Call of Duty: World at War Review

Treyarch brings us their newest rendition of World War II, following the exploits of the Marines and the Red Army from the European front all the way to the far east. The world is in shambles, and someone has got to save it- again. Pick up that Thompson, son. We're going to war in Call of Duty: World at War.

The Good:

- Storytelling. Following the example set by Infinity Ward, Treyarch catalogues the stories of two soldiers: Private Miller, of the Marines; and Dimitri Petrenko of the Red Army. Miller is led by Corporal Roebuck (Kiefer Sutherland) through islands under Japanese control while Dimitri joins Sergeant Reznov (Gary Oldman) on the road to Berlin.
- Photo-realistic gaming. Again, with the creation of Call of Duty 4, the CoD franchise has stepped up to a new standard of visuals, and World at War does not disappoint. Some gamers and spectators may find the graphic renditions of death to be a little too much and possibly even disturbing; but for those of us who appreciate no-bullshit war, this is very enjoyable and goes down as a plus. There is even a warning to alert players with a weak stomach.
- Cooperative play. Since Call of Duty 4, those who desired a co-op experience finally get it. Unfortunately, from what I have seen in competitive co-op, movies between levels are skipped as well as two of the levels. When you play those two levels, you will understand why that is the case- but never-the-less, we were still a bit disappointed at not having a full campaign. But at least they came close.
- Competitive co-op. It's fun to see who can get the most kills, most headshots, most revives (and most deaths), among other things with your friends. The only other shooter of recent to offer this ability is HALO 3 with it's own campaign scoring method. World at War also offers death cards, much like HALO's skulls to add difficulty and complexity to gameplay.
- Competitive Multiplayer. Many people will still enjoy the online competitive multiplayer of the traditional nature, as well as the new Zombie Nazi mode. Sounds ridiculous, but can definitely be enjoyable, or at least a time killer if you can get a few friends to cut down Nazi zombies. However, World at War will be competing with the new Gears of War 2 Horde Mode, as well as Valve's highly anticipated Left 4 Dead (at least for zombies. Locust are kinda like zombies. Except they have guns).
- Difficulty. For players who enjoy a challenge (and are generally masochists), Call of Duty on veteran, in my opinion, offers a significantly greater challenge than its predecessor. The challenge part is good, the reasoning however- not so much. More to follow in the Bad section.

The Bad:

- Infinite Spawns. There are many situations in World at War where enemies will continuously spawn, which is ridiculous for a few reasons. One could say that when you've killed X number of enemies in an area, in theory sooner or later there will be no more enemies. For example, if you go to the supermarket (this is a bad example, I'm aware; just bear with) and shoot everyone, the same people aren't going to reappear (yes, I'm aware more people are going to walk into the supermarket, but I'm talking about the same people you've already downed). On the other hand, we could easily say, in the context of World at War, it's understandable if it feels like there's no end to the Nazis, thus infinite spawn is acceptable. Either way, that's minor and was just worth a mention. What I'm truly upset about, however, is the fact that on Veteran, you die in 2-3 hits, maybe less. This is fine on any other difficulty, since you can tank some hits. But some parts of the game generate anywhere from 5-20 enemies infinitely, and it is damn near impossible to push your way past some areas due to the fact that enemies keep coming back at a rapid pace. So how do you get past them? You pray according to your religious affiliation, and you run like a motherfucker. Sure, you can throw a grenade or pop a few as you're making a break for it to up your odds a bit- but chances are extremely high that you're still getting shot at. So you're really hoping they're all firing blind so you can get to the next cover point, or better yet, checkpoint. Yes, I like a challenge and yes, this makes the game more difficult. But god fucking damnit, guys- this makes the game much more heavily based on luck than on skill; and that is something I'm not okay with. I've been gaming for a long damn time, and an elitist to boot- so I'm by no means a novice to shooters or most any other game. So when a gamer like me tells you that you fucked up Treyarch, you fucked up. In case you didn't get that subtle message, Treyarch: YOU FUCKED UP. I don't care if it's ridiculously difficult, just make it interesting and unique. Being lazy and programming infinite spawns that come out of dead-end hallways, closets, and alleyways just doesn't cut it. Now, I still beat your god damn game on Veteran, I just nearly broke my TV with my XBox controller in the process.
- Lack of a full campaign coop experience. Granted, I enjoy the fact that we now have a cooperative experience, but the missing levels makes all cooperative gamers sad. Fortunately, there is still a competitive multiplayer as well as a zombie Nazi mode available.

Overall:

Call of Duty: World at War is in itself a good game overall, and offers an enjoyable experience. But it is overshadowed by Call of Duty: Modern Warfare in many ways. Players of Modern Warfare who have invested countless hours killing their friends and earning perks from those hours may very well stay with Modern Warfare, or players may simply stay with Modern Warfare because that scenario is what they prefer over the World War II atmosphere. Treyarch has a lot to prove here, especially after the bomb that was Call of Duty 3. Do I think they dug themselves out of that hole? Sortof. It is fairly obvious they've taken a lot of notes from Infinity Ward and have crafted a gameplay experience and interface very similar (and in some places the same) as Modern Warfare; so I will not say it's so much as a unique experience, but rather a similar one with different skins and environments. I will say, however, that World at War does bring a fresh experience and perspective into the World War II gaming environment, and that is very difficult to do. For that, I applaud you Treyarch. But you still have much to learn, and when I get over the anger of infinite spawns, I will definitely be waiting for your next FPS title to see how you do next time.

- Jack