Many readers may be wondering why they’re reading a review for a game that was released 10 months ago.
Surely by now there has to be something more current that I’ve played to review, right?
While it’s true that I’ve played my share of more recent titles, I thought, what better way to prepare for “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2,” the soon-to-be released next game in the “Call of Duty” series, then to write down my experiences with “World at War” and see if the negatives are fixed in the coming iteration.
“Call of Duty: World at War” brings players back into World War II, fighting this time as an American Marine in the Pacific, as well as a Red Army soldier on the Eastern Front.
Players familiar with the “Call of Duty” series have played through similar iterations of the latter quite often, and some of the level designs and mission objectives can feel a bit stale. However, the gameplay in the Pacific is fresh and fun, and can be quite challenging.
Part of what makes the American missions so entertaining is the opportunity to play against a new type of enemy – the Japanese.
Whereas the Germans are strategists, moving intelligently from cover to cover, the Japanese fight for honor. They hold their positions and, occasionally, make suicidal banzai attacks. The missions in the Pacific also give players an opportunity to use weapons never before seen in “Call of Duty.”
“World at War” is not without faults though. When playing on the higher difficulties, the enemies rely less on intelligent strategic maneuvers, and instead tend to spam grenades in the player’s direction, often with inhuman accuracy.
Paired with the fact that the enemies infinitely re-spawn until players reach certain checkpoints, the campaign can turn into a run-and-gun situation where players are most likely to succeed by sprinting forward in hopes of reaching a checkpoint, as opposed to intelligently and methodically pressing forward.
The game is fun, however, and completion of the missions truly does feel rewarding, especially considering each mission completed on Veteran mode warrants a trophy to add to your collection.
In typical “Call of Duty” fashion, the multiplayer is fantastic. The maps are all very unique, and each suits any style of play. It was slightly disheartening to see how similar it was to “Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare” though – that is, many of the perks in “World at War” are mere replicas of those present in “Modern Warfare.” A little bit more innovation would have been welcome.
Although the competitive multiplayer does seem similar to previous games, the brand new mode, Nazi Zombies, is very fun. It plays like an arcade style shooter, where players’ sole objective is to survive as many rounds as they can before succumbing to the never ending horde of zombies. Playing this mode with friends over the Internet is very entertaining, not to mention addictive, inciting that “one more round before bed” mentality.
Overall, “Call of Duty: World at War” has no major faults and is very fun. Whether interested in single player or multiplayer, there are good times to be had, and players will find plenty to enjoy. I give “Call of Duty: World at War” an 8 out of 10.