Call of Duty: World at War

"World War Two, Zombies, and Great Online and Coop Play...What More Can Be Done?"

Could this finally be the end of the World War Two games? The most overplayed war in history has been giving players the opportunity to storm beaches, take cities, and endure the trials and triumphs of the last Great War. I highly doubt that game developers will ever officially close the World War scene, but the question is whether it will be closed for the first person shooters games. With the fictional modern day war that was introduced to us in Call of Duty 4, a lot of gamers felt cheated when the next Call of Duty was going to be yet another World War Two game. Call of Duty: World at War brings back the great experiences you had in the previous Call of Duty games and does some great justice through many improvements to World at War. World at War does justice to the Pacific Theater of war where Medal of Honor: Rising Sun had failed to really give that side of the war some serious justice. You also get an excellent European Theater switchover to the Soviet Army through various combat missions. Where the repetitiveness of shooting enemy soldiers comes in, shorter missions and more objective game play replace it. The online multiplayer also may come off as a repeat of the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare multiplayer, but despite the glitches it remains a great online experience. Overall, you are going to enjoy World at War through the new cooperative modes along with the surprise game mode at the end.

Story Mode

If you are familiar with the Call of Duty games then you will know how the story plays out in these games. You will switch between an American, Private Miller beginning at the historical Makin Raid. Between missions, you will be introduced to Private Petrenko, a Soviet soldier who has survived the battle of Stalingrad and along with the outspoken Sergeant Reznov, you will exact revenge on all of the German Wermacht. The game skips around a bit to focus on the last battles of the war in both theaters. Instead of following a particular story line as the series has done before (Big Red One) you will skip around to the major battles. There are some excellent introductions to the game as well as to each mission that resemble a graphic novel setup combined with vintage footage and it keeps your attention. What I have to praise this game for is its well-researched historical accuracy. Of course, the story has its dramatics, but the dates, units represented, and missions are straight to the point. For example, the 3rd Shock Army was very much a part of the Northwestern Front and included armor and air units. The game will feature all of these as you go through the Soviet missions. It helps to have a game that is historically accurate especially after previously playing History: Civil War Secret Missions. That game still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. You have two great actors that keep the dialogue and pace going for this game. Between the war hardened Sergeant Roebuck and the unforgiving Sergeant Reznov you get some excellent dialogue during the introductions and in the game. The game does not appear to be something a bunch of developers created after watching World War Two movies so I have to also highly praise this game for its originality.

Game Play

Call of Duty: World at War is very much Call of Duty: Modern Warfare in a World War Two setting as far as controls and most of the game play is concerned. World at War is built from the same engine of course so veteran players like me easily got accustomed to this game from the controls to picking perks on multiplayer. The typical issue weapons are all back along with the introduction of other weapons that have not been in previous World War Two games like the flamethrower, Imperial Army rifle, and other weapons from the Russian front such as machine guns and even bayonets. The controls are standard and you should be able to easily move around in the story mode. The missions have multiple objectives and are not as long as you might expect them to be. Most of the objectives involve blowing something up so it is not as open ended as some might claim this game to be. Blowing up one AA gun is not going to change the way the game is played compared to blowing up an AA gun on the other end of the map. Open-ended games are game where you do not pursue a linear mission. Most of the time, you will need to rely on your AI teammates especially in harder difficulties, as they are more efficient this time around. Single player story mode will include some special missions that you cannot play on a cooperative game.

One of the greatest improvements to this series is the much-needed cooperative mode. You will still go through the story mode in a split screen (or online) and reap havoc with two players. It is an excellent asset to World at War and finally gives the early Medal of Honor games some competition in this area.

The online multiplayer is either a love or hate mode. The bright side of this mode is that you have a lot more perks and game types to choose from compared to Modern Warfare, but the downside features glitches and the same game play as Modern Warfare. I love the addition of vehicles to the multiplayer, as they were great equalizers in the first online Call of Duty games, but have even more effect in World at War. Tanks are about all that are available on the maps, but despite what critics say about the vehicles being easy targets, what they really mean is that they have no skill in these things. Before, you had two hits to take before you were dead in games like Call of Duty: Finest Hour. This time, however, it takes about four good hits to knock your tank out. That means somebody with a bazooka cannot take you down without being killed again to respawn with more ammo. I increased my kill/death ratio tremendously by staying in a tank the entire game and racking up kills like nobody's business. The kill streak bonuses are replaced to fit the theme of the game so you have recon planes, artillery strikes, and vicious dogs for your bonuses. The artillery strikes are not as effective as a plane carpet-bombing an area, but with skill, you can get a good strike in.

Some of the problems of the multiplayer are the map sizes and glitches. Objective based game types will not utilize the entire map so you have areas where no action takes place on the map throughout the entire match. If you are going to have some maps with the ability to run around and not worry about getting shot at then there should be some perches to find for sniping. The maps are large and medium sized so flanking the enemy is pretty much the name of the game if you want to score kills. This is exactly how Modern Warfare plays out. Teamwork is not essential as following your buddies around is usually going to cost you because they probably do not know where they are going. A lot of game glitches involve non-dedicated servers so that games are dependent solely on the connection of the host. This gives other players an unreasonable advantage during the game. Other problems that have come up recently are players getting underneath certain maps and taking an unfair advantage over players. The host problems will never be solved as long as games are created in matchmaking networking, but hopefully out of map glitches can be corrected with an update.

Sound/Graphics

Call of Duty: World at War is the first World War Two game that I know to include a techno beat on its soundtrack. The music is sometimes not with the period during the game and although it adds to the pace of the game during intense firefights, it is still out of place. There are more relevant music tracks in the game which more than make up for the non-period music. The game is narrated not by the characters you play as, but the sergeants of both characters you play as and two well-known actors voice these. They help drive the plot of the game and the concept (ending the war) so you should be pleased in following orders barked out by Kiefer Sutherland…although he is Canadian. Outstanding. Sound effects are great and as always I always feel rewarded for some reason to hear the Soviet national anthem being played after achieving victory in an online match.

I mentioned before that the introductions to the beginning of the game as well as the missions are neat to watch. The intros are fast paced and immediately get you into the action. I probably could not adequately describe these intros so I won't beyond saying that they are quite awesome. World at War is also a lot more graphic than the series has ever been. Modern Warfare featured blood and splatters on walls if you got headshots. World at War features a lot more blood and the loss of limbs and heads with the right shots. Effects are very good with shells creating pockmarks and the destruction of your flamethrower disintegrating the landscape. Muzzle flashes look great, but I would have to say Far Cry 2 does a better job as far as things getting burned up go. The burning grass and trees in World at War seem to gradually melt and turn black and the obvious problem is the stationary pattern these things have. Moving through grass and bushes in Far Cry 2 is much more realistic than it is on World at War as you go straight through bushes rather than they swaying to your force of gravity. Still, the graphics stay gritty and make for some excellent scenes of carnage.

Replay Value

World at War has superb replay value by tossing a few great surprises into the multiplayer and single player modes. If you play through the story mode on a cooperative game then you will have to replay it through in single player to be able to play all of the missions. Also, you have to complete this game on single player story mode to get a very surprising bonus game. The campaign actually is able to be finished in a sitting if you are in a hurry to unlock Nazi Zombies. Playing through on Veteran may take you a little longer than that, but it is easily manageable. No difficult last missions to complete in a marginal time limit here. I think this is actually a better thing for a game like World at War because you get straight into the action and the levels last long enough to not ever make the game play repetitive. Longer missions are broken up in segments, which also adds to keeping your interest during the campaign. Nazi Zombies is a treat and even though I want to criticize a game for slipping something like this mini into a game honoring history and its heroes, I would be a hypocrite to say I did not enjoy this first person zombie shooting frenzy. Now playing Nazi Zombies by yourself is a total travesty because this game is most enjoyed playing with the help of a friend. You do not survive this game, but must defend yourself against wave after wave of zombies that try to break into the makeshift fort you are in. The setup is great as credits will unlock guns and free up other areas of the building as well as allow you to repair and board up windows. Playing this thing by yourself will make you realize that you cannot hole up anywhere and put up a decent fight, but with a friend, you can almost adequately defend yourself on the second floor. Only the Army Men series could dare make a game including zombies, but World at War took a big risk and won out big time with this mini game.

Multiplayer includes a lot more game types that bring back some of the old favorites of the series. Reintroducing tanks and game types like War helps the online multiplayer considerably when all else resembles Modern Warfare. You will enjoy the online play if you have not played Modern Warfare and are not familiar with how it works. No major achievements are associated with the online play, but there are ranks and everything centers on the player's stats to determine score instead of wasting it on who was lucky enough to be on the winning team. Glitches affect the online play, but as mentioned before hopefully that could be cleaned up. Otherwise World at War does suffer from determining score points in many aspects.

You cannot adequately judge your skill level against other players by comparing statistics in the online play. Also, I found it hard to determine where you compare with the mini game and single player games. Maybe both game types are combined?

Achievements are easy to get. A few are secret achievements, but almost all are related to the single player story mode. If you want to get them all you will have to find a few friends to do the cooperative achievements, but it is still very similar to Modern Warfare except not all achievements can be gained by you alone.

Final Recommendation 9/10

Call of Duty: World at War is an awesome World War Two game that is excellent for two players on a single console and superb for single and online game play. You won't get the full experience of this game without doing both so you get a great all-round game in World at War. My only beefs with the game are yet again the stationary environment and problems with the online multiplayer and scores, but this will definitely be one of the most memorable World War Two games to date. Call of Duty: World at War is a great buy for those who loved Modern Warfare and it is also great for the achievements. World at War serves justice on the Pacific, and effectively closes out the long running series of shooters set in World War Two.

Reviewer's Score: 9/10, Originally Posted: 01/12/09

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