The development of Call of Duty: World At War to me is very strange to say the least. Precisely, it may be described as taking one step forward, and two steps back. The promises they made to conjure a more intense World War II experience unlike any before it were kept; the co-op features are great, and fun and work and everything — I mean, for the most part, everything works and doesn’t drag down the series to seriously. Thing is, all of these great features are stuck 70 years in the past, which all of us have seen and played countless times. So to put it metaphorically, you just can’t shine that shoe when it’s already been worn out to death.
I don’t mean to make it seem like this one isn’t worth buying, because it is. When I played through this, and when really anyone plays through this, retrospective thinking kept finding itself inside my brain. Eventually, I realized that Call of Duty: World At War isn’t as much of a new game as it is a “let’s see which one is better” sort of experience. It’s inevitable and I can’t tell you which one will be the one to crawl out of the fist fight as the ultimate multiplayer.
With all that said, CoD: WaW’s succeeds at having a great singleplayer campaign, and does the series a great favor by incorporating the use of co-op with up to four friends or strangers. What sets it apart from Call of Duty 4 is by its sheer intensity and grand-scale war battles. There’s times that I literally stood there in the heat of battle with my jaw down to my knees, admiring the bloodbath that ensued before me. That didn’t last awfully long, because the A.I. in CoD: WaW will have enemies stick on you and not let you go at all. At times they’ll even flat-out ignore your teammates right next to you, and vice-versa.
In fact, there were times where I was just downright confused; for instance, in the United States Peleliu chapters, the Japanese Army had these little box-holes on the ground for hiding or cover. Before I dropped in there I was under a good deal of crossfire, and when I actually dropped in there, enemies just stared at me blankly. I could only imagine the American protagonist I was playing as covering his eyes with his hands and yelling “I’m invisible!”
The conflict of arms that comes with being 70 years in the past is both frustrating in some areas and joyful in others. Personally, I had a great deal of fun using the automatic weapons in both the campaign and multiplayer more than I did with the automatic weapons in CoD 4, whilst the rifles were no fun at all. It’s those kind of things that keep you from really enjoying a World War II experience when there’s current-day experiences to be had. However, explosions are incredible, and frequent enough in CoD: WaW to make your mouth water.
Story-wise, CoD: WaW tries to pale in comparison to CoD 4’s and I can’t say they won the battle there. While they make an attempt to bring you closer to your fellow soldiers and comrades, it’s quickly dissolved by the constant back-and-forth of a war in the Pacific and a war in Nazi Germany. To be perfectly honest, the Pacific campaign was the most unenjoyable. You can’t connect with the characters, and while the flamethrower is primarily used there, the captivation isn’t. Throughout it all I felt like I was merely carrying out orders and not fighting for my country. In contrast, the Russian campaign is absolutely brutal, well-paced and intense. There’s a certain emotional pride that comes into you, from crawling after having cheated death to Germany’s eminent demise, the hate and pride that was shown is gorgeously played.
Visually, CoD: WaW is far greater with the sacrifice of a minuscule, unnoticeable amount of framerate. Infinity Ward really needs embrace their engine, ’cause Treyarch nailed it. Like I’ve said previously, the intensity is only possible visually, simply because gameplay isn’t as intense — being in the middle of gargantuan explosions and tanks is what draws you in.
The true discerning feature that’s most important here is honestly the multiplayer. If you want me to tell you which one is better, I’m sorry but I seriously don’t know. It might be different for everyone because a great of people don’t want to use 70-year-old weapons when they can use current-day weapons to have a similar experience. Take in consideration all that CoD: WaW has that CoD 4 does not — a flamethrower (well, more stuff too, but flamethrowers are freaking awesome). While both are fun, the choice is ultimately up to you. If you’re on the fence, I’d say rent this one and figure it out for yourself.
There you have it, Call of Duty: World At War — a game that walks the line by going back to World War II, but plays it safe by not dissenting far from what Call of Duty 4 has laid down for players to rest their heads on. It shelves an enjoyable, yet slightly inferior campaign, redeemed by the availability of 4-player cooperative play and an enjoyable and enhanced multiplayer. Both games are great, and as far as World War II shooters, this one is the best (and Treyarch’s landmark achievement) of its kind and kin, Call of Duty 4 was still a superior release with more impact. But as for who will come out as victorious, this I do not know.
Rating: 
Leave a Reply