Call of Duty: World at War
[WARNING: REVIEW MAY CONTAINS SPOILERS]
The Call of Duty Franchise has been one of the most successful franchises in Gaming History, showing the view of World War II in ways you couldn't even imagine. But with franchises like Medal of Honor, Band of Brothers, and Company of Heroes; can Call of Duty: World at War continue to punch out a classic experience about the biggest war in American History?
Call of Duty: World at War focuses its campaign on the American Forces taking over Japan as well as the Russian's defense of Stalingrad and the takeover of Berlin. Call of Duty has always done well with the storytelling and plot of the game and this installment does not disappoint. World at War runs on the Call of Duty 4 Engine, so be ready to feel like you're playing Modern Warfare in a non-Modern time. The same perks run with World at War: you'll be able to shoot through walls, you'll get the same Grenade Indicators, and the Weapons will run almost the same animations that we saw in Call of Duty 4. With Famous Names Keifer Sutherland and Gary Oldman helping out with the main voices, you'll have some familiar voices to help you through the game; as it's really cool to hear these guys and go, "Hey, I know that voice!" The story progresses through each of the campaigns between clusters of the 15 missions available, with the missions being from semi-short, to very long. The Story brings you to different venues, from the trenches of Japan, to the Shuni Castle in Okinawa, to the Reichstag in Berlin; you'll be spending levels driving Tanks, manning the Turrets of a Black Cat, and running with your comrades to victory.
The Campaign is a shining force of this game, but the difficulties need work on how they explain "Difficult". The game runs the same 4 difficulties from the previous games: Recruit, Regular, Hardened, and Veteran. Recruit and Regular are the standard difficulties while Hardened and Veteran are masochistically difficult. Treyarch looked like it had one thing in mind when making the Harder Difficulties, _Have Grenades Everywhere_. It isn't out of the norm for 2-6 Grenades to plant at your feet whenever you're in cover, which is wildly annoying since the low pain tolerance your character has; along with the near-perfect aim your opponents have: it can make for a very excruciating process. The Campaign can run a short 6-8 hours on the easier difficulties, but the real big point for this game is the Multiplayer Mode.
Multiplayer Mode feels a lot like Call of Duty 4's Multiplayer, because it's about as close to a carbon copy as you can get. It runs the same leveling system, only World at War's leveling goes to 65 as CoD4's goes to 55. Most of the Perks are from CoD4 and it feels exactly the same: so if you liked the Previous Game's Multiplayer, you'll love this version's. The one problem I have with the Call of Duty's Multiplayer is the very small amount of Health you have. Most guns only need a good 2-3 bullets to take down an enemy, and that can make most guns seem very ineffective: like the Bolt Action Rifles. Bolt Actions must reload every bullet in their 6-8 bullet clip, while Sub-Machine Guns can shoot 20+ bullets per clip and have some interestingly accurate aim. So 80% of your time on the Multiplayer you'll see people sprinting around, hip-firing their Sub-Machine Gun and usually beating you every time. So the smart, but sad option, is to grab the gun that shoots the fastest, and rely on your reflexes; instead of taking one of those sweet looking Rifles used in the Campaign and putting them to good use like you did in Single-Player.
Along with the Multiplayer Mode comes Nacht der Untoten [German for Night of the Dead], where you and up to three other people can take on Nazi Zombies in a grueling fight for Survival. You can arm yourself with more weapons and more ground to cover with points, which you earn by defeating zombies, pulling off headshots, and surviving rounds. This is one of the best features of the game and definitely the most fun you can have with Zombies in World War II.
The Graphics of the game look absolutely fantastic, with every venue, character, and weapon looking crisp and well-animated. Every explosion, Every bullet going through cover, every leg being blown off [it happens.] looks perfected and beautiful, even if it's overly graphic and gory at times. The Multiplayer Maps are nothing to forget either, each one looking brilliant and very well-done.
In the Battle of who can make the better Call of Duty, Treyarch has put up a valiant effort against the powerhouse of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. But all-in-all, it feels too much like Call of Duty 4 to be a legitimate contender against it. Though a great game to pick up for the campaign and the overall value you're getting; it still hurts on its flaws and fails to be ground-breaking or revolutionary to the Call of Duty Franchise.
+ Campaign is Fantastic
+ Voice-work is Great
+ Night of the Dead Level is Pure Awesomeness
+ Controls and Graphics and Top-Notch...
- ...Because they're basically CoD4's
- Unchanged Multiplayer from Past CoD's
- Some Multiplayer Guns near Useless
- Higher Single-Player Difficulties are Ridiculous.