Review by doomcrusader
A great game, but not as good as the others
Call of Duty. I have played every game in this series since Call of Duty 2. Call of duty 2 was the game that got me into buying a Xbox 360 back in 2006. Three games later we arrive at Call of Duty: World at war. I will often compare this game to the others in the series. Now lets get this review started.
Gameplay - The controls in World at War are the exact same in all the other Call of Dutys. Perfect. Its very easy to get used to. This game has some of the best controls Ive ever used, and they are never a problem. The game plays very well.
Campaign - The story in this is very good. There are two different sides. One takes you into the eyes of Russian soldier fighting against Nazis, while in the other you are an American fighting the Japanese in the pacific. Both were extremely well done and are actually pretty deep for a shooter. It is a nice change for the Americans to be in the pacific, instead of the overused western Europe front. It is fun until you try veteran difficulty. Your enemies seem to have near perfect aim, and have an infinite amount of grenades. It keeps you moving out of your cover and into the hail of bullets being shot at you. Luckily you have useful team mates that seriously help a lot. Now I have beaten both CoD2 and CoD4 on veteran, both of which were very hard, but this game takes the cake. You can also play the campaign in co-op if you desire.
Online - This is where the game really goes downhill. If youre like me, the multiplayer should be the meat of a shooter. Treyarch pretty much took CoD4s online and transformed it into WW2, with some bad additions. Now, CoD4 had a brilliant design, and so you would expect World at wars to be just as fun, if not better. It isnt. New features that Treyarch thought would be good, just make it frustrating. They added tanks which are overpowered, and are hard to destroy if the other team chooses not to work together to take them out (in which 90% of the time they dont). Other additions include dogs (they can reach anywhere on the map, and if youre the slightest bit injured youre dead in one hit.), and artillery (slows you down and shakes your screen even if its on your side.). Submachine guns reign supreme in multiplayer, and are thus overused. Treyarch made the mp40 just as strong as a bolt action rifle, and is fully automatic. (Since when was a smg stronger than a sniper?) The lack of gun variety gets old quick. On a positive note the maps were well made and there are a lot of game types to choose from.
Graphics - Graphics are great. It probably has the most realistic fire Ive seen in a game. This game is a lot gorier than past CoD games, with body parts flying off if hit with enough force (explosives, snipers, ect.). No complaints here.
Sound - The game sounds exactly as it should. From the sounds of artillery crashing down on you, to the basic bolt action rifle, it is all good. Just one thing though, the voice acting is pretty bad. The Japanese, Russian, and German accents are horrible, and they never speak their native language.
Play Time/Replayability - The campaign is short, but thats what you would expect from most shooters. Playing it on veteran difficulty will definitely add more hours to this game. The online will keep you occupied for a long time. Even though I get frustrated with this games multiplayer, it somehow gets me to keep playing it. (Fun yet not fun in a way.) The new Nazi zombie mode is a blast playing with your friends, trying to see how many rounds you can survive.
Final Recommendation - I would most definitely recommend renting this game first. It has a solid campaign, (although not nearly as good as CoD2s story, something I chose not to touch on), and a somehow addicting multiplayer despite it being extremely frustrating. I give this game a 7.5/10.
Rating: 3.5 - Good
Product Release: Call of Duty: World at War (US, 11/10/08)
Got Your Own Opinion?
Submit a review and let your voice be heard.