[Review]: Call of Duty: World At War

Posted by Anton Gordon at 12:07 PM Dec 04, 2008

Comparisons between last years stellar Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and this year's Call of Duty: World at War are inevitable. After all, World at War is based off the CoD4 engine, apes much of its campaign, and lifts the multiplayer component wholesale. Many Call of Duty purists decried World at War as nothing but CoD4 with a World War II skin, developed by the "bad" Call of Duty team. While the Treyarch-developed World at War doesn't quite reach the heights of Call of Duty creators Infinity Ward's CoD4, shooter buffs definitely shouldn't write off World at War as a mere pretender to the throne.

Call of Duty: World at War

Developer: Treyarch / ESRB Rating: M / Price: $60

While the Call of Duty series began its life with a WWII setting, Call of Duty 4's present-day setting breathed new life and intensity into the series. World at War returns the franchise to its root, but brought with it many of the tricks that made CoD4 so good: a short, punchy campaign with few filler levels, a fantastic level-based multiplayer, great presentation and fun extras. World at War also tries to freshen up the WWII setting by focusing on the theaters of battle that haven't been featured as much as, say, the beach at Normandy. World at War focuses its attentions on the Pacific Rim and the Russian push towards Berlin. Of the two settings, the Russian sections feel the most familiar, with ruined cities and screaming Germans.

The Pacific Rim levels, on the other hand, feel a bit less cliche. As an American Marine, the player does battle against Japanese soldiers who fight in a completely different way than the German troops, including suicide attacks and hiding in trees and grasses. These levels frequently feature Call of Duty's first flamethrower, and it's one hell of a weapon. Not only does it make quick work of your enemies, but it can be used to burn them out of trees and bushes. Afraid enemy troops might be hiding in the tall grasses ahead? Burn it down.



World at War's campaign is dark, gritty and well-paced, but it does borrow a few too many beats from Call of Duty 4. CoD4 had a sniper level, so World at War has a sniper level. CoD4 has a plane gunner level, so World at War has a plane gunner level. There are even a few more similarities, but spoilers are involved so I'll let you discover those for yourself. Overall, few will argue that World at War has a better campaign than CoD4, and the multiplayer mode in CoD4 will also probably remain the online community's favorite. World at War takes CoD4's excellent multiplayer and drops it into the WWII setting with minimal tweaks. There are a few new perks (abilities unlocked by gaining levels), and that's about it. Then again, CoD4 established such a strong multiplayer component that Treyarch would have been unwise to change much of anything.



There is one area in which World at War exceeds Call of Duty 4, and that's in its extras. For the first time ever, a Call of Duty game includes co-op multiplayer, which allows up to four players to go through a (somewhat truncated) campaign together. For an added twist, there is also a competitive co-op mode that takes CoD4's unlockable arcade mode and adds multiplayer. In this mode, you work through levels together with friends, but also compete against them for the points awarded for each kill. Competitive co-op is not only my favorite mode in World at War, it's also one of the most flat-out fun things I've played in a long time. Teamwork is key in this mode, but so is making sure you don't help too much. Nothing like coming to your friend's rescue and snagging all their kills in the process!

World at War features another bonus mode as well, the much talked-about Zombie Nazis. Either alone or with friends, you must defend a bunker from undead Nazis, cashing in points you earn to buy new weapons and repair bunkers. It's a fun, cheeky bonus mode that further extends the entertainment value of the game, but not a reason to buy it in and of itself. Even diehard zombie fans will tire of it after a few plays.

Call of Duty: World at War gets a high recommendation from me because of the sheer volume of enjoyable content it offers. The campaign is good, if not quite as jaw-dropping as Call of Duty 4. The solid multiplayer hasn't been trifled with since the last game, and the addtional modes are going to be mandatory from this point on in the series. Overall, Call of Duty: World at War is a high-octane, action-packed game with enough content to keep you entertained for hours. While it leans a bit too heavily on the framework established by the last game, I intend to keep playing World at War for some time. Given the huge volume of great games out right now, that's the highest compliment I can give.

Four of out Five Blue Pig Ganons.