Call of Duty: World at War review

One of the most controversial sequels to a long running franchise has arrived. While many players fell in love with Call of Duty games for the first time with it's last installment, Modern Warfare, most of the opinions have been heavily divided over whether or not the series should return to WW2 considering the breakthrough success of CoD4. The big question for FPS fans is this: does World At War justify the return?

Story - 7/10

The storyline has never been a strong point of this franchise, with the exception of a few shocking moments in Modern Warfare, so it's not really a surprise that this doesn't live up the high standard set in the previous title and other first person shooters since the last WW2 Call of Duty. Instead of focusing on three different characters in the single player campaign, the game instead focuses on two and follows their exploits throughout the entire war instead of just one smaller conflict. The result is a much more satisfactory ending to both campaigns that wraps up with the close of the war instead of leaving the player to wonder what other battles their squads get into. The sad part about this game is that it completely lacks any sort of character development and makes it hard to really care about what goes on with your squad since there are only a few important characters and the rest of the squad is comprised of different soldiers that come and go, never really having any lines of dialogue to make them stand out from anyone else. All in all, this is standard CoD fare, which is a bit disappointing when you consider that the other major WW2 title, Brothers in Arms: Hells Highway did such a stellar job of enveloping you in the struggles that you and your squad face, showing you what psychological damage can happen as you find yourself seeing the darkest sides of war. Another comparison that is hard to avoid between the two ww2 titles is that both games present the cold unfortunate realities of war, but they do it in different ways. While many people have been feeling a bit uneasy about the now notorious opening sequence, which involves you being a P.O.W. and watching bloodshed in front of you, and the entire scene is a bit gut wrenching to watch, because Hells Highway has spent such a long time developing you and your squad, it's a much more emotionally stirring moment as you see teammates die before your eyes or your own personal struggle with sanity. On it's own, the story presented in World at War is honestly pretty forgettable, but it does a good job of portraying some of the larger battles in WW2 and the overall presentation, which feels like it was ripped directly from the history channel coupled with the real archived footage that is shown during the scenes does a good job of holding your interest until the game is over, but doesn't leave much to the imagination or any real desire to play back through it.


Gameplay - 7/10

CoD is back and just as solid as it's always been. So, why the 7? While the gameplay itself is just as strong as ever, it's very obvious that they played it safe and, while they did take a risk returning to WW2, it really does feel like you're playing a really well done CoD4 mod. Many of the perks from the last game are back, some being altered to work with the context of WW2 (such as releasing dogs instead of a helicopter), but it feels a bit formulaic and kind of leaves a bit to be desired. The maps are all well done and do feel original, with a few taking locations from the single player campaign and allowing them to be played with up to 18 players causing carnage from all directions. Vehicles have returned to the fray, working just like they did in CoD3, which is a good/bad thing. On a few of the maps, it almost feels like it ruins the balance if one team manages to score a tank since they take so much damage to take down and can easily destroy an entire squad in moments. On the single player side of things, you still progress through missions in the same linear fashion. Again, it's still a solid experience, but when your mind starts thinking about how epic some of the confrontations could be if you had a bit more freedom, it's really disappointing to see nothing much has changed since the original days. To break up the tedium of the single player campaign, there are a few vehicle segments, most of them being some of the more standout moments of the game and luckily, they're brief so they never really have enough time to feel as though they're overstaying their welcome. The weapons of destruction have returned, all of them feeling exactly as they should and it almost feels like the semi-automatic guns, like the Thompson and MP40 give you a lot more control then ever before, allowing you to make more precision shots if the need calls, but don't expect too much damage out of them. The big highlight of the game is the introduction of the flamethrower, which works like a big "Use-Me-To-Win!" button in the single player. Any time that your enemies are in a corridor, which there are plenty of, just whip this out and spray it for a few seconds to take out anything in your path. Another feature making its way to the game is enemies hiding into the trees, thanks to the first chance to play through the pacific front in a CoD title. It's not really as annoying as it sounds, since it tends to look like the enemies are actually crouching on the trees and are rarely ever hidden in the leaves. Also, during these moments, you almost always have a flamethrower conveniently located in your back pocket, so all you have to do is aim at the trees to win. The last major addition is the inclusion of Co-op play, which isn't really neccessary for most of the difficulties, but helps greatly if you're attempting to finish the game on veteran. The sad part about the structure of the game is that since many of the environments are (as previously mentioned) pretty linear, it feels like you have an extra hand taking down enemies instead of having to spend as much time waiting, but any of the levels could easily be accomplished single handedly if you have the patience. The one neat bonus about the co-op play is that if you're knocked down, a teammate can rush to your aid and revive you. At the same time, the annoying part is that if a teammate decides to rush straight into a hail of gunfire and you don't have enough time to rescue them, the mission ends for everyone and you have to restart at the last checkpoint. My advice? Make sure you know who you're playing with or everyone is using a headset. It would have been nice if there had a been a few unique mission to take advantage of the fact that others are playing with you instead of it just being the same recycled levels from single player with the exact same objectives and checkpoints. If you're wondering, the Nazi Zombie minigame is unlocked by finishing the game, and it's a different take on the zombies, more like Counter Strike than Left 4 Dead.

Sound - 8/10

Holding up to the quality of the series, the overall sound of the game is great. If you're using surround sound or a good set of headphones, you'll occasionally hear chatter from teammates and enemies coming from various locations of the field as bullets whiz by and your room vibrates as mortar shells explode nearby. The game does a great job of keeping you immersed with the constant sound of bullets whizzing by your head, occasionally causing you to look around in real life to figure out where that sound came from. The voice acting is incredibly well done as well, especially as you hear the battle cries of the other soldiers in the russian front charging towards the harder to obtain points on the map. While all of this is well done and even the vehicle sounds are great, a questionable choice is the actual score for the game. There's something very...out of place when you're crouching behind a wall, avoiding gunfire and trying to take out a pesky enemy sniper, when you hear the treads of a tank in the distance and that horrible groaning sound as it rotates its fire to you, then feel the impact of the shell thanks to the speakers, all while...listening to a terrible wannabe techno soundtrack? During the more intense moments, you'll hear the soundtrack swelling, but ...it's really out of place and doesn't sound that great on top of it. There's just something surreal as you rush towards a japanese bunker with two machine gunners aiming at you and a swarm of soldiers armed with nothing but a flamethrower, pistol, and a knife while having a bad drum n' bass song trying to encourage you to go on. At least it's not as bad as EA Trax and you can turn it off!


Graphics - 7/10

Compared to CoD4, this title doesn't really look all that bad, but when you put it alongside many of the other bigger titles this year, such as Far Cry 2, Motorstorm: Pacific Rift, Gears 2, or whatever, it really falls apart. The models themselves are pretty well done, but everything in the environment, excluding the particle effects, leaves a bit to be desired. The actual animation of the soldiers is pretty well done and just like many other titles this year, there is a damage modeling system that determines if you actually manage to shoot off a hand or a leg or whatever based on where you hit them at which is very impressive to watch. On the very last mission, there is a pretty chilling surprise as you rush towards the Reichstag, that is added by the slight ragdoll physics in the game. The explosions look especially terrifying, especially the first time you toss a grenade into a swarm of enemies and watch as one tries to pick it up, then literally see their corpse get ripped apart or tossed high into the air. The graphics do a great job of showing how violent war can be and really does a great job of setting the mood with the destroyed towns that you're rushing through to the lush environments in the pacific campaign that almost give you a fear of tall grass and trees, since you never know what may be lurking inside, just beyond your view. The biggest fault here is that the underlying textures for the world and the model for different things in it is really lacking. A lot of the urban environments have piles of wreckage, but when you're prone and using it for cover, which you will be, much of it looks like some bizarre polygonal structure with a big wreckage texture stretched over it. It was excusable in the past, but as games are pushing the bar constantly with refinements in graphics, it's a shame to see a game like this relying on tricks that would have worked years ago instead of actually using their budget to make a more believable environment. The biggest flaw is in the urban environments, which is a shame since the gameplay there became the more entertaining part, especially towards the end of the game. Looking at it from a distance, the game does look pretty solid, but if you're the person playing, you're guaranteed to notice the issue with the models of the environments themselves since you'll be spending so much time crouched or laying behind it. The good thing is that there was no real quality difference between the single player, co-op, and multiplayer ends however.


Overall - 7/10

The biggest problem with this game is that it feels more like an attempt to cash in on the success of CoD4 instead of really giving the player a solid WW2 experience. The game itself isn't bad or anything, but it really does feel more like a modified version of the previous game instead of it's own unique experience. The addition of co-op was a nice touch, but isn't as entertaining as it should be since you're just playing through the same missions as you were in single player with absolutely no alterations and the same restricted through the levels. Multiplayer is still as strong as ever, but with no real unique additions aside from the vehicles, it's really hard to suggest people check this out unless you're a huge fan of the franchise or love ww2 games. Thankfully, I'm a fan of both, but if you aren't sure about the entire return to ww2 thing, you'd probably do better sticking with CoD4 or looking at some of the other blockbuster titles of 2008.