Call of Duty: World at War Review

Hi everybody!

With Borderlands 2 month completed, we can get back to some normal reviews, and with Call of Duty: Ghosts coming out in just a day or two, I thought it would be nice to review another title in the Call of Duty series. Looking through the list, I can across a title that has tragically fallen into the shadows. A title that came about due to the success of Modern Warfare, but fell short because of it’s subject matter (And perhaps a couple other things). So, as a way of celebrating it’s 5-year existence, here’s a review of the vastly underrated Call of Duty: World At War.

Story
World at War is split into two separate campaigns, with one for the Americans, and one for the Russians. The American portion takes place during the final years of the Pacific Campaign, and the Russian portion begins with the invasion of Stalingrad by the Germans, then transitions into the invasion of Germany & the conquering of Berlin. Both stories are completely separate from one another, have their own vibes & feelings, and would actually work as their own game if stretched out properly.

Setting
Like I said above, World at War takes place in the Pacific, Stalingrad, and Germany (Including Berlin), with each locale having it’s own vibe. For the first in Call of Duty’s history, the player fights the Japanese Imperial Army in their own territory. Much of the combat in the American portion takes place within the jungle, where ambushes are rather common. You also come across the Japanese amongst mortar pits, cliff/ridges, beach heads, trenches, and small villages (The last level of the American Campaign takes place within Shuri Castle). There are also plenty of bunkers within the Pacific Theater, and they’ll often pose a danger to you & your squad unless you have some high explosives or a flamethrower. 

Stalingrad is only given a single level, but it is the bleakest level I’ve ever gone through. Once a glorious city filled with life, now it’s a ruined husk. As you traverse a portion of the city, everything is suffering through various stages of decay, with the worst sight you see is a fountain filled with the bodies of Russian soldiers (The fountain of bodies is where the players begins the Russian portions of the game). It’s a dark but quick romp, and the action never let’s up.

After Stalingrad is completed, you trample over & through the German countryside. There’s forests & fields, the German town of Seelow (A focal point during the war), and the city of Berlin. Berlin changes things up a bit, as the fighting becomes more up-close, mirroring the urban warfare that the Russians went through. Not only that, but you can see the remnants of the Nazi regime everywhere. From the posters to the flags, you can tell that they’re still trying to hold up their beliefs, even as they are getting demolished by the Red Army.

Characters
Though Call of Duty has been accused of not having characters, World at War is something of an exception. True, there are only a tiny few characters, but there are characters. Sergeant Tom Sullivan and Cpl/Sgt Roebuck are very tough individuals. They have little humor in their character, they know that the job needs to get done, and have a respect for those under their command. Corporal Polonsky is a much younger individual. He knows how to fight & get his hands dirty, but he’s a little more optimistic that the soldiers around him, and there’s a vigor that doesn’t seem apparent in the other characters (Both in the American portion & Russian portion).

The Russian portion of World at War only has two notable characters, but they are key characters. First is Captain Viktor Reznov: you can tell that the man has gone through hell, as his voice sounds quite serious, and the humor that rarely comes from him is rather dark. Reznov is also quite merciless, as he enjoys killing off the Germans. The other character with the campaign is Private Chernov. Chernov is much like Corporal Polonsky from the American campaign: he’s more optimistic than everybody else. The one thing that separate Chernov from Polonsky is that Chernov is more hesitant to blindly kill, and to a certain extent wishes for peace more than war.

Gameplay
Gameplay for the most part has remained the same as Modern Warfare (And the other releases from the Call of Duty franchise), but there are a couple differences. For starters, the enemy A.I. has some different quirks. While not realistically intelligent, both sides have certain qualities that separate them from one another. The Japanese, for example, have more of a stealth bent, often hiding in tall grass or trees. They are also more likely to charge the player if their officers are shot. The Germans are more gun-ho than the Japanese, as they’ll stand their ground a little more stubbornly. Though small, there is a difference between the two A.I. forms.

This next aspect applies to the A.I. in general, and was one of the complaints when the game first came out. The A.I. has a habit of throwing out numerous grenades, and they often land where the player doesn’t expect it. Most of the time you can avoid them easily, but there are times where they somehow land right in front of you, and it immediately explodes. Whether this is because of the selected difficulty, or because of the game’s coding, remains unknown.

Another aspect that is different is the mission style of the two campaigns. For the American side, you have a relatively even mix of stealth & action. There’s plenty of missions that range from sabotaging a supply post, to taking over an airfield, and working with a crew of a PBY Catalina Black Cat to take out Japanese boats, as well as rescuing American sailors. The Russian campaign is more rough-and-tumble, and you’re always right up in the thick of it. There’s only one mission that requires stealth, but then it’s only for the first part of it. Practically the entire Russian portion of the game is loud, bloody, and brutal. Speaking of bloody.....

World at War is perhaps the most violent Call of Duty game to date! Arms & legs can be shot off easily, and ugly gory stumps take their place. When an enemy is wounded, they’ll often activate a death animation. Sometimes they’ll wriggle around in agony, or they’ll pull out a pistol, trying to kill you before they die. To ramp up the blood factor, pools of the crimson liquid can accumulate around a body, creating a more grisly scene.

Seeing as how this is a WWII game, World at War’s arsenal is quite authentic, and it covers all sides. Long time fans of Call of Duty will recognize many of the guns immediately, and in a pleasant surprise, the MG42 (Long been a stationary weapon in previous entries) is a weapon you can finally pick up & use. In another pleasant surprise, this game marks the first time you can use Japanese guns of WWII. Breaking historical accuracy, all of the guns the Imperial Army use work perfectly, but it is nice to finally use weapons like the Type 100 SMG or the Arisaka bolt-action rifle in a FPS. New additions to the game arsenal include bayonets for many of the rifles, and the M2 Flamethrower, which has unlimited ammo, but can only be used in bursts.

Now it’s time to go into multiplayer. The major thing about WaW’s multiplay is that it still had dedicated servers, and thus has more stable games to connect to (Dedicated Servers still exist, if you were wondering). With that said, the game remains the same as Modern Warfare. You still have a selection of perks (With many having a WW2 theme) and weapons (With a minimalistic selection of perks for each primary gun), as well as tactical/lethal grenades to pick out. What is drastically different is that multiplayer includes tanks to drive (Simply create a game that has this option, or join a server that has them available. Also, World at War is the only Call of Duty to date that has driveable vehicles), and special tank perks you can select to give you a special ability (Better turret speed, increased speed, etc). Though the more recent Call of Duty games have improved multiplayer, World at War’s multiplay is still fun to romp around in.

The last aspect of World at War I’ll quickly talk about is the introduction of Zombie Mode. Known originally as Nazi Zombies, this mini-game pit one lone player or a group of four against a ever increasing horde of the dead. While this mode was quite the treat when it first came out, this particular version hasn’t aged well, as much of the content in the newer editions isn’t within this one. Though it’s more minimalistic, Zombie Mode in World at War can still be fun to play, especially if you don’t want to deal with the larger levels in Black Ops/Black Ops 2.

Graphics & Sound
The graphics of World at War is something of a interesting creature. With Modern Warfare released the year prior, that game had it’s own look and feel, and World at War is much the same way. Whereas Modern Warfare looks & feels like a action movie from the 80s/90s, World at War looks & feels like a gritty war film. The game does not attempt to have a over-the-top look & vibe, and the graphics reflect that. Not many bright colors are used, and a more gritty looking pallet is used instead. On top of that, everything looks very serious, and nonsense is rarely if ever used or seen. World at War was also released back when the texture issues today were nowhere near as apparent, and there’s more of a fresh look as well.

The sound quality is fantastic! There’s a musical score that sounds pretty damn authentic (Minus a little used in the American campaign and some of the Russain campaign as well), weapons & explosions sound realistic, and the voice acting is great! For the first time in the Call of Duty series, you hear the player character speak, and there is some Hollywood power behind some of the roles. You have Kiefer Sutherland voice the no-nonsense Sergeant Roebuck, while Gary Oldman draws out the power & fury of Captain Viktor Reznov. They really bring something to the table, and overall sound like they want to do the role they were given.

Overall & Rating
It’s such a shame that World At War never quite received the respect it deserved, because this was a solid game. Granted, there are a couple issues here and there, but they’re small enough that they really don’t impact the game as a whole.  Coupled with a multiplayer that has no strings attached, and a fun mini-game that has improved overtime, and World at War is a game that still has some weight to it. Even if you’re not interested in the FPS genre, at least give the first few levels a try.

Call of Duty: World At War gets a 8 to 8.5 out of 10.

See you all next week, when we’ll look at one of the most iconic grunge albums of all time. Until then, stay Otaku!