True English Gent Reviews: Call of Duty: World at War!

Image 4.Image 3.Image 2.Image 1.

When Activision Blizzard announced that the next installment of the Call of Duty series would see a return to it's World War Two roots, and be developed by Call of Duty 3 developers Treyarch. There was quite an outcry of fans who wanted to see the franchise stick in the Modern era, but it's now pretty clear that founding Call of Duty developers Infinity Wards are in the middle of development in a new installment in Modern Warfare string of Call of Duty titles. But there are those who do enjoy the videogame settings of World War Two and I include myself in that list. There's no denying that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare placed the franchise where it belongs on the top of the gaming empire but as superb a game as Modern Warfare was, I still found myself missing the authenticity of the World War Two era when it comes to games. So I was indeed eager to play World at War, so I picked up the PC Version and started to play my part in the Pacific Theatre and a key turning point in the European Campaign. But would this be the title that finally showed gamers that developers Treyarch can develop a worthy Call of Duty title?

THERE'S NO RELAXING ON THE BEACHES OF THIS PACIFIC THEATRE!

It's clear almost straight away that developers Treyarch weren't looking to mess with the already successful formula as World at War features the same modes as most recent titles in the series. This also goes for the games multiplayer which I shall discuss more of later. But you have your single player campaign in which you play one of three soldiers as you progress through the campaign. For those familar with the Call of Duty campaigns then you won't see any serious surprises along the way. What is different though are some of the attempts at true cinematic moments that Infinity Ward first tried in Modern Warfare. For instance the unforgettable Nuclear explosion scene in which you find yourself seconds from death in an environment of destruction and death. World at War of course does not feature any nuclear explosions but the cinematic moments are pulled off well and with great care. Treyarch promised a new take on World War Two and in some respects they have done just that, as World at War feels more hard hitting and realistic then any other game set in the same era before. This is done in a number of ways, as said previously you have those well planned out cinematic moments but you also have moments throughout the game (especially in the Soviet campaign) where you get to shoot a Nazi soldier at gun point while he slowly dies on the floor. These moments are simple and they have been seen in games before but World at War pulls them off with a odd sense of realism that will make you realise that there was indeed more to the war then just fighting the Nazi Regime. 

World at War's single player campaign is best described as 'the original Call of Duty mixed with a glass of Modern Warfare' for Treyarch have clearly looked to offer the same sort of experience for those with a deep interest in the era and of course first person shooter as a whole. It's also worth stating that the gameplay is still as fine as it as ever been, it's one area in which the franchise continues to shine and it's still as fast and thrilling as it as ever been. The campaign in itself does it's best not to offer to many dead spots in which nothing happens, there's always something to shoot or see and it never leaves you without a new objection to take. This is infact a lesson Treyarch have clearly learnt from their time developing Call of Duty 3, for as much fun as that title was. There were simply to many dead spots along the single player campaign that affected both the enjoyment of the game and the emmersion to be found in titles such as this. World at War shows true improvments in this case, for the campaigns missions flow well and are a blast to play again and again. From fighting on the beaches of a beautiful wartorn Pacific Island to gorilla warfare in the street of Berlin. Everything just feels as good as anything Infinity Wards have created along way and goes far to show that Treyarch are more then worthy to develop a sister series to the main Modern Warfare franchise being created by Infinity Wards. 

The Soviet Campaign is particularly thrilling.There are some issues to be found in the campaign though, the occasional A.I soldier or enemy can bug out which results in him either taking a odd walking path up a wall or just standing there without taking any real cover from gunfire. These issues are disappointing especially considering the superb A.I performance in Modern Warfare. But it is worth mentioning that World at War does feature a whole lot more enemies and allies on screen at once then what was found in Modern Warfare, never the less it is still somewhat dissapointing especially considering what a great job the game does at emmersing the gamer into the settings and World. To suddenly see a Nazi soldier walk into a wall can easily knock you out of that emmersion. But it's not a game breaking issue and is doesn't happen all the time. Soundwise World at War is an absolute treat that will please anyone with a love for sound and soundtracks in games. Gunfire sound is particularly impressive with each gun having an impacting sound that makes them some of the most realistic virtual forms of the real life guns. They also handle as well, very few games have got World War Two guns right but World at War offers a golden chest of delight for any gamer interested in the weapons of that epic and violent war. Very much the same can be said for the voicework, in which there are a number of familar voices to those that have played past Call of Duty games. It's all very well put together and keeps the authenticity at the fore front of the game.

However you may feel about the settings or era in which World at War is set, there's no denying that developers Treyarch have created a single player experience that is the best in the franchise yet, though it isn't as impressive as the stunning campaigns found in Modern Warfare. There's still a lot of truly stunning moments that like all good past Call of Duty games will stick with you for a good long while. It as it's problems and there are a number of bugs along the way. But none are gamebreaking and it's still as fast paced and thrilling as it's older brother. It's one of those games that even if you hate the idea of returning tio the Wiorld War Two settings, you will no doubt find something to love about it and there will be moments that will make you realise the bravery of the men that fought in the real war. Games like this make you realise what cost at to be payed for freedom in a war that had to be won. So keep that in mind while you blow the leg off of a Nazi soldier.

APPARENTLY CALL OF DUTY AS MULTIPLAYER, AND IT'S SAID TO BE POPULAR!
For many a gamer there's nothing more interesting in a Call of Duty game as the Multiplayer mode on offer. Ever since Modern Warfare showed the world how to make a online shooter that everyone will love for months and years to come most other games have borrowed ideas someway or another. For instance Experience Points are now being seen in a lot of other games such as Resistance 2 and it's a feature I'm sure we will see more of in years to come. As you'd expect with World at War, there isn't a great deal different on offer and everything either as the same form of user interface or same design methods. This means that it will be a familar scene for anyone who as pumped hours upon hours into Modern Warfare online and for the most part that isn't a bad thing. World at War is lucky in that it can take such concepts and ideas from it's older brother and it helps create one of the best multiplayer modes avaliable. Infact it is so similar that it will all depend on tastes, or more specific the gamers feel towards the era in which it is set. So if your not keen on returning to the second World War then you've probably already stuck to Modern Warfare while those with a interest in the era will no doubt quickly fall in love with World at War's online play. There are a few changes worthy of mention, but nothing serious and it all feels as fast paced and addictive as ever. You'll still be leveling your account as you try to obtain the best weapons avaliable. Speaking of which, there is sadly a bit of a limit to the weapons avaliable from what I could tell from my review time. Basically the unlockables are more to do with weapon additions such as scopes and forms of silencers rather then brand new weapons to enjoy. But keep in mind that unlike Modern Warfare, some of these additions can be huge and a good scope on a powerful but inacurate weapon can be deadly. So it isn't as bad as it seems. 

Multiplayer is as addictive as ever.There are also a number of other changes worthy of mention, of course the multikills can no longer be rewarded with a modern helicopter to do your bidding but you now get a collection of blood thirsty dogs to do your killing for you. At first sight these can feel like less of a reward but once you get killed by one, you obtain a respect for the killer animals and realise that they are indeed as impacting as the modern helicopter in Modern Warfare. Artillery is still in place and infact harder to dodge this time round, it does feel as if the artillery shells are aimed specifically at a enemy inside the radius rather then randon. Which means that you'll more often be killed by a perfectly placed artillery shell. Another new addition to multiplayer is found in the popular Kill Cam, the Kill Cam allows you to see how you died from the view of your killer and as been in Call of Duty for as long as I can remember. But for a good long while the feature hasn't changed, but in World at War you can now grenades that may have exploded and killed you or say an artillery shell as it makes it's way to Mother Earth and kills you instantly. It's a small addition but a very neat feature none the less, especially the Kill view from dog kills which shows you where the hell that dog came from in the first place before it bit your neck off.

The maps avaliable are all very well thought out and designed wtih choke points in mind. It's also nice that hardly any of the maps have a perfect sniping spot which means that camping isn't as common as you'd expect and it's great to finally kill that sniper which as been taking you down for the last ten minutes. There doesn't seem to be any redesigns of older maps found in Call of Duty 3 which is sad because there were a number of superb maps to be found online, but all the maps avaliable have something about them which makes them fun and thrilling to play on. It's also worth mentioning that graphics don't take any particular hit or downgrade from the single player campaign and I actually found many matches perform better online then they would usually in Modern Warfare, especially some of the player heavy servers. Vehicles also make a reappearance into Call of Duty and they are a welcomed addition. There also both tough but not overpowered and with teamwok can quite confortably be taken down. There also some neat Vehicle Perks to be had which makes them worth while. Speaking of Perks, these popular player upgrades are as fun as ever and though many are from the same class as Modern Warfare, there are some interesting new additions such as one which makes you recieve less damage when on fire. What I'm trying to say is that levelling is as fun and addictive as it's ever been. One other interesting note is to do with online accounts, I'm not hundred percent sure on this but when I startedd up World at War I found my Modern Warfare level appear which allowed me access to many of the upgrades already in the game. I may be wrong on this, but World at War may take your Modern Warfare level and apply it to it's online mode. So no going through level after level to get the best weapons and equipment. 

WORLD WAR TWO AS NEVER LOOKED SO VIOLENT AND REAL!
World at War uses the same exact engine that is found in Modern Warfare and it shines almost everywhere. There isn't any finer looking shooter set in the era and detail is found wherever you wish to look. Treyarch have done a stunning job at apply the engine to the time setting and small details are a pleasure to find throughout the single and multiplayer modes. I reviewed the PC and Xbox 360 versions and it ran superbly well with the only slowdown appearing when I was engulphed in fire but even that lasted a few seconds at most so it's no big deal. Explosions, gunfire and death all look stunning and the body dismembering is particularly hard hitting as you see your leg blown off after a grenade explosion. It's details such as this that really come through shining when compared to it's older brother. Having spend a large amount of time with both the PC and Xbox 360 versions I can say that both perform and look great on their specific consoles, though the PC Version uses the extra power wisely and does look a little sharper conpared to the console version though it's no big difference and won't spoil anyone's enjoyment of the game. Treyarch have done a fine job at applying the Modern Warfare engine to the settings of the Second World War and the games authenticity comes shining through where ever you look. For that Treyarch deserve great credit. 

I have to admit to finding it hard to pick out to many serious faults in World at War, simply because most gamers issues with it will all come to personal feelings towards the era in which it is set. It is totally understandable that people have got sick of seeing the World War Two settings in videogames again and again. But it's unfair to slam down a game which shows what a fantastic setting it can be in a virtual universe, a game like World at War should not be hated just because so many poor developers have made poor attempts in past games. Because of this I can't recommend it enough even if your not so keen on the settings, the multiplayer mode alone is worth the retail price be it on console or PC. Plus there are a number of other neat bonuses along the way such as a neat zombie styled wave mode which is obtained on completion of the single player campaign and like past Call of Duty games, it's one of those campaigns that you will eventuallly find yourself playing through again sometime in the future. So as Treyarch been able to answer all the concerns of Modern Warfare fans and create a first person shooter worthy of carrying the Call of Duty title? well yes and they have done it in quite some style. It as it's issues but they are so few and small that it's hardly worth discussing them in any great detail. For it's superb multiplayer and gripping single player campaign there's simply to much done right in World at War that it's not worth my time to go on about small bugs. Partly because some issues were even seen in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. It's because of all of this that I think Call of Duty: World at War is worthy of such a solid score.

PROS!
- Hard hitting new view of the Second World War.
- World War Two settings with the cinematic moments of Modern Warfare.
- An truly addictive online component.
- A gorgeous representation of the era in all it's violence and wartorn hell.

CONS!
- The World War Two settings might not pleased some gamers.
- Some small gameplay and A.I bugs affect the gamers overall emmersion.

- Potentially borrows to much from it's older brother. 
- Campaign isn't as well put together as Modern Warfare.

SCORE: 4.5 STARS OUT OF 5.

Reviewed by Joseph Bayliss (TrueEnglishGent).
I fought in the war you know.