Call of Duty: World at War

"We didn't start the fire"

Most of the time, when a new generation arises, the popular franchises of the previous generation are left in the dust. Just look at games like Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon, and Silent Hill for some examples. While there are some exceptions, this is generally the case, but the Call of Duty series has demolished this trend when Call of Duty 2, the first seventh generation Call of Duty title, was released to massive critical acclaim and strong enough sales to warrant the next game in the series, Call of Duty 3, which kept the things that made Call of Duty 2 great but added small tweaks to the core gameplay and told a much more intricate story. And then came Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare which completely turned the series on its head with its nearly flawless presentation and thrilling gameplay that was unprecedented with shooters. The latest installment in the series, Call of Duty: World at War, while it is a very solid title, doesn't live up to the glory of its predecessors.

Utilizing the Call of Duty 4 engine, Call of Duty: World at War is very similar in terms of gameplay. All of the additions and tweaks that Call of Duty 4 added to the series are present here, including the awesomely revamped multiplayer component that returns in Call of Duty: World at War. Just like in the previous game, there are multiple game types to play and a variety of maps to play with, but now the maps vary in size depending on the game type you're playing.

The class system that the games have used for the multiplayer since Call of Duty 2 returns as well. Another returning feature is being awarded an advantage by having a kill streak. In Call of Duty 4, these edges over the competition were calling in air strikes and having everyone suddenly appear on your radar. While that's all fine and good, Call of Duty: World at War takes it to the next level by letting you now call upon a pack of dogs to hunt your enemies down, which provides a completely new layer of awesomeness to the already amazing multiplayer, both offline and online. However, the leveling system hasn't made its way to split-screen yet, which is very disappointing considering it would have upped the replayability and made the multiplayer even more enjoyable than it was in Call of Duty 4.

Another addition to the multiplayer is the ability to control tanks. The tanks are a decent distraction and make online matches a little more interesting and almost Halo-like, but they can't be used offline for some very odd reason.

Multiplayer extends further in the sense that you can now play through the campaign in co-op with one friend offline or three others online. This actually affects the game negatively as it makes the single-player feel unbalanced and the co-op way too easy for my tastes. On top of that, you can't even save your progress in co-op until you complete the game once in single-player, which sort of makes playing through co-op at all pretty pointless as there are only a couple co-op specific achievements that can only be achieved online anyway.

There have been other small tweaks and additions to the gameplay though and some of them are actually pretty cool. You now have access to a flamethrower that can obliterate groups of enemies quickly and can light buildings, grass, and trees on fire with some neat effects. Instead of being limited to smoke grenades or flashbang grenades, you can now lob Molotov's at enemy soldiers. Melee is now expanded to allow you to stab enemies with your bayonet instead of just hitting them with your gun or slashing at them with your knife.

Vehicle controls have been finely tuned and tightened to near perfection. In the previous Call of Duty games, operating a tank was a pain in the ass but this installment provides fluid and very user-friendly tank controls that anyone can get used to immediately. Your tanks also have a secondary function now. Not only can you create destruction by firing your cannon like usual, but you can now tap RB to shoot a flamethrower out of the front of your tank to take care of some pesky enemy infantry.

One of the modes in Call of Duty: World at War that has received a ton of attention from the gaming press and the press in general is the infamous Nazi Zombie mode. This feature probably was a selling point to a lot of gamers who revel in the horror genre, but Treyarch sort of dropped the ball with this mode. It could have been amazing, but it ends up falling into the realm of a generic flash game. The first few waves are almost mind-numbingly boring and it takes only a couple of tries to discover all of the secrets that this mode has to offer. The action is just way too slow (and I even prefer slow zombies) for this mode to really matter that much. On the bright side, it can be played in split-screen co-op with two people and four-players online, but it's a shame that Treyarch didn't make this mode four-player split-screen as it could have been done very easily.

The objectives in Call of Duty: World at War become very repetitive in short time as you are mostly just destroyed small groups of enemies. It's a shame that the objectives weren't as varied like in the previous installments and it's also a shame that Call of Duty: World at War blatantly copies its legendary predecessor in some areas as well, which only backs up the fact that World at War is almost too similar to Call of Duty 4. Getting to your objectives feels very linear as well, killing the sense of freedom that Call of Duty 2 had and rebirthing the almost suffocating exploration of Call of Duty 3.

World at War's plot is pretty basic and generic throughout a lot of the campaign until the end and even then there are some problems. There is barely any closure to the Eastern campaign while the Western campaign has a very nice story with a nice set of surprises to go along with a brilliant ending that ends the World War II portions of Call of Duty games on a high note. You play as three different soldiers this time around; you play as a Russian soldier in Germany, finally taking the fight straight to Germany's capital of Berlin, and you also play as an American marine in Japan and a fighter pilot taking down Japanese patrol boats. The three soldiers have their own little stories and their own characters within their stories but like I said, you will find it hard to care throughout most of the adventure until the ending.

Taking a much more gritty approach to Call of Duty was a very good idea. It makes war feel much more real with body parts flying all around and seeing brains splatter on a wall after you shoot a soldier in the head really makes you feel like you're right in the middle of the actual war. It's humbling and disgusting all at the same time. However, it's not all blood and guts. The environments look gorgeous, even though some of the levels are poorly designed, and the character models are better than ever before. The fire effects are nicely done and the environments are more destructible, bringing a level of visual glory unfounded in previous Call of Duty games. The game does have its problems though. The game seemed to crash sometimes, a problem I didn't have with any previous Call of Duty games, and at one instance, an enemy soldier suddenly went into the death animation for being lit on fire when there wasn't a single ember on him. The split-screen is made even smaller by two bars on the left and right sides of both screens which was a decision thatg makes absolutely no sense to me. Overall, Call of Duty: World at War is a very eye-pleasing experience with just a few technical problems that hold it back.

If you are familiar with the blockbuster smash The Dark Knight then you are probably also familiar with Gary Oldman, who plays Gordon in that film. You will be happy to know that he provides the voice for Sergeant Reznov, who is easily the best character in the game. Kiefer Sutherland, the actor who plays Jack Bauer in the TV show 24, provides the voice for Roebuck, and he does an excellent job as well. This is easily the best voice acting seen in the series yet and I hope this carries on to the next installment. The soundtrack is amazing and heart pounding and the explosions are inundating, but it the voices of Kiefer Sutherland and Gary Oldman are sometimes drowned out by explosions and gunfire during the narration that leads up to the level you're on, ruining your chances of being able to enjoy their awesome voice acting work.

If you've been reading my review up to now, you've probably deduced that Call of Duty: World at War is an awesome game with some minor flaws, but here is where the game really takes a nosedive. It is simply too short. You can easily beat the game in four to six hours, and if you are on easy mode, probably only three to five. This is just pathetic from a series that has provided campaigns that spanned at least ten hours before. The multiplayer is just as fun as it was in Call of Duty 4, but it's virtually the same thing, so if you've plugged a ton of hours into Call of Duty 4, then you probably won't spend nearly as much time with Call of Duty: World at War. The achievements are okay and some are pretty interesting, but there are no co-op specific achievements and no achievements for the Nazi Zombie mode, so these extra modes just aren't as appealing as they probably should be.

Call of Duty: World at War could have been just as good as the other games in the series, but it just messes up too much. The co-op is practically useless because you can't save offline until you beat the game once in single-player and there are no co-op specific achievements (except for two online) for you to strive for, and it makes the same mistake as Left 4 Dead and Halo 3 by not allowing four-players play through the campaign in split-screen. The Nazi Zombie mode is way too slow and boring, plus it doesn't allow four-players offline as well. The tanks are great fun online, but they ALSO don't make it offline. Developers need to learn that offline multiplayer is much more important than online or gaming is slowly just going to continue its multiplayer death march. The graphics are great and the audio presentation is astounding, especially with Kiefer Sutherland and Gary Oldman backing it up, but there are some technical flaws that hold it back and longevity is definitely an issue here, with Call of Duty: World at War being the shortest Call of Duty yet with the inexcusably most repetitive mission objectives. Is Call of Duty: World at War a bad game? No, it's actually a great game, but it just doesn't live up to the success of its predecessors, and it's the worst Call of Duty yet. Still, fans of the series will find plenty to love with this title and if you missed Call of Duty 4, here's your chance to experience some of the best multiplayer gaming has to offer.

Reviewer's Score: 8/10, Originally Posted: 01/05/09

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