The Call Of Duty franchise has always been one of the better shooter franchises, but Infinity Ward, with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, trumped all the other COD games by setting the game in modern times, and putting some killer scripted events in amongst the frantic and intense shooting. Not only that, it had one of the greatest online game components of any game, rivalling the Halo franchise for online fun.
When it was announced Treyarch, responsible for the competent but average Call of Duty 2: The Big Red One and Call of Duty 3, were bringing the franchise back to World War II, there was some consternation about the series. After all, World War II been the setting of more games than any other conflict, and there were big questions as to whether Treyarch could do the series justice.
The answer to that is “sort of”. Call of Duty: World At War is a great game, as nearly as good as Modern Warfare, but what you will get out of the game really depends on what you’re looking for. For someone really hankering to get a gritty World War II shooter with scripted events and good online play, then COD:WAW is perfect. But in my experience, playing the game felt like playing COD4 with a lick of paint, a mere expansion, than playing a new experience.
COD: WAW focuses on the Pacific and Russian fronts, two little explored areas of WWII by video games. These fronts were brutal and savage, and the game reflects the loading screens with footage not usually associated with WWII videogames. I found it to be an interesting experience – on the one hand the game was demonstrating the horrors of war, yet on the other hand it gave you a flamethrower that never exploded nor ran out of fuel (although it would overheat), and was incredibly fun to use on enemy troops, especially as they danced around on fire much like in Loonytoon cartoons.
That aside, the campaign is just as intense and fun as its predecessor. The scripted moments are just as intense as in COD4. The “on rails” section in the seaplane, jumping from gun to gun shooting Japanese boats and Zeros is fabulous fun, and the Russian tank kicking the crap out of the Germans section is incredibly satisfying. However, the story doesn’t feel as well put together as the previous title. The two fronts are so far apart from one another there’s less of a connection between them, and moreover you know who’s going to win, so it takes a little away from the whole experience. The campaign seemed short and relatively easy, which was a criticism of COD4 as well, but it is obvious single player is not really the focus of the franchise any more.
The campaign can be played multiplayer, with four friends battling through many of the maps together. There are some which aren’t available – it doesn’t seem right to have a mission with four snipers after all – but it allows you to approach the missions with a new perspective. Much like Halo 3, there’s cards you can pick up which alter the experience of playing, again making the campaign more fun a second or third time through.
The multiplayer is also just as fun as COD4. You can create classes and level up in much the same way, unlocking perks and weapons the more you play. The perks have been jigged a little to fit the times, however, with camouflage replacing UAV Jammer, but doing the exact same thing. The weapons feel a little imprecise compared to their COD4 counterparts, but that’s to be expected, as WWII weapons aren’t as good as those of modern warfare. Artillery and “spotter planes” (radar) make a return, and now you have attack dogs which tear around the map hunting the enemy.
The maps are set up similarly to COD4, being a mix of open and close quarters fighting, although there are a couple which include vehicles which add a nice dimension to play. In addition to the new, err, old WWII weapons, there are some unique weapons such as the aforementioned flamethrower, “bouncing betty” bomb and Molotov cocktails. There’s also the Nazi Zombie mode, unlocked after completing the main campaign mode, which is a survival mode against the shambling horde. It’s fun, but it’s not a patch on Left 4 Dead.
I must admit, the graphics didn’t really grab me. It looks “next gen” enough, and the pacific areas are quite lush and full of jungle foliage, but it just felt like playing every other WWII game when it really came down to it. Drab greens, browns and greys dominated the game, with a splash of Nazi red and fire here and there. Although I get the whole reality / grittiness of the graphics, I think it’s just a little overdone and wish people would think a little deeper about colour palettes. Sound, on the other hand, plays an incredible part in the game, and during the final battle for the Reichstag I was literally in awe of the sounds all around me, and it added immensely to one of the more powerful experiences of the game.
Conclusion:
Whilst it is obvious Treyarch put a lot of sweat and love into the game, Call Of Duty: World At War just doesn’t stand out as much as it’s predecessor. I’ve played scores of WWII games, and even with the slightly different story campaign settings and grittier overall feel, COD: WAW never felt much different from playing any other WWII game, nor even much different to playing COD4. It is a good World War II shooter, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but I feel it doesn’t have enough of its own identity to really win me over from playing COD4.
Pros:
Uses the COD4 engine to great effect
Great online play bot h competitive and cooperative
Nazi Zombies!
Cons:
Feels like every other WWII shooter
Short and easy single player campaign.
85/100