With yet another return to World War 2, Treyarch attempts to outdo Infinity Ward's massively successful Call Of Duty 4. With somewhat similar graphics and gameplay mechanics, can they reinstate World War 2 as the king of gunplay setting?

The answer is no, although a meekly admitted rejection, as Call of Duty: World At War offers some good single player moments and a fairly engaging multiplayer.

Overview:

In a deviation from standard World War 2 shooters, W@W takes place on the Pacific and Russian fronts, with the war in Europe no where to be seen. Whilst the Pacific operations feel fresh, the Russian operations feel like a rehash of the original Call of Duty, down to the generic sniper in Stalingrad scenario. Whilst it attempts to pick up towards the end due to the advance into Germany, there's little to no difference between the grey and brown war torn Russia to the grey and brown war torn Germany. I can't help but think that the along with Europe, the Eastern front has had it's possibilities exhausted for fast paced linear shooters.

The characters are highly stereotyped and feel uninspired. The US Marines are depicted as grizzled 'We must get this done for our flag' soldiers, the Japanese are bloodthirsty and always ready to charge into melee combat, the Russians are also bloodthirsty and somewhat psychotic and surprisingly, the Germans are barely addressed at all; a relief as the idea of an evil warmongering nation has been hammered home more times than it needs.

Gameplay:

As to be expected of the Call of Duty franchise, the control system is tight and intuitive, never once bringing you out of the experience. There's plenty of weapons to choose from even if many of them perform similarly and a nice attempt to bring some variety to the missions aside from 'Move forward, kill people'. On the 'regular' difficulty setting, the game is sufficiently challenging without ruining the pace, although a more seasoned gamer will probably plough through, only stopping a couple of times due to 'cheap' deaths. On the higher difficulty settings, the game is a trip into frustration, with constantly respawning enemies who're crack shots at any distance and due to a lack of tactical choice, gamers who wish to defeat Veteran mode will find themselves relying more on luck and persistence than ability to succeed.

Graphics:

There's little to say about the graphics; They're by no means poor, but not groundbreaking either. This is by no means a bad thing; the graphics are satisfying and work. I didn't experience any major issues with art style or clipping.

Audio:

Whilst Call of Duty: World at War might be a lesson in how to create fast placed casual gunplay, it is also a lesson in audio. Specifically, how not to do audio. On a casual playthrough on the regular difficulty setting, the audio is the only element to bring you out of the experience. The music is highly unsuitable. During one assault in mission in the Pacific, instead of an accompanying musical score that builds tension and heightens the climax as game music should, you are instead greeted with a jarring mash of sound, akin to mixing heavy rock with dance music. This is not careful blend of the two styles, it's more like playing both a rock CD and a dance CD at the same time. Not only is it painful on the ears but it doesn't fit the setting whatsoever.

In addition to this, W@W brings us some of the worst weapon sound effects in gaming. Rifles emit a pathetic 'pop', more like what you would expect from an air pistol. Machine guns have no weight to their sound and their automatic drone is more comparable to drumming of fingers than it is to a weapon of war. All the weapons sound very much alike and it makes you wonder where it went wrong, especially after the varied and beefy gun shots from Call of Duty 4.

Multiplayer:

Where World at War falls flat on it's face in it's cliché riddled single player, the multiplayer is a more satisfying experience, if only for casual gaming. The much touted 'perk' system is back from Call of Duty 4, offering interesting gameplay alternatives to casual games and causing frustration in the hardcore community for 'unfair' and 'cheap' options.

The gameplay in multiplayer is very much geared towards more casual gamers, with highly powered and high accurate automatic weapons forcing the more tactical gamers to shy away. The gameplay is very much 'run and gun' and outside of more highly moderated servers and gaming communities, the game may be a little too shallow for those wanting a more hardcore experience.

Final word and roundup:

If you're looking for a fast paced, casual shooter for a single player romp or multiplayer to kill hours on an evening, you can't go far wrong with Call Of Duty: World At War. Those looking for a more in-depth single player or multiplayer experience, either for narrative, strategic element or skill based gaming, you're best off looking elsewhere.

Gameplay (Casual): 8/10
Gameplay (Hardcore): 5/10
Graphics: 8/10
Audio: 3/10
Multiplayer (Casual): 8/10
Multiplayer (Hardcore): 4/10