjoyed myself. To be completely honest, I had my reservations about COD 4 because of the whole modern warfare aspect. As a matter of fact, I think many people shared the same feeling. I almost canceled my pre-order because of it but, I decided to give it a try, and when I got into the beta, it became my favorite game in the series. Just don't make a rash judgment about a game before you play, especially if it's a about the characters, setting, or even story. Play it before you make a decision because then at that point, you've made an educated decision based on the game itself. I can respect that.
 
good thing about cod world at war is the perks system implemented in cod4 is in this games mp aswell so thats a good thing
 
[quote name='DemonGamer24']Except for the part where the weapons are COMPLETELY different... I don't think I can attach a red dot sight or a silencer to my MP44 in this game. Or use a 50 cal.[/quote]

True, but why would that stop you from trying the game out? Can you not live without playing a first person shooter without those weapons? Do you only survive by the red dot sight and .50 cal alone? If so, then I don't know what to tell you.

By the way, they did have silencers in the WWII era. American OSS officers used them on a regular basis in WWII. Actually the suppressor itself was invented and commercially accepted in 1902.

However, this game does contain flame throwers so I understand if you still want to use your silenced MP5 over that. ;)
 
I'll play it before I make my final judgement, but Treyarch did manage to mess up the Call of Duty 2 engine for part 3 (yes, that's what it's running). I just hope they weren't allowed to make changes to the CoD4 engine.
 
[quote name='Pck21']It's a real shame that you won't give COD 5 a shot simply based on the location the game is set in without even playing it. From what I've read, seen, and heard, COD 5 will be better than COD 4. It runs on the exact same engine as COD 4 only with flame throwers, vehicles, and other notable perks, but apparently because it's not set in modern times, then all of this information doesn't matter to you. Man I feel for ya because you're going to be missing out a great game.[/quote]

Except that the Call of Duty games made by Activision sucked.
 
[quote name='Jesse757x']idk if this is new or not but if you preorder at best buy you get a call of duty fabric banner thing. sorry if this is old news[/quote]
Like a fabric poster of sorts? Any version?
 
[quote name='grifter_mcgraw']Except that the Call of Duty games made by Activision sucked.[/quote]

correct me if i'm wrong but EVERY SINGLE call of duty is made by activision... they use their particular studios i.e Treyarch and Infinity Ward to make the game but all are published by Activision
 
[quote name='eminemobied12']correct me if i'm wrong but EVERY SINGLE call of duty is made by activision... they use their particular studios i.e Treyarch and Infinity Ward to make the game but all are published by Activision[/quote]

this is correct, every game has been released by Activision whom is the series publisher/owner. In general i'd say Treyarch is certainly the weaker of the two dev houses and they also happen to be making this game. I really dont have high hopes for it since i lost interest in the series after the first game. COD 4 was certainly a great refreshment though. Going back to WWII is kinda bleh with me. Genre has been beaten to a pulp.
 
[quote name='sixteenvolt420']I don't play pc games either. My computer is about 8 years old at this point.[/quote]
So is the original CoD!
 
[quote name='qwerty1']this is correct, every game has been released by Activision whom is the series publisher/owner. In general i'd say Treyarch is certainly the weaker of the two dev houses and they also happen to be making this game. I really dont have high hopes for it since i lost interest in the series after the first game. COD 4 was certainly a great refreshment though. Going back to WWII is kinda bleh with me. Genre has been beaten to a pulp.[/quote]


Glad to see i'm not the only one who's tired of these WW2 games.
 
[quote name='Pck21']True, but why would that stop you from trying the game out? Can you not live without playing a first person shooter without those weapons? Do you only survive by the red dot sight and .50 cal alone? If so, then I don't know what to tell you.

By the way, they did have silencers in the WWII era. American OSS officers used them on a regular basis in WWII. Actually the suppressor itself was invented and commercially accepted in 1902.

However, this game does contain flame throwers so I understand if you still want to use your silenced MP5 over that. ;)[/quote]


I never said I wouldn't try it, but a lot of the CoD4 online fun came from the attachments. You don't see people running around with iron sights (and no silencer) for a reason. I guess it's a good thing that there won't be noob tubes though. Hardly the exact same game.
 
[quote name='DemonGamer24']I never said I wouldn't try it, but a lot of the CoD4 online fun came from the attachments. You don't see people running around with iron sights (and no silencer) for a reason. I guess it's a good thing that there won't be noob tubes though. Hardly the exact same game.[/quote]

I like how you generalize everything you say. It makes for a much more compelling argument from your end. Seriously, bravo. :applause:

Instead of making wild generalizations and accusations, why don't you do some research on your own about the game? If you had, then maybe you would realize that your previous statement is absurd. Then again, judging by your over all argument here, I'm not going to hold my breath. If you don't want to play a game because of minor detail like SETTING then you're going to be missing out on a great game. On a personal note, I hope people like you DON'T buy COD 5 so you then you won't ruin the experience for the rest of us by :baby:, which is exactly what you are doing.

I'm completely speechless at your last sentences though. Do you know how to read or are you just going to completely ignore the rest of my posts in here? Both games run on the exact same engine, with the exact same perks, with the exact same kill streaks, with the exact same XP point system, and the list goes on and on. BUT in your case, you automatically see the different setting and weapons and decide that it's a COMPLETELY different game. Wow, just wow. :roll: :wall:
 
Ummmmm.... in a first person shooter, weapons kinda have a big impact. You're telling me weapons from 70+ years ago won't be any different then they are now?

And PLEASE, point out where I said I won't play this game or I think it's going to suck? I haven't said anything bad about the game. If I didn't want this game, I wouldn't even be in the topic.

Camn the fuck down, buddy.

Speaking of "knowing how to read," try actually reading the name of the poster next time..... you think that other guy and I are the same person.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='DemonGamer24']Ummmmm.... in a first person shooter, weapons kinda have a big impact. You're telling me weapons from 70+ years ago won't be any different then they are now?

And PLEASE, point out where I said I won't play this game or I think it's going to suck? I haven't said anything bad about the game. If I didn't want this game, I wouldn't even be in the topic.

Camn the fuck down, buddy.

Speaking of "knowing how to read," try actually reading the name of the poster next time..... you think that other guy and I are the same person.[/quote]

Sorry if I happened to get you mixed up with the other 2 or 3 people who also seem to raise the same inane points as you do. You have to understand how confusing it must be for me to argue my same point 3 different times and then be told the same argument over and over again without any real thought put into it...

Look, this is a video game, not real life. Do weapons matter in real life combat situations? I'm pretty sure they do, but please don't act like weapons in video games are true to life in any way, shape, or form. The P90 from COD 4 is a perfect example. Ask anyone with any sort of combat training and they will tell you that the P90 is SO overpowered in COD 4 that it's laughable.

I still don't know why everyone is stuck on the weapons issue of any given video game these days. It boggles my mind. So because a game does not include certain weapons, you'll be less likely to play that game? If you don't like the setting then you'll also pre-judge that game as well? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I'm understanding your argument.

How can I be calm if I keep posting the same question over and over again and no one comes up with any kind of intelligent or thoughtful response to that question? I've posed the same question to, apparently, 3 different people and yet not one of you has answered that question in the least. I don't care if you don't like the game, I'm asking you why you don't like a game that is essentially the same game that you like now. Is that so difficult? By the sounds of things, apparently it is. :wall::wall::wall::wall:

So, let me be clear about what I'm asking everyone here who is not willing to buy the game based SOLELY on the setting and the weapons before playing the game: "Are you less likely to buy a game based off of the setting the game takes place in, even though the game itself (COD 5) is built off of the previous version of the game that came before it (COD4)?"

I'm not going to respond to any other arguments or comments raised by anyone else until that question has been thoughtfully answered. I could care less if the answer is simply "Yes," but for my sake, PLEASE tell us all why.
 
[quote name='Pck21']Sorry if I happened to get you mixed up with the other 2 or 3 people who also seem to raise the same inane points as you do. You have to understand how confusing it must be for me to argue my same point 3 different times and then be told the same argument over and over again without any real thought put into it...

Look, this is a video game, not real life. Do weapons matter in real life combat situations? I'm pretty sure they do, but please don't act like weapons in video games are true to life in any way, shape, or form. The P90 from COD 4 is a perfect example. Ask anyone with any sort of combat training and they will tell you that the P90 is SO overpowered in COD 4 that it's laughable. [/quote]

Nice cover up for your inability to read a posters name. The only thing I said in this topic before you thought I was someone else and got all RAGE'D at me was that the weapons are not the same. How have I not put thought into that? Are you saying that my 50 cal WILL be in CoD5, but it will have a different name/skin? Are you telling me that my red dot sight will be in CoD5, and I won't have to use the iron sights on a weapon? Then GREAT! But we all know that's not the case (besides you).

CoD4 had sight attachments. CoD5 does not. That ALREADY makes the weapons different. Please, try to argue this point. I'd love to see why I'm wrong here. It won't be too bad since I'm mainly a sniper and snipers have scopes.

I love using the MP4 with a red dot sight, 50 cal, and RPD, and stun grenades in CoD4. Please tell me the WW2 weapons that compare to those, and if you can come up with something, then YOU WIN!!!

The only thing I've said in this topic is that the weapons are different (after you said everything is exactly the same). So if you have an actual argument to that, then you have defeated me. I never said that something like that would affect my decision to get the game or not so don't bring up that bullshit again.

Repeat this in your head as you type a response. I NEVER said the weapons in CoD5 would be horrible and ruin the game. All I said was they are DIFFERENT. For some reason, your brain keeps processing my posts into CoD5 hate messages.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Pck21']The game engine is the same, the perks are the same, the point system is the same, the leveling up system is the same, and the kill streak system is the same, only with a slap of different coat paint on it, vehicles, and different weapons. That's why I think it's a shame.[/QUOTE]

Exactly why I'm not touching it and haven't touched any of them aside from a rental of 4, which was pretty good. Who knows though, maybe the beta will be convincing.

[quote name='Pck21']So, let me be clear about what I'm asking everyone here who is not willing to buy the game based SOLELY on the setting and the weapons before playing the game: "Are you less likely to buy a game based off of the setting the game takes place in, even though the game itself (COD 5) is built off of the previous version of the game that came before it (COD4)?"[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing it's because people don't want to blow 60$ on what's essentially the same game.
 
Arguing on the internet (especially over video games) is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
 
[quote name='Pck21']

So, let me be clear about what I'm asking everyone here who is not willing to buy the game based SOLELY on the setting and the weapons before playing the game: "Are you less likely to buy a game based off of the setting the game takes place in, even though the game itself (COD 5) is built off of the previous version of the game that came before it (COD4)?"

[/quote]

If the game turns out to be awesome then I will give it a shot but the setting is the reason why i'm not interested in it. I liked the modern weapons of COD4 and I can't see how this will compare. The developer also has something to do with it. They don't have the best track record with COD games.
 
I am not going to buy this game because of the SETTING and WEAPONS!! Is that clear enough for everyone??? *Waits for rocks
 
[quote name='PhreQuencYViii']
I'm guessing it's because people don't want to blow 60$ on what's essentially the same game.[/quote]

Thank you for answering my question. I can understand that logic and it's perfectly reasonable.

[quote name='BIGDADDYJN']Arguing on the internet (especially over video games) is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.[/quote]

Tell me about it :roll:

I try not to engage in arguments in forums but I do like to get people's thoughts on a subject. It's hard to do so when you ask a question that never gets answered. It's frustrating because I'm genuinely interested in what that person has to say, which is my own fault because I'm assuming people have something important to add the conversation :D

Plus I hate getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. It takes all the fun out of everything.

[quote name='mrlokievil']If the game turns out to be awesome then I will give it a shot but the setting is the reason why i'm not interested in it. I liked the modern weapons of COD4 and I can't see how this will compare. The developer also has something to do with it. They don't have the best track record with COD games.[/quote]

Thank you for your response. I see what you man in that Treyarch hasn't been all that successful with the COD franchise in the past. Personally, I actually enjoyed COD 3 so I guess I'm looking forward to this game more than other people. Thanks again.
 
[quote name='DemonGamer24']Nice cover up for your inability to read a posters name. The only thing I said in this topic before you thought I was someone else and got all RAGE'D at me was that the weapons are not the same. How have I not put thought into that? Are you saying that my 50 cal WILL be in CoD5, but it will have a different name/skin? Are you telling me that my red dot sight will be in CoD5, and I won't have to use the iron sights on a weapon? Then GREAT! But we all know that's not the case (besides you).

CoD4 had sight attachments. CoD5 does not. That ALREADY makes the weapons different. Please, try to argue this point. I'd love to see why I'm wrong here. It won't be too bad since I'm mainly a sniper and snipers have scopes.

I love using the MP4 with a red dot sight, 50 cal, and RPD, and stun grenades in CoD4. Please tell me the WW2 weapons that compare to those, and if you can come up with something, then YOU WIN!!!

The only thing I've said in this topic is that the weapons are different (after you said everything is exactly the same). So if you have an actual argument to that, then you have defeated me. I never said that something like that would affect my decision to get the game or not so don't bring up that bullshit again.

Repeat this in your head as you type a response. I NEVER said the weapons in CoD5 would be horrible and ruin the game. All I said was they are DIFFERENT. For some reason, your brain keeps processing my posts into CoD5 hate messages.[/quote]

Here's an example of a straw man and/or red herring argument. I'm not going to address your post because you haven't addressed the formal issue at hand, but thanks though.
 
[quote name='DemonGamer24']Except for the part where the weapons are COMPLETELY different... I don't think I can attach a red dot sight or a silencer to my MP44 in this game. Or use a 50 cal.[/quote]

I'd be surprised if you were able to attach a reflex sight to your MP44 in CoD 4.

While I also thought that the modern setting for CoD 4 was a great change and very refreshing, I'm not going to pass up what may be a great game just because I'm kinda bored of WW2 games.
 
I can't wait for the new COD game. Its one of my favorite series of games. The logic of saying its a worn out WW2 genre is like saying sports games should have stopped being made in '98. At least you get more than a new roster in COD. I'll have to keep my eye on Gamestop.com because I preordered it already. I would be pissed if they ran out of the preorder codes before I picked mine up.
 
[quote name='smiggity']I am not going to buy this game because of the SETTING and WEAPONS!! Is that clear enough for everyone??? *Waits for rocks[/quote]
Exactly my reasons, though it being set in WW2 is my main reason.
 
[quote name='sixspeednissan']I can't wait for the new COD game. Its one of my favorite series of games. The logic of saying its a worn out WW2 genre is like saying sports games should have stopped being made in '98. At least you get more than a new roster in COD. I'll have to keep my eye on Gamestop.com because I preordered it already. I would be pissed if they ran out of the preorder codes before I picked mine up.[/quote]

Well said :applause:

To me, it's more like saying you don't like Halo because it's set in space, or you don't like Mirror's Edge because you're afraid of heights. It's ludicrous. I can understand a lot of reasons why people won't try a game, but simply because you don't like the setting or characters is something I just don't understand.

Anyways, I'm done with this whole "argument" over something so ridiculous. I'm buying the game and I'll bet money that once people play it, they'll also buy it too.
 
[quote name='Pck21']Here's an example of a straw man and/or red herring argument. I'm not going to address your post because you haven't addressed the formal issue at hand, but thanks though.[/quote]

Have you just started learning fallacies in high school or something? Because I've noticed you mention at least three. How can you try to point out someones fallacies after they point out the flaws in your argument to someone else? Weapons are not same as you claim they are. Flaw in argument right there, pal. Don't agree? PROVE IT. I proved why I'm right, being that CoD5 won't have sight attachments, which already makes me right and you wrong. End of discussion.

I think something's not getting through to your head. You said everything between the two games would be exactly the same. I said, "No, they won't. The weapons are different." I gave my reasoning, and you are just too ignorant to realize that I'm right (with the only comment I made), so you're just ignoring my point which is 100% right.

You seem to think that I have the same views as everyone else you're crying and bitching about and you want me to answer your questions to them. The only thing I have here is that the weapons are not the same. If you have anything relevant to say about that to me that shows otherwise, then say it. If not, then don't fucking waste your time replying to me it because I never argued with anything else you said, so I'm not goint to respond to those questions that don't even apply to me.

That's like two kids eating candy bars and one says, "my candy is better." Then another kid (you) says, "they are exactly the same." Then a third person (me) says,"no they aren't. One is a Milky Way and one is a Snickers." They you start asking the third person to explain to you why the first kids candy is better. How the fuck does that make sense? I never said that I think the first kids candy bar is better. So why the fuck are you asking me to answer a question about the first kids comment (as if I said it), while also ignoring the fact that my comment is right?

I suggest you re-read throught the WHOLE topic, with a notepad and pencil, and take notes of who said what. Everything will become a bit more clear (hopefully, or something is wrong with you) and you will realize how foolish you sound. Or, compile all my posts and tell me what questions RELEVANT to my posts that you expect me to answer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='BIGDADDYJN']Arguing on the internet (especially over video games) is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.[/quote]

VERY offensive.... you need to learn some fucking manners. some people have relatives/family members that are handicapped. Show some fucking respect... they have more courage and determination then you ever will. You need to think next time before you post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top