Call of Duty, World at War: A Review

It’s one thing to see shooters just as bad as each other, fighting to put each other out of their misery, but who would’ve thought there’d be such a battle as Call of Duty VS Call of Duty? This battle shocked many players and brought devastation to the franchise, also marking one of the key events of the Video Game Crash of 2010. Those who did their research would tell you that Infinity Ward made the official Call of Duty games, whilst Activision tried to “solo” the franchise, henceforth making it unofficial and kind of bad. There are mixed opinions of World at War, and many conflicted with its official counterpart, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Who won the battle? Nobody knows, and few care at this time. They both sold enough games to be dubbed successful, meaning that they had the support of millions of gamers to make.... another.... game....?

Why didn’t I give this thing the title of “critique”?

If you’ve seen my Call of Duty 2 review, you’ll notice that I mentioned the lack of Brits in this game (I’m highly offended by it, but alas, we can’t have everything). I did my research and one of the major reasons was because there was too much of the British campaign in the official Call of Duty games. And there’s not of course enough American, Japanese or Russian stereotypes now, is there? As I stated in my previous review, the game focuses solely around the second World War, where players will take control of American invaders and Russian defenders. While the American campaign focuses much more on all-out action and attempting to be suspenseful, the Russian campaign is far more emersive, giving players chance to use their wit and cunning in sly stealth missions. And yes, it’s blatantly cloned from Enemy at the Gates.

Each Call of Duty game will have a different experience, a different feel to it - it’s not the graphics, the difficulty, the soundtrack, the lighting. It’s because you’re playing a different game. Take Infinity Ward - they make the official Call of Duty games, yet while I have varied opinions on them, they still have the same experience. There’s little exploration needed, the maps are linier and players know that the only way forward is.... forward. But looking back at this, it feels quite strange, like it’s a completely different game at times. Sure, it’s got the same mechanics as any other Call of Duty game, heck, any other generic game, but you know it’s World at War - the subtitle changes it all.

I’ve little to say on the control, as they’re exactly the same as in my previous review of Call of Duty 2. But there’s also much better use of the D-Pad too, as players are more likely to find grenade launchers, different kinds of grenades, claymores, devices and so forth. An upgrade to CoD2? Well, it takes out the simplicity of that game and tries to make it more advanced. Does it succeed? Barely.

The difficulty for this game is.... lacking. I’ve no complaints for Recruit or Normal mode, but players will really feel a bayonet in their back if they slack in Hardened, and the full thrust in Veteran. It’s hard to say that this game is more difficult than CoD4 or CoD2, but it’s sure tough and times and can leave you gasping for air at times. But when the game’s difficult, it is in reason - there’s no massive waves that are impossible; there’s no enemies in a glitch respawning behind doorways; and there’s certainly opportunities to get your own back, but it takes patience.

The campaigns are varied and offer different elements. But sadly, these elements are few and their end can catch players out unaware. For example, one moment you’ve been desperately trying to fight your way through ambushes and the kamikaze, and next thing you know you’re in a water fountain sniping Nazis when the planes are coming overhead. It’s near impossible to move on, as you’re thinking, “What the Hell just happened? I--, I--, I was on the beaches.... now I’m....”. It’s going to keep happening until you complete your first playthrough.

One thing I can say about World at War is that it brought us suspense, and lots of it! Call of Duty 2 lacked in cinematic climaxes and explosive endings, and Call of Duty 4 refined that. But this game truly mastered it, and it would be years before we get as good an ending as WaW’s two campaigns!

I don’t blame the entire game for being a major player in the VGC2k10, but Mulitplayer was a major aspect. Call of Duty 4 was bad, but WaW was awful, and died out very quickly. It was the generic “Team Deathmatch I’ll solo it anyway” game, and players realized that objective-based modes would give them more experience points (Congratulations, but your discovery is around 10 years late - see Team Fortress). There’s not a lot to say about World at War’s multiplayer only that it’s the most imbalanced thing you’d ever play at the time. I’m not saying that it’s been fixed, but rather it died out for even more imbalanced garbage. Call of Duty is a game that rarely patches, and it’s even less likely when you’re on a console - on PC, it happens once or twice a year, but the game only lasted around two.

Call of Duty: World at War has the classic rather than modern CoD feel. It’s gritty, it’s heroic and it’s Hell to be in the situation you can’t get out of. The graphics are rough and you’ll often find missing textures on certain enemies and surfaces (mainly rocky walls). The weapon details aren’t brilliant (see the flamethrowers), and character models aren’t revolutionary either. OK, the gore effects are brilliant and some of the scenes where people are being killed by traps are wonderful to see (often disturbing), but again, it’s nothing special to a Fallout gamer. The death animations are quite different to see, as heads will explode, and players tend to give a TL;DR of how they’d react to having their limbs blown off before death (in Multiplayer). The soundtrack is barely heard, but when you listen to it, the songs suit each level you fight in, and offer a classic shooter feel.

Despite its reputation, Zombie Mode is extremely flawed. First off, it’s nothing new. We’ve played survival modes like this (exactly like this) at the arcades and on home consoles. If you started playing zombie-survival games with Dead Rising, you’re bound to say this is wholly unique. The flaws can involve simple things such as textures, lack of lore and little to no reward. Yet there are major flaws such as it being near-impossible to play alone. So the one thing that makes this game different to anything to the franchise, is something the average player can’t do. It tries so hard to bring something to the table, but this should’ve been a paid feature which many people would avoid and hence wouldn’t overrate. It’s an unfinished zombie survival game with lack of survivability, co-op opportunities and is nothing more than an excuse to fill up disk space.

I hated this game so much upon its release and judged it by its cover. But upon playing it, my expectations were raised - not wholly, but enough to at least make it worth a £5.95 rental for a week. It’s campaign was satisfying, the multiplayer brought forth the meme “FPS Noob” and it lead to a crash we may never recover from. So the things that gave it it’s good marks, did in fact make a huge, negative difference in the long run.

So what do I give this game? I’d say 5/9 - why nine? Because 10 is overrated and 11 was coined by the Nostalgia Critic. It could’ve made so much more potential by including more thrills, new missions and a much better climax to the American campaign. But we can’t have everything, and because Activision tried too hard to do so, we’ve ended up with all the garbage under the sun. I recommend you get this game for around £15, no more unless you’re getting another game with it in a deal, or possibly rent it for £5 - no more. Its lifespan is short unless you’re going to be playing the multiplayer, and because of the CoD community, you’ve a fat chance of finding any servers unless you’re on the latest game. Because as we all know, the 1337s play MW3.