Call of Duty: World at War

Review by The Grevster

Ever since Infintry Ward graced the consoles with last years monster hit Call of Duty 4, gamers have been lying in wait, fearing the release of another Treyarch developed shooter. After playing through Call of Duty 3, cries were heard all around for a change of scenery, and it was a great experience to find Call of Duty 4 a breath of fresh air into a tired and stale series. Yet when Treyarch announced Call of Duty: World at War, a return to the World War II setting, once again News and Message Boards became ablaze with criticisms, that a return to the old would definitely be a killer blow to the developer. Can Call of Duty: World at War stand on its own merit, or will it still be known as the First Person Shooter that couldn't?

Story

Call of Duty: World at War (or COD: WaW as it will now be known) is split into 2 separate World War II stories. On the Pacific side of the missions, attempting to take down the Okinawa stronghold, Shuri Castle is American soldier Private Miller and his squad led by Sergeant. Roebuck (voiced by 24 Star Keifer Sutherland). Then on the German side we have Russian Dimitri Petrenko (voiced by Gary Oldman), whose sole purpose is to storm the city of Berlin and over throw the German Parliament building the "Reichstag". Although the story lacks any definitive narrative, and continues to jump, months at a time between missions, it still holds together very well against its predecessor. Ranging from the lush and dense Pacific jungles, right up to the war torn streets of Germany, we are treated too many a different locale that show the variety and scale of the 2nd World War. Add to this the games very realistic approach to violence, gore and historical depiction and you have on your hands a very well scripted and thought out 7-8 hours of story to progress through (depending on difficulty).

The story is superbly paced and without spoiling anything, you should make sure all sequences are watched, these are awe inspiring at times and really engross you into the experience. We always hear nowadays of immersion within games, some that use a plot to entangle the player within the game and others using gameplay. World at War has really utilised both sides of the coin, roping gamers into the WWII experience unheralded by any other shooter on the platform, that on many occasions has me in shock at some of pure adrenaline fuelled set pieces it had to offer.

Gameplay

As we all know by now, World at War runs on the same engine as Modern Warfare, for many reasons this can be good and bad. On the plus side they already have a stunning framework to begin with, which would be almost impossible to ruin, where on the negative side of things we could basically have a COD4 copycat, hiding under a WWII disguise. It was great to find that the latter was not the case, and that Treyarch have taken the engine Infintry Ward built and not only used it to its maximum potential but also they have improved upon it.

Using the similar old school WWII weapons such as the M1 Garand, with the new additions such as the Flamethrower and Molotov's, has added a whole new dynamic to the way you approach targets and objectives. Add to this the new and improved enemy approach, such as Sniper's hiding in tree tops, to small hidden traps camouflaged in the grass, that are hidden away so well, you'll be reaching for your new pair of pants when under attack. The added dynamic during gameplay added by these new features, as well as up close and personal attacks, such as the "Banzai" (where troops will coming frantically running at you with a bayonet) are duly welcomed into the familiar setting, and you can't help but hide the glee when torching a few Pacific soldiers and seeing them run for water, only to be burnt into a puddle of charred remains on the grassy floor. There are also several missions that deter away from the usual run and gun nature of WWII shooters including 2 Flame Thrower specific missions, one for each campaign, a flying mission over the Pacific Ocean and also Tank mission across the desolate jungle plains. They are a nice deterrent from the occasional repetitiveness of running back and forth away from grenade down pour and hiding behind the nearest rock for cover.

The game also does a fantastic job of transporting the player back into the time of World War II, with the use of videos in between missions. These videos are fantastically edited and created mixture of old and new, fusing the red and black graphical creativity similar to that of the "Mothership" video by Led Zeppelin, with several old Nazi propaganda clips, they really set the tone and get you pumped for the upcoming mission. As well as this, Treyarch have used many historical references, such as journals from Veterans to bring the gruesome truth and gore of war to life. They have done a fantastic job in bringing the World War setting into homes with the use of dismemberment, from flying limbs to exploding heads, and have managed to shift the tired and old setting we are so used to seeing nowadays. You can't also help but miss the little touches such as killing a Sniper in the trees and see him swing from the branches; these are great little additions that make you smile throughout. Whereas Brother's in Arms was toted to be bringing the emotional and physical side of war to life, Call of Duty World at War has certainly achieved a sense of realism that just can't be beat.

This isn't to say the game is perfect, World at War still suffers from some of the flaws that Modern Warfare had and more. Back once again are the annoyances of being stuck on scenery, pop-ups and the occasional frame rate drop, but added to this are some initial flaws which should have been picked up during quality assurance. Enemies appearing on radar before the scene has prompted their attack, falling under scenery and unable to get back and not being able to equip a weapon necessary for certain parts of the mission to name but a few. Also the difficulty curve is steep, fans of Veteran will be happy to know, its back and harder than ever, whereas I found Normal rather pressing, dying every mission, sometimes even 5-6 times (this coming from a Call of Duty and FPS die hard). Also the AI isn't really up to scratch, I found myself on many occasions being under heavy fire, when even I could see easier targets to attack, a little closer to home (maybe wearing that big name indicator on my head wasn't such a good idea). However none of these are real deal breakers, and certainly don't detract from what is a solid game.

Graphics and Sound

Call of Duty: World at War is by far the best looking World War based shooter out there, this by no means makes it on par with the likes of Gears of War 2. It's still a perfectly good looking game that houses lush realistic looking jungle scenery, grand epic explosions and draw distances unrivalled by most of the other games on the market today. The use of slow motion set pieces are also a really welcomed addition that certainly add a cinematic feel to proceedings. The music is extremely fitting and works very well in setting the pace for all the missions and enticing the gamer to play more, crescendos are grand, drum rolls are full of bass and heart pounding tracks are used to full effect. Add to this comprehensive voice acting from the likes of 24's Keifer Sutherland and veteran actor Gary Oldman, you can't help but feel pulled in by the whole experience.

Multiplayer

Obviously like Modern Warfare, World at War once again brings back the comprehensive online functionality that helped it top all kinds of online charts. The previous great additions such as Perks, lobbies and levelling up all make the welcomed return. However Treyarch have made the online side of things a much more varied affair, adding several additions that increase the length and playability of the game. Adding to the foray, "Death Cards", Treyarch's answer to Halo 3's Skulls, which can alter and manipulate the way you play, from making enemies heads explode with every shot, to making your character die ever so slowly, when not shooting and 4 player online co-op which certainly make the daunting prospect of veteran, a little bit more welcoming.

However, as many of you will know, the main draw for all games nowadays is...Zombies, and who can forget World at War's answer to Left 4 Dead, Nazi Zombies, or "Nacht der Untoten" as it's known in game. Set within a house, it's your job (alongside 3 other co-op players if need be) to stop the Zombie horde from entering the building, collecting points for kills which can unlock new weapons and furniture (to blockade doorways and the like). The mode is a great little addition which plays fantastically and certainly adds new dimension to the "can get old quickly" repetitiveness of online multiplayer. Remember though, you'll need to polish of the Single Player campaign to unlock "Nacht der Untoten" (Also watch after the Credits for a cool little video introducing the mode).

Conclusion

All in all Call of Duty: World at War is a fantastic experience, one which I couldn't help but be bought into, laughing, crying, and even screaming at times. I wouldn't say it's as good as Modern Warfare, as I always been a lover of future combat, but this is certainly a game well worth playing, owning and cherishing on its own merits. Walking into this expecting a tired old formula, I walked away excited to jump in on the Multiplayer and play the range of modes it has to offer with friends, and looking back happily on the engaging (though short) Single Player campaign. Call of Duty: World at War is a must buy in my eyes, for fans, shooter heads and game freaks alike, and this is coming from an ex world war gaming cynic. Bring on the next one!