Difficulty:

Hard

Time Spent:

20 to 40 Hours

The Bottom Line:

"Rocks"

The Call of Duty series used to be all about World War II. Every single game in the series was set in that period. But all of that changed with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, as it took this classic series into (as the title suggests) modern warfare. However, in 2008, the series is briefly taken back into the WWII setting for one more title - Call of Duty: World at War, by developer Treyarch. Is the old setting used for effect to create another quality shooter? Yes. But is the game executed in a way that makes it stand out from all those older World War II games? Yes. Are you interested in how this is achieved? Then don't hesitate to read on…

World at War's story feels a bit awkward; it spans two campaigns that demonstrate warfare from two different perspectives, on two completely different fronts. In each of these you play as a different person. One campaign takes you through the battles between Americans and the Japanese, where you play as Private Miller of the American Marines through most of the missions (with the exception of one, where you play as Petty Officer Locke). The other has you playing as Dimitri Petrenko, a Private in the Red Army of the Soviet Union. I found Petrenko's missions to be much darker and more atmospheric than the ones set in Japan, and in my opinion, it would've been better if the game focused on just Dimitri instead of throwing you between various missions, where in one you play as Miller, the next as Petrenko. This is especially because the Japanese campaign feels a bit out of place.

Of course, that is not to say that Pvt. Miller's missions are bad. Actually, they are far from it. There are a few things that you do not see in Petrenko's campaign, such as: Banzai attackers hiding in the grass, waiting for the right moment to pop up in front of you and stick their bayonets in your stomach; or playing as Locke for one mission, operating a machine gun on a plane, shooting Zeros and sinking boats. However, like I said, the missions set in Stalingrad, Seelow (and later Berlin) are much more atmospheric and show the grim nature of war in an almost perfect way. It also does well to show how war can change people.

The gameplay of Call of Duty: World at War is, as expected from a Call of Duty title - fun, entertaining & full of explosive action – but also very linear. The shooting is solid and the controls are well-picked, as well as easy to grasp for newcomers. The difficulty even at the easiest level of "Recruit" can be a bit challenging for newbies at times, meaning the game itself is fairly hard and you will die many, many times on the higher levels of difficulty. There are a total of over 30 weapons (some of these are variations of weapons, such as a scoped version of one gun that is already in the game counts as another weapon) plus 7 types of explosives, meaning that the arsenal is full of powerful weaponry that was utilized in World War II. The shooting and melee combat is also significantly gorier than in the previous Call of Duty games.

To give you a fairly good example of the variety in weaponry that you will find in World at War, I will list a few guns that can be used in this game: the bolt-action rifles such as American M1903 Springfield, the Mosin Nagant, German Kar98k and the Arisaka. Semi-automatic weapons like M1 Garand or the M1A1 Carbine. Fully automatic guns, amongst which are: the Soviet PPSh-41, Japanese Type 100 submachine gun, the famous (or in most cases, infamous) MP-40, the Browning Automatic Rifle and many more. These are only some of the weapons you can use in Call of Duty: World at War. If you are a gun geek or you know these names from other war shooters (most likely the first three CoD games/Medal of Honor series), then you should be excited. If you are new to this, then all you need to know is that all of these weapons were at some point used in the Second World War and they are all recreated in this game with great detail. Unfortunately, as is expected with newer entries in the Call of Duty series, some of these weapons lack recoil and impact to feel realistic.

Audio design in this game is very good. Voice acting is great for all characters, including rivals. Details like the Japanese enemies shouting in Japanese and the German enemies shouting in German are great, however it would've been awesome if in the Soviet missions the characters spoke real Russian (with English subtitles included) for extra immersion, but instead, they just speak English with Russian accents. Still, some of the game's best performances come directly from Petrenko's missions, especially from Sergeant Reznov (voiced by Gary Oldman), an experienced soldier who befriends Dimitri and is changed by the war and its effect on his beloved country. The shooting and all those "booms" and "thuds" heard around the battlefield feel authentic and believable, making the whole experience slightly more immersive.

The soundtrack is all-good. Some of it is just decent, other pieces are great. Most of the stuff that is played in the missions where you play as Private Miller is good but not outstanding, and sometimes (but rarely) feels a bit out of place and unsuitable… a bit too modern, perhaps - with the exception of the theme used in the chapter called "Black Cats", where the soundtrack feels fast-paced, strong and very well suited to the action on the screen. On the other hand, the music in the Russian missions is outstanding. It captures those feelings of sorrow, gloominess and death that surround war and conflict flawlessly. It is usually less action-oriented and slower than what you hear in the American Marines campaign but much more atmospheric and, well, sadder.

Neither the Russian or American missions offer much character development, but they don't really need to. This game is a shooter. There is no need for romance, long dialogue sequences and great amounts of choice as in games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age. All a video game developer team needs to create a fantastic shooter is some fast-paced action, great shooting mechanics, easy controls and some breath-taking, linear, gameplay sequences. World at War has all of that. However, although the characters aren't immensely developed nor do they possess deep backgrounds or personalities, they are good enough for the player to get loosely attached to them. For example, Sergeant Roebuck of the American Marines is a natural leader and a good tactician. He respects the player character, Private Miller. On the other hand, there is Sergeant Reznov of the Soviet Union. He is tough and unforgiving, but knows how to survive all alone in the wretched ruins of a city that is controlled by Nazi soldiers. Reznov respects Petrenko's aiming abilities, admires his ability to cheat death time after time and eventually befriends the player after all that they go through together.

When looking at Call of Duty: World at War's visuals, a much more grim environment can be seen as opposed to all previous games in the series. The texture work on the console versions is acceptable, but there are plenty of low resolution textures visible all over the place. Characters are well-designed. A much darker colour palette is used for this game than in any other CoD before it and it is utilized in such a fantastic way that, in my opinion, World at War offers a more sorrowful depiction of World War II over most games set in this period, including the first three Call of Duty games. Also, this game is much bloodier than the ones before it. Dismemberment, soldiers looking for their lost limbs and gouts of blood flying all over the battlefield are included. World at War is powered by an enhanced version of CoD4's engine, with several improvements to the physics model. Also, due to the addition of a flamethrower, new burning effects are added but not just for the environment… on characters' skin & clothing too. Still, from a technological point of view, there is practically no improvement beyond what has already been mentioned.

When it comes to multiplayer, the game features three main modes: Co-Op, Nazi Zombies and Competitive. For the first time in the franchise, a cooperative mode is included. This multiplayer mode can be played offline, split-screen with one other player - or online, with up to three others. Nazi Zombies is also something completely new. It pits up to two players offline (split-screen), or up to four players online, in shelter against incoming waves of (as the title suggests) Nazi zombies. Each player starts with a pistol at first, but as they shoot and kill zombies, score headshots and rebuild barricades – they gain points which can be spent on more powerful weapons or used to unlock other parts of the shelter instead, which may give you a better position and more weapons to buy but at the expense of more ways for zombies to enter the shelter. This mode is obviously not to be taken seriously and with that in mind, it's a great amount of shallow fun.

The online multiplayer is just what we have come to expect from this on-going series of FPS war games, the same Call of Duty experience. With traditional modes (seen throughout the whole shooter genre) such as deathmatch (called free-for-all in this game), team deathmatch, capture the flag and others, as well as some other modes, already seen in the Call of Duty series before, like: domination, headquarters, sabotage, search and destroy, war etc. World at War also offers modified versions of these games. That said, it doesn't offer much new in terms of competitive online multiplayer and only further polishes what we have seen before. Perks, custom classes & loadouts, ranks are all still here. The more you play, the more you advance in level and rank. As you advance in rank, you unlock new weapons and perks. The more challenges you complete, the more bonuses you will unlock (weapon attachments, perks and so on). It's a shame that there is such a lack of innovation here, but there is no denying that the WaW's multiplayer is fun for everyone as long as they are not looking for a realistic experience that requires teamwork.

Now to sum up all the positive and negative points of Call of Duty: World at War.

The Good:
+ Both singleplayer campaigns offer something unique to feel distinct from each other
+ Atmosphere of the Soviet missions is dark, grim, bloody & overall great
+ Introduction of the flamethrower and its effects is a welcome addition
+ Both of the campaigns recreate the setting of World War II with brutal detail
+ Gameplay is fun, exciting, gory, satisfying and offers a challenge
+ Large arsenal of authentic, powerful WWII weaponry to choose from
+ Voice acting is great, with some fantastic performances of different accents
+ Sound design for guns, explosives & other weaponry is good and believable
+ Soundtrack features modern, fast-paced music and sad, atmospheric melodies
+ Darker colour palette & grim environments are used to great effect
+ Nazi Zombies, local co-op and competitive multiplayer are entertaining features

The Bad:
- The game would've benefitted from fully concentrating on just one campaign
- In gameplay and graphics, there has been almost no progress since CoD4
- The multiplayer offers no incentive for those who want to play as a team
- Would've been awesome if your comrades in Petrenko's missions spoke Russian
- Soundtrack is overall very good, but there is nothing that stands out enough to get stuck in your head
- There is improvement, but not much innovation at all, in the multiplayer modes
- One bug that forced me to restart the same mission two times to complete it
- Although it's nothing drastic there are some minor and occasional graphical hiccups
- The singleplayer campaign is very short at 10 hours, at the very most.
- Story is based on facts and made more epic for gameplay, so it's quite basic
- At times some of the more modern parts of the soundtrack don't fit too well with WWII, but they do match the action

In the end, Call of Duty: World at War is not a big jump from Modern Warfare like some might have expected it to be. It is a very similar game, running on a modified version of the same engine, with only slightly improved graphics. However, the game is set back in WWII and somehow it manages to make an overused setting interesting enough to be played through again. It offers some quite memorable moments in the singleplayer campaign, introduces us to some badass characters and gives us more hours of fun with multiplayer options. World at War is one of those games that doesn't really bring much new to a series, but it does polish the successful elements already built and utilized by previous games, in an attempt to make a better game overall.

Overall, this game was a very fun experience to me. Its pros overshadow the cons, and that's what really matters the most. It is also quite surprisingly atmospheric for a war shooter and manages to recreate the horrors of the Second World War like few other FPS games before it. If you're a CoD fanatic, this should be on your list already, but don't expect too much new stuff. If you're into shooters then I suggest picking renting this game or buying it if you are into its multiplayer. It should be worth your time and money as it definitely was for me. Even three years after release, there are plenty of gamers still playing this game online.

What holds World at War back from reaching greener pastures is mostly its fear of venturing off the beaten path. It is not hard to see that Treyarch were probably kept on a pretty tight leash during development of this game, as Activision was clearly afraid to release anything ambitious enough to drop below the expected number of sales. As a result of this, the quality of the game suffers.