A good game that unfortunately tries too hard to be CoD 4
Call of Duty: World at War is the follow-up to 2007's mega-hit Call of Duty 4, although it is actually more in line with Call of Duty 1-3, as it returns us to World War II. When first announced, this move was met with much skepticism. People were also afraid that the game was not being developed by the studio behind Call of Duty, Call of Duty 2, and the brilliant Call of duty 4; Infinity Ward. It would instead be developed by Treyarch, developer of the expansions for the original CoD and of the controversial Call of Duty 3. Fear not, though while these facts do have consequences, they do not destroy the game.
The game is based of the same game engine used in Call of Duty 4, and the gameplay is very similar to that game. This can be both a blessing and a curse. While it does mean you play it safe with the gameplay, graphics, physics, etc., it makes the game feel too much like Call of Duty 4. Now, something being similar to Call of Duty 4 might be hard to see as a complaint, but many of the features of Call of Duty 4 are shoehorned into WWII and simply don't feel right there. The game at many times feels like Call of Duty 4 with WWII pasted on it. Now, many sequels continue trends (it worked before, right?), but the degree of copying here is astounding. Modern Warfare's two-man sniper romps in Chernobyl & Pripyet become two-man sniper romps on the eastern front. The AC-130 level becomes the Catalina level. The red-dot sight is now the aperture sight.
For a moment, let's analyze this game outside of the context of Call of Duty 4. The gameplay is standard fare for the franchise: Run-and gun, aim-down-the-sights, "cinematic" first person sequences, re-spawning enemies. One notable change is the addition of vehicles. Personally, I felt that the vehicles felt tacked-on, they didn't feel like they were really integrated into the whole experience. Any time I got into a tank was because it was required, and it felt really forced. A positive to the tanks is their performance in multiplayer, in that they're actually relatively well balanced. It would also been nice if they had made a nice first-person view for the tank. Now I know that for many, driving in third-person is difficult. But for a game that tries do hard to create immersion (with it's scripted "cinematic" events), the camera change really breaks it. On the note of the "cinematic" aspects of the game, Treyarch seemed so intent on giving the "cinematic" experience that it makes you play it precisely how the designers wanted, just so you can get the proper "cinematic" experience. Not that this didn't happen in other Call of Duty games, but it feels like too much here. In short, if you enjoyed the campaigns of any other Call of Duty you'll do fine with this one, it's basically the same.
Online multiplayer is a bit of a disappointment. Only 8 maps ship with the game, and the gameplay (despite having more bullet-point-feature modes) feels less varied than CoD 4's. It is still a great online experience, and once again, if you liked the online pay of any other CoD, you'll probably like this one. Finishing with a positive, the addition of hardcore modes besides Search & Destroy and Team Deathmatch was nice.
Where the games earns major points are in it's cooperative modes. First of all, almost the entire campaign can be played with friends, save for a few missions where multi-person gameplay just wouldn't make sense. Playing with a friend builds a sense of camaraderie and teamwork, and yelling things like "get down" and "grenade" into your mike as you and your comrades scramble around on Veteran never gets old. The Nazi Zombie mode is also interesting, with a full economy (read: weapons buying) and reinforcement system. It is not Left 4 Dead, but it is still a nice mode and it doesn't hurt to have it.
Graphically, the game is in the elite club. Running off the still beautiful Modern Warfare engine, World at War depicts World War II in a new way. Animations, textures, art design, and models are all very nice. Art wise, the game is much more brutal than other World War II Call of Dutys, with people's heads exploding with a fountain of blood when you get a headshot with your sniper rifle, and people's limbs getting blown off by grenades.
The game is also rather impressive as far as audio is concerned. Explosions are great, and ambient sound is some of the best I've seen this year. Gun sounds, however, I do not like. While the guns are recording of the actual pieces, the volume of the shot is turned down so much that it doesn't sound like a gun anymore; you can basically only hear the working of the action at times. The second complaint (as far as audio is concerned) is the music: techno and rock do not fit in World War II.
The game is lacking in story and interesting characters, and the depiction of the armies is the usual jingoist stuff; The Americans are all grizzled, loveable tough-guys with generically-handsome short brown hair (thank you Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw), the Russians are all "them crazy Ruskies," the Japanese are all bizarro-people from spirit land who slice your head off if you so much as cough, and the Nazis are the Saturday-morning-cartoon-villains (thank you again Mr. Croshaw) who walk around in capes, randomly breaking into maniacal laughter as they eat puppies. The game is basically a walking "america iz r gud" advertisement, but this is nothing new and doesn't detract from the gameplay. The lack of a good story is less forgivable after the intriguing narrative of Call of Duty 4, but seeing as this is an action-FPS, it doesn't hurt the experience too much.
The game is very polished. Good loading times, well-done intro cinematics, smooth menus and a general quality of production from a technical standpoint are all very evident here.
In short, if have enjoyed the other Call of Duty games (Call of Duty 4 in particular), then you will enjoy this one. If you don't like them, then this isn't going to change your mind.
