Call of Duty: World at War is far and away the best WW2 Wii first person shooter! (Call of Duty: World at War (Wii))

Member Name: eisbrecher

Product:	Call of Duty: World at War (Wii)
Date:	23/06/09 (50 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Amazing Pacific missions, Great sound effects, Good choice of weaponry, Attractive cut scenes.

Disadvantages: Eastern front looks depressing, Occasional glitch, Poor multiplayer.

Having played Call of Duty 3 for the Wii, and not being too disappointed about the Wii missing out of Call of Duty 4 (being a WW2 history fanatic). I was deeply looking forward to Call of Duty: World at War, returning to World War 2 and it was apparently going to incorporate the, until then, elusive Pacific theatre of war. It proved to be a very good game, but with some minor adjustments it could have been a great game.

Gameplay

Gameplay wise, Call of Duty: World at War is very similar to its predecessors and it is hard not to draw comparisons from Call of Duty 3 for the Wii. I remember the tacky feeling system in Call of Duty 3 that had you rotate/push/pull your Wiimote to perform certain tasks. Luckily this is dropped in this game and aside from using the Wiimote as the cursor it is not used elsewhere in gameplay, which is what it should be.

You follow Private Miller in the Pacific theatre, following him from Makin Island through Peleliu to the Battle of Okinawa. Whilst in the other half of the game, you follow Private Petrenko in the dying months of the war in Europe, through the Battle of Seelow Heights and into the Battle of Berlin, which includes the historically inaccurate raising of the Soviet flag over the Reichstag. The gameplay is mostly the same though the Pacific theatre seems much more threatening, the beautiful scenery disguising some very difficult levels, complete with Banzai attacks from Japanese troops which can easily lead to death of your character.

Aside from this Call of Duty: World at War is very much alike the WW2 first person shooters before it. Picking up new guns, of which you can hold one and one in reserve, is often vital to completing the level. A new feature over Call of Duty 3 is the inclusion of handguns, which whilst light on ammo are very steady and feel so much better to shoot than your average rifle. There is a great deal of pro-American bias throughout the game, which is to be expected when dealing with the still rather touchy subject of the Pacific theatre of WW2. The gameplay of this Call of Duty is rather similar to WW2 shooter before it, but the inclusion of handguns and the Pacific theatre do set it apart from others.
4/5

Graphics

Graphics are not this games strongpoint, in the Pacific side of the game the environments are very interesting and colourful whilst the Eastern Front missions can be rather bland and disinteresting. Certain levels look better than others, with the Wana Ridge mission being noticeably beautiful with fields of flowers, rain and the constant explosions. Graphically the characters and weapons are of a rather high quality, tanks less so but they are still satisfactory. However I have noticed certain road signs are very blurry and heavily pixellated, and unusually some of your comrades sometimes appear to be cocking and firing a rifle which does not graphically exist. Glitches aside Call of Duty World at War is graphically good, though the Eastern Front missions often see generic grey building and corridor reappearing often. The amazing looking buildings and environments in the Pacific missions more than make up for this though, Shuri Castle in particular looks beautiful and it seems a shame to call in airstrikes on sections of it.
4/5

Sound

The music in this Call of Duty is well suited to the game, often building up tension without being off putting, though in the last two levels the triumphant music can overpower the sound effects and make things confusing. On the other hand the sound effects are always very good, it sounds realistic and perfectly encapsulates the sound of war, from the loud but realistic gunfire to the cries of comrades and the sound of mortar rounds landing yards from you.
4/5

Longevity

Call of Duty, as a FPS, has almost limitless replayability value. Following completing the main game there is not much else to do, there are 14 missions and should take the average gamer 15-30 minutes per mission. You could try and complete each mission on the hardest ranking. However, in my opinion, first person shooters are almost endless, as you can replay them time and time again, especially if you are interested in this period of history.
4/5

Multiplayer

Multiplayer in this game can get confusing. There is the obvious multiplayer mode in the menu which is playing with either friends or strangers via Nintendo WFC, this is indeed fun though sometimes the lag can get quite severe. This cannot be played with another player next to you, the only way to play like this is the side-by-side mode, as advertised on the back of the game box. However personally I got confused how to access this mode until I stumbled across it whilst playing. Just click new game/resume as normal and have two Wii remotes connected, another crosshair will appear and another gun/bullet graphic will appear on screen, in the top right. The other player plays as normal, firing weapons, reloading (off screen) and being able to pick up different weapons. This method of multiplayer gameplay is quite fun but not exactly what I expected.
3/5

Overall

On paper, Call of Duty: World at War is a perfect WW2 first person shooter. One of the most interesting battles of my time in my opinion, the Battle for Berlin is present in a major way. The Pacific theatre is included for the first time and also present are handguns, flamethrowers and no more frantic Wiimote action just to set a bomb. However some historical inaccuracies, some poor graphics in places and a confusing multiplayer do let it down slightly. That said, if you are a fan of first person shooters or WW2 I highly recommend this game.
4/5

Thanks for reading, any comments you have will be gratefully received. Also on Ciao.

Summary: On paper what looked great turned out to be very good.