Call of Duty: World at War

"A Step Backwards. But a Fun One."

Call of Duty: World at War is a mystery to me. The game is confusing... in the sense that it seems as if they desired it to be worse than Call of Duty 4: MW. The game is fun, but it isnt Call of Duty 4. It takes alot from CoD4 and tweaks it slightly to make the player feel as if it is different. The game is, overall, slower, less balanced (for online play), and more "spray and pray" oriented even though bolt-action rifles litter every corner throughout the game.

This review will be conducted in categories including: Gameplay, Graphics, Plot, Replayability, and Multiplayer.

Gameplay: 8.5/10
The "Call of Duty" franchise has always been gameplay oriented. Aiming and shooting is the core of the game, and this formula is executed reasonably well by Treyarch (World at War's developers), even though Infinity Ward (Modern Warfare's developers) did a better job. Through the game you will, depending on difficulty, either be jumping back and forth spraying a Thompson, or hiding behind a tree stump with a M1 Garand shootin' off heads. One of my biggest complaints is that the game is slower than Call of Duty 4. Sprinting feels sluggish and movement is awkward at times. It's fun though. In small amounts at least.

Graphics: 9/10
The graphics of Call of Duty: World at War are, for me at least, a mixture of beauty and laziness on the part of the designers. Even though this game came out a entire year after Call of Duty 4, some of the graphics are worse in World at War. As for the guns' graphics, your hand gestures, and allies, Call of Duty 4 looks better. Environments are a different story though, overall, they look better at far distances than in Call of Duty 4 and have more variety usually. At very close ranges, such as brushing against a wall or lying on the ground, Call of Duty 4 may be "slightly" better.

Plot: 8/10
What is there that I can say? It's a first person shooter set in good ol' World War 2. Original? No. Genre Defining? Not in the least. You either play as a Marine storming through a Japanese island or a Russian soldier taking back "Mother Russia" and taking the fight home to the Germans (there is also a short mission were you shoot guns out a plane, and you play as a Petty Officer named Locke, but he isnt at all important plot-wise and is only there for one mission that lasts all of 7 minutes). Throughout the game you will be led, mostly, by either an American or Russian sergeant. Sgt. Roebuck (Keifer Sutherland adds an awesome, grizzled touch by doing the voice over for the character) a gung-ho marine wanting to pump the Japanese full of lead or Sgt. Reznov, a crazed war veteran that is bent on the destruction of Germany, but largely stands in the shadow of Sutherland's character. As you go along you liberate and whoop the Axis back to their place.

Replayability: 8/10
During the first play through the game, you will most likely be on recruit and blaze through the campaign in about 5 hours or so, and the storylines replayability will depend on whether you are the type of gamer that wants to beat it on Veteran, a difficult task, though it is a good deal easier than it was in Call of Duty 4. You will still spend loads of time dying, biting your fingers, retrying, and repeating until you beat the mission and have the "HELL YEA! I did it!" moment. The online multiplayer brings back prestige mode, so that once you get to level 65 you may restart the process again. Unlike in Call of Duty 4, going through prestige mode has benefits... small benefits... you can create more custom classes as you proceed through the modes. In short, it will depend on the player whether or not this game will stand the test of time.

Multiplayer: 6.5/10
Before any noobs start to insult me because I'm putting down their game, I will have you know I was a top ranked player in CoD4 and my k/d ratio in WaW is currently 4.66 I think. I pwn. I just find it unbalanced and far inferior compared to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's. The MP40 is more broken than the M16(Call of Duty 4's Holy Grail of guns, you didnt need to try to kill with it, it did all the work itself) ever was. No one uses the rifles except the one automatic rifle. People overuse the MP40 or any other Sub Machine gun they can get a hand on. I use the Arisaka as much as possible, but it is futile. Noobs with juggernaught and martyrdom are running all over the place and gameplay crumbles to pieces... It's no fun.

In conclusion, the game falls short of Call of Duty 4's heightened standards. It could have been a gem, but the carelessness of the designers and the overused World War 2 plot kills so much of it.
8.5 + 9 + 8 + 8 + 6.5 = 40.
40/5 = 8

The games is fun though, please keep that into consideration. All of the games downfalls are minor and patches/new maps will always improve whatever the multiplayer is lacking. It is a step backward from CoD4, but a fun one.

Reviewer's Score: 8/10, Originally Posted: 04/13/09

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