Reviews// Call of Duty: World at War

Posted 14 Nov 2008 00:05 by
I like the Japanese. I have visited their fascinating and beautiful land several times. There I have found their people to be friendly and polite, their food to be exotic and exquisite, their scenery to be awe inspiring and their rock and roll music to be deafening. But the latest Call of Duty game, World At War takes the user through a very different experience of the Japanese people.

The game starts in a tent on an Pacific island. As with previous games in the series, you are delivered into the thick of the action as your character witnesses his buddy being despatched in a way that appears to contravene the Geneva Conventions as I understand them. The Japanese soldier then turns his attention to you, but before he gets a chance to off you in similar fashion, the cavalry arrives. Not the actual cavalry you understand, these guys have probably come in an LCR(S) (a small rubber landing craft, for the uninitiated), but definitely not on horseback. But horses or no horses, your ass is saved and you have to make good your strategic withdrawal.

With that another Call of Duty game commences. It's very similar to the previous Treyarch episode. The intervening Infinity Ward game, Modern Warfare, was somewhat different, and this game feels more similar to Call of Duty 3. The Treyarch/Infinity Ward leapfrog development method means that we get a new CoD game every year, and they aren't rushed, but it also means that two divergent series may be developing in parallel.

Even though World at War is "built on Modern Warfare technology" which means on Infinity Ward's engine, it is a return to the World War II setting that all CoD games except Modern Warfare have shared. Using Infinity Ward's game engine means it looks lot better than Call of Duty 3 did – even though that was no dog. But the new game engine brings dynamic lighting and shadows, HDR lighting, and depth of field to the party and the result is simply stunning. It also has an advanced physics model with deformable cover, which means you have to be aware of what you are hiding behind, since it may hide you but not protect you.

Beyond this, the game is exactly what you'd expect from a Call of Duty game, it's an involving, immersive first-person shooter with a World War II battle setting. The action is drawn along by a compelling narrative and, rather than have long mission briefings that no one ever listens to or reads, your missions become clear from the chatter of your comrades or the instructions of your commanding officer.

One thing the Call of Duty series has excelled at, and which World at War does perhaps better than any game before it is to make playing a war game fun without glorifying war. The intro sequence includes footage that is pretty hard hitting, and this quickly helps dispel the myth of war as perpetuated by John Wayne movies.
-1- 2 3   next >>

Read More Like This


Comments

PreciousRoi 16 Nov 2008 02:16
1/1
Wow. Excellent review of the single player campaign.

For a game whose main focus for many players will be disproportionally skewed toward online multiplayer (for many to the complete exclusion of the single player campaign), the dearth of mention given to that portion of the game is notable.

You might have at least mentioned that it works almost identically to Modern Warfare, albeit skinned in WWII drag. Incorporating the same style of XP system, all the hokey "perks", and unbalanced n00b-hammers of its predecessor. (IMNSHO, if you're good enough to aquire air strikes and the like, you should already be winning anyway)

Myself, I'm really only interested in the single player portion of the game, but I'm fairly certain I'm in the minority there, and while I'm sure your review score is appropriate for that portion of the game, from the context of the review text itself, its unclear if the multiplayer experience figured into it at all (aside from possible credit for providing splitscreen (it'd be a negative for me, splitscreen being adjudged a sin in my branch of Pastafarianism))

Anywhoo, for a game which, if my anecdotal experience with Modern Warfare (admittedly not very extensive) many of its most enthusiastic players won't even give the single player campaign a second look, if they even give it a first, for a review to focus so exclusively on the that portion seems curious.
Posting of new comments is now locked for this page.