Call of Duty: World at War

"The modern past"

Activision seems to believe that the best way to remember our veterans on their national day is to offer the people who didn't get to lose a thumb or two the yearly chance to do so, virtually. Call of Duty World at War is out, and chances are you're familiar with the series. Chances are also good that you know the series has opted for a jump back in time, only this time the Nazis are not the only ones you get to shoot. Introducing this year: a game ban, in Japan!

I know. Call of Duty? World War II? Again? No thanks. And trust me, I was on that train up to a few days ago. However, it would be a shame, because this may very well be the first time that a War game grows the balls to become a bit more than that. I'm hesitating at the use of the term "Social Commentary", but it wouldn't be far off.

There's a story running on Joystiq at the moment discussing one of the editor's "inability to get passed the first five minutes of the game". Of course, the comments are a mix of people who rush at his defense in the hopes of landing a "You're cool" sticker, and those who trash him while throwing the WORST ARGUMENT EVER "It's just a game man".

At least I won't have the first problem.

Here's the thing about World at War. It's brutal. It's different. It's real. Sure you still play as Joe Schmoe of the US Marines and Petrenko Romansnikov of the Red Army (not the actual names), or should I say, you're still being addressed as such. But the story ceases to treat you that way. You're not the individual one man army, or should I say, constant Point taker of the team. You become the entire army whose side you're on. The "national identity".

It's much more obvious in the Russian campaign. An army made up of farmers, artists, and the occasional soldier, you will witness this mix of brutality and lust for revenge at its purest. While the sergeants and Comissars push you to slaughter the German soldiers, to spill their blood in revenge of the massacre they brought to the motherland, other soldiers will question the actions asked of them.

Both campaign offer two very opposite experiences. The Red Army mostly stomps through Germany, killing everything in their path (A soldier asks "They are retreating, do you really want me to shoot them in the back?" only to be answered "The back, the face, the legs, as long as they are dead!"). It's different from the norm, because while shooting Nazis has been one of gamers favorite past times, I'm personally not used to firing at scared, fleeing soldiers realizing that their demise is close. There really isn't that feeling of "The world depends on you!" as you go through the Russian campaign, simply because it concentrates on the turn of war, when Germany was losing, badly.

The US Marines on the other hand, are also fighting a "winning" battle, only against an enemy that puts honor and country before everything else. The Japanese soldiers will constantly rush you when you get too close, and you end up fighting most battles advancing slowly against waves after waves of men who run in front of your bullets, yelling "Banzai". In the heat of the moment (no pun intended), you'll fire that Flamethrower in a heartbeat, taking down the enemy like flies. And its at each breath that you'll realize just what you've done, incinerating people who will run in the face of death if it means protecting their honor. It's almost like watching the D-Day level of Medal of Honor Frontline and Call of Duty 2 (or Stalingrad in CoD1) backwards.

On this alone, I would have been ready to claim that Call of Duty World at War is one of the more gutsy achievements to date. It almost feels wrong then, to talk about, well, the "game" part of World at War.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to say that the game plays identical to CoD4, whose engine it borrows. That's obviously a good thing. And in its own way, World at War is pretty much, from top to bottom gameplay, structure, and presentation wise, the same as CoD4. Down to the 3D, screen popping briefing intros (gone are the long History Channel videos, well, almost.) It seems to me like the mentality was this: CoD4 came out to applauds, and everybody loved it. To go back to WWII meant for Treyarch that once again, they'd get the short hand of the stick, and people would trash them on the base that their action games suck (Spider Man anyone?) So, if the only thing everyone wanted was another CoD4 with a different story, Treyarch gave people, another CoD4 with a different story.

In fact, the story has been so pumped up, that it's difficult to just go and shoot your way through a level without getting a least a little bit drawn in by the characters and setting. For example, I used to hold the CoD4 sniper mission as one of the best FPS levels ever made. Yet now, I'm debating whether the CoD WaW sniper mission may just take the cake. There, I said it. The game even has a Bomber level, and believe me, it is a lot more than a shooter on rail, even though it basically is just that.

The spice comes from the difference in gameplay. It's a War fought in the mud, in the ruins, by inexperienced soldiers, and it shows. Every level depicts chaos, and offers a lot more freedom of movement than you're used to in a FPS. In fact, during my second play through I was finding new ways to approach an objective, only to figure out afterwards that, hey, using this weapon, I could even have tackled it differently. There's even "moral choices" that don't really change the game itself, but affect the dialogue you'll get to hear, and the overall experience you'll get.

The soundtrack is, also, a very ballsy move. These are fake stories based on real stories. Anyone "disrespecting" WWII whether in a book, a movie, a game, would soon get assaulted by angry people the world over. There are ways to go about these things, you're supposed to have a grand orchestra, a choir, and the theme of the Evil Empire. But not this time. Instead, we're treated to a mix of rock, techno, and pretty much strange, weird sounds. Of course there's some grandiose orchestra pieces as well, for those victory moments, but most of the game has this very eerie thing going on. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Zombie mode comes from someone playing the actual campaign. There's some very spooky music in this game.

The graphics are sharper than CoD4, and while we're used to violence after the release of Gears of War 2, there's definitely a difference between a grey bug type thing getting sliced in half and a human's legs getting blown off by a grenade. It's graphic, and is a lot harsher than what you're used to. You'll crawl in pools of blood, watch as people get stabbed by Banzai Charges, other blow up on mines... It's not realistic looking enough to make you lose your lunch, but when someone gets taken down, you believe it.

As far as game length goes, it falls in the usual CoD area, at less than 10 hours the first time and then 5 when you know the levels by heart. It's definitely harder (much harder) than CoD4 was, as I died, several times, on normal, within the first 10 minutes of the game. Then you have the multiplayer, but it's basically CoD4 with a new skin and a few twists so it's not worth discussing.

There's also that unlockable Zombie mode, which as I mentioned before, fits surprisingly well with the tone of game (it already feels like a horror movie all the way through), and as I'm still the only one in my crew to have the game, I had to face the horde alone (And died, cowering in a corner with my Russian auto rifle.)

Overall, Call of Duty World at War has to be seen to be believed. For many the multiplayer is the selling point, but the single player should not be dismissed. It's brilliant, and while it may go against what you're used to and certainly doesn't hold its punches (be careful showing that game to Vets, I don't think they'd all appreciate it), it's a very courageous direction the Devs decided to take.

It's not every day a game managed to make me consider my morals and the way I played. I felt bad every time I used the flamethrower and yet saw myself forced to use it as I simply didn't feel I would have enough gun ammo to withstand the unstoppable rush from the Japanese soldiers. I hesitated every time I aimed at a German soldier, considering whether he was running away or facing me with the intent to kill.

I was surprised, and now hold World at War as one of my favorite games "of all time, as of now". It's not for everyone, and definitely not the faint of heart, so just see it that way: do you think you could move the camera through Saving Private Ryan and Flags of Our Fathers?

PS: There's this whole debate on why it's ok to shoot at Nazis and not ok to shoot at the Japanese soldiers of WWII. Seriously? This is the same debate people are having about Resident Evil 5, and the counter argument of "Then why were you ok with shooting Spaniards?" It's a game of violence. If we were "better" people we'd just brush ponies all day and talk about key lime pie. We're not. Who's to say the Locust really aren't the victims of some HUGE misunderstanding and really just want hugs?

I'm not trying to defend anyone, all I'm saying is, the moment you claim one side is better than the other, you're entering the twilight zone and everything stops making sense. The Nazi regime did evil things, the Japanese Empire didn't do much better, the US forces kind of dropped a couple of world ending bombs, the Russians shot anyone and everyone including their own, and the list goes on. Call of Duty just so happens to be made in America.

Reviewer's Score: 9/10, Originally Posted: 11/11/08

Game Release: Call of Duty: World at War (US, 11/10/08)