Ive heard from so many people that its worth buying, but I want a real gamers opinion.

Buying. Done and done right. Although your poll options "Yes" or "No" aren't that specific.

Tattaglia:
Buying. Done and done right. Although your poll options "Yes" or "No" aren't that specific.

lol sorry, wasnt thinking

ansem1532:

Tattaglia:
Buying. Done and done right. Although your poll options "Yes" or "No" aren't that specific.

lol sorry, wasnt thinking

Don't worry about it, and thank Jeebus for that Edit button.

Now that this was fixed, what you people think?

Buy or rent??

Always rent if rentings an option. If you aint getting nething more out of it after paying £5 to have it for a week; paying £40 to have it for a lifetime wont make it any better :-)

Rent first, but if you like CoD, it's pretty much a buy...but why would you do that with L4D around the corner? [/shameless plug]

Richard Groovy Pants:

Has this any relation to the fact that we just finished a match and it was truly, truly awesome? :P

You really need to learn how to punch a zombie.

couldn't you have merged this with your other CoD thread?

Altorin:
couldn't you have merged this with your other CoD thread?

Yes I could have yet these are two separate ideas
Im giving people a discussion on which campaign is harder, but here im just asking your opinion towards whether I should buy or rent the game, and I'm leaning towards rent if the campaign is easy

Richard Groovy Pants:

GenHellspawn:

Richard Groovy Pants:

Has this any relation to the fact that we just finished a match and it was truly, truly awesome? :P

You really need to learn how to punch a zombie.

That's not very advisable on expert, try to win a boxing match against a Tank...yeah...

Come on, you have to admit that when I punched 5 zombies to death, it at least looked funny

i just played a little bit of it on pc at my friend's house. the graphics are ok but it just seems really cheaply made. kind of like hour of victory only better. cod1,2 are way better in my opinion. i wouldn't buy or rent. maybe download...

If you liked Call of Duty 4 and will play online for an extended period of time, go for it and buy it. If not, rent or get another game.

Id say buy, after playing the first level of single player and bout an hour of multiplayer, all my regrets about buying this game were gone

The online coop is better than the demo in L4D. The zombie mode is on the same level.

To compare, the first two levels of the new CoD are better than the first two levels in L4D. This is from a coop standpoint though. Both are above and beyond the need for a buy if you want coop.

The multiplayer in the new COD is solid and much, much, much better than CoD4. This is probably because the weaponry isn't lame and has a flavor that is rather nice. The modes are fun, and it's just a good game all around. In my opinion, it's much better than CoD4 on every level except for one, and that's the sniping mission. The sniping mission in CoD4 was much better. Best level/mission/moment in a game for me in a long, long time.

im putting it on my Xmas list, if its got, yay? otherwise im not really bothering

I was obviously skeptical about CoD5. back in dreary old WWII again, but it's still got the charm of CoD4, maintaining the peerless multiplayer aswell.

I'm having to wait 'til Christmas for this one. I loved COD4, but my next purchase has to be L4D. It's a savoury snack with a warm creamy centre.

If you thought Call of Duty 3 destroyed the franchise then, for your blood pressure, do not go near Call of Duty: World at War.

hm... ill have to add this to my list.
(totally unrelated, can anyone else figure out why google thinks home improvement hardware and solar panels are relevant to this page?)

and it occurs to me that the graphics of the game seemed to be the focal point of my last post which wasnt my intention.
i do stand by the statement that the game seems cheaply made but i wasnt that concerned with the way it looked and like i said i only played it a little bit so i cant say a whole lot about the gameplay.
i just want people to understand that if you appreciate the difference between the work infinity ward does as opposed to that of treyarch, you will most likely have doubts about this game before even playing and those doubts will be confirmed once you do play.

I think i'll just download it. I forked out the cash for CoD4 so i could experience the multiplayer online, i'd rather get some playtime into CoD5 before i decide to buy it.

Buy!
Worth the full price just for "Nazi Zombies" :D

well COD5 is competing with other FPS's like Far CRY 2, Resistance 2, and well ummm loads of other ones that i can't think off the top of my head (sorry) anyway COD5 has superb multiplayer and a single player that only kept the good bits thats why it's short! and in simple terms it's something that ((feels)) better than the COD because the gameplay maybe the same but thats because there was nothing broken so skipping all the convincing stuff it's ..................... a BUY.

Ugh...
Seems like I'm the only one here that actually did beat Call of Duty: World War.
And my opinion on the atter is.... meh...

The game to me was kind of mediocre. While it's among one of the better WWII games (if that says anything) but the downturn of it is that it's well... just another WWII-game...

From a FPS perspective the game is mediocre. The Single Player campaign is short, easy (even on the hardest difficulty setting) and it won't last you more than 6-8 hours depending on your skill. The Zombie minigame is decent, but is it $60 USD decent? I doubt it...

To me, the game seemed way too much like Call of Duty 1. It even have similar characters, same line-up, same "story", same maps and even the same ending! I can't help but feel that CoD5 is a remake of CoD1 with a newer engine. While I loved CoD1 and I would easily claim that it is one of the best WWII shooters out there, remaking this game really strikes me as a mediocre lazy work the developers have accomplished.

The Single Player campaign won't hold you for long. It's just a series of scripted events with unlimited respawning ammount of enemies showing up unless you advance forward. I know it sounds harsh, but the single player campaign sadly has zero replay value, and a very short campaign at that. The big question is if you love CoD and if you love the Multiplayer that will finally decide if the game is worth the money or not. The game is just way too similar to all the other CoD games, and while one could agree that the CoD4 engine makes the game look and play beutiful (and it does) the question remains wether this really is a new game at all.

My opinion: Brothers In Arms: Hells Highway is a much better WWII-game if you're craving for that kind of thing. The game is more "realistic" with some interesting RTS-elements that is unique to the series.
If you want a more exciting FPS experience, then there's a whole other bunch of great FPS games out there and in a sad way, CoD: WW fails to compete against them in an interesting or compelling way.

What strikes me is how all review sites are giving this game a solid 8/10.
It's just mind baffling how critics praise this game when it's the same bloody title released 4 years ago but with an updated engine. Sure it has flamethrowers and CoD4 multiplayer trophy system and Zombie minigame, but the game really doesn't give you anything new that hasn't been done in hundred other WWII games before it.

Rent, then decide whether or not to buy.

Surely this is a self answering question.

Here is my story, if it's similar to yours than buy it:

I loved COD4 and played multiplayer everyday.
I am on my 7th round of prestige.
COD5 is COD4 with a WWII Makeover and packs of dogs instead of helicopters.
I, therefore, love COD5, not because its anything new, but because its like getting to have my initial COD4 experience all over again.

If you can afford it and love COD4, then buy it. Renting it would be for the single player I guess, which, while cool, was 5 hours long in Coop with no videos. So yeah, if you aren't going for multiplayer then don't even bother renting anyway.

I can't help but think that Call of Duty 5 is the pre-pubescent kids version of World War II.
While Brothers in Arms is more of an adult version of World War II where every fired bullet matters, every downed teammate matters, every inch of ground you gain is significant and every inch the enemy exposes is imperative to your success.

Its an definaite rent. the campaing is not at all immersive, the amazing story scenes are gone, and the multiplayyer is cod4 with ww2 weapons. also the fact that you have to ulock a sniper scope for most fo the bolt action rifles sucks period. on a good note though, the nazi zombies kick immeasurable amounts of arse.

Richard Groovy Pants:
Rent. Single-player is done in less than 6 hours.

Not worth the money.

ElArabDeMagnifico:
Rent first, but if you like CoD, it's pretty much a buy...but why would you do that with L4D around the corner? [/shameless plug]

Has this any relation to the fact that we just finished a match and it was truly, truly awesome? :P

I finished Medal of honor: Airborne in two hours. 30 hours of gaming, my ass!