Previous Next

Oops, a little late... but proof that World War 2 shooters still have a lot to offer.

It's easy to come into Call Of Duty: World At War with some concerns before you even sit down to actually play it. Why are we back in World War 2? Why isn't Infinity Ward working on this one? If it's using the CoD4 engine, is it pretty much just a complete rip from the last game with a new skin?

These are all issues that I thought about prior to playing, but I can actually say that most of these questions were answered for me in a relatively short amount of time with the single player campaign and the multiplayer modes, and the end result was surprisingly good. Sure, there's a lot of design here that owes quite a bit to Modern Warfare, and probably Infinity Ward in general, but at the same time Treyarch has crafted a pretty solid WW2 shooter in a genre that's literally filled to the brim with World War 2 games already. It's not without a few flaws still, and I don't think anyone will find it as groundbreaking as Modern Combat, but it's still a really good shooter.

The switch back to WW2 era weapons isn't as jarring as you might expect, and while a lot of the weapons you come across early on don't feel nearly as automatic (lots of rifles), it's not too hard to get back into the swing of things. Other mechanics of Call of Duty games carry over here, like popping up your sights for a quick auto aim, slow burning grenades or catching and tossing back enemy ones, and simple melee knife attacks to take down unaware soldiers. Movement and jumping is the same as it's been as well, and the checkpoint system along with the mini-map to let you know where to go is identical to what we've seen before. The only carryover that I don't care for, even though it's a CoD staple at this point, is the endlessly spawning enemies until you hit the appropriate point on the map. It's generally easy to tell where you need to go or what you need to do, but on the harder difficulties it becomes frustrating simply due to the quick deaths, strong bullets, and the sheer amount of grenades these guys will lob at you. I'm sure some CoD vets will enjoy the challenge, but for an average player like myself, playing on the hardest difficulty is more aggravating than rewarding.

I did notice that certain elements don't feel as polished this time out, in particular when it comes to evading damage from environmental effects, along with a couple of bugs that I encountered early on that were pretty annoying. In the first section of the American side of the story I found myself getting stuck on a rock or fence post a couple times, to the point where I couldn't actually move and had to blow myself up with a grenade to restart. It's been a while since I've played a game with an issue like that, and it's pretty annoying to run into, especially when you're just starting out. To be fair though, I didn't encounter this problem outside of one more occurrence later in the game, so I imagine it won't happen much to anyone else, if it happens at all. However, my other issue was a bit more frequent. Certain parts of the game will have you following a team or a single person through a section that's under bombardment or attack, and the environment around you is falling down or catching on fire. In particular, the first go at the Russian side of things features a pretty scripted series of events inside a burning building, which I had to restart a few times before it finally decided to just let me pass. The problem I was running into was with a section of stairs where I needed to follow a single person up, but I was randomly getting hit with either debris or fire and dying, simply because the friendly AI guy in front of me wasn't moving up the stairs fast enough, or just blocking my progress. On the third attempt I went up the stairs without taking a hit, but it felt like that was less due to skill than it was just random luck, and later in the game I had a few other sections with similar results. I understand the need to script out these sections, but I don't want to have to replay them again and again just due to some random damage from what's going on around me.

Also, the campaign supports up to 4 players for co-op, which was a pretty rewarding experience, and definitely one of the best ways to play this game. I'm a big supporter of any co-op experience for what is typically a single player game, and World at War definitely delivers on this area. There's also a score tracker to see who is performing the best out of your group if you like a little competition, and the game scales the difficulty and number of enemies according to how many people you have playing with you. Along with the scoring, you can collect death cards in levels that will allow you to unlock different cheats for co-op mode, some of which are really interesting to check out, and it's well worth the effort to pick up all the death cards you encounter. Also featured in single play are challenges similar to what you see in multiplayer, and completing these will add to your experience that you would typically only gain in multi.

The multiplayer modes of World at War pretty much mirror what we've seen in Modern Warfare, and while I'd prefer a bit more innovation, and I can't really fault Treyarch for using as much of CoD4's fantastic multi experience as possible. The experience, rank, and perk systems all return, with a few slight changes but nothing groundbreaking. Obviously the setting is different, and certain things have to change due to the time period (instead of calling in a helicopter strike, you'll call in a pack of dogs), but for the most part all the changes work extremely well. The typical modes are still present, like Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch and the Hardcore/Mercenary variations. There's a zombie mode that can be unlocked that has you facing off against hordes of zombie Nazi's in various waves with teammates, which is actually pretty addictive and hectic, and quite a bit of fun. Basically, if you enjoyed the multiplayer in Call of Duty 4, but are feeling a little burned out on the maps and weapons, then you'll enjoy the change in pace that Call of Duty World at War offers, and while it remains to be seen if the community will hop ship over to this title or stick to Modern Warfare, there's a sizable group of players already in place, so you won't struggle to find a full match to jump in to at any given time. My only real complaint is the addition of Tanks, which feel a bit overpowered depending on the make up of your team (rockets are pretty much the only surefire way of taking them out), and the fact that they respawn after being destroyed, which just adds to how cheap I think they are. Still, it doesn't keep me from enjoying the game, and I'm looking forward to playing more in the future.

While Call Of Duty: World At War definitely borrows heavily from it's predecessor, it still remains a damn good follow up to Modern Warfare, and well worth taking the time to check out. The multiplayer mode retains all the fun of CoD4, while making a few slight changes here and there that all work out well, and the single player campaign is a blast with a group of friends involved. Even the oddly placed Zombie mode is entertaining for a couple of hours here and there, and I think players will be surprised with how addictive this one mode is. World at War is definitely worth the asking price, and I highly suggest checking it out. If you've been on the fence about taking a step back in time, I urge you to at least give it a try, and I think you'll come away being pretty impressed that there's still some life left to the World War 2 shooter genre.