When will WW2 come to an end? (Call of Duty: World at War (PS3))

Member Name: butters

Product:	Call of Duty: World at War (PS3)
Date:	09/03/09 (225 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Brilliant game engine and graphics.

Disadvantages: Average vehicle sections and mistakes made with the online mode.

When Call of Duty: World At War (WAW) was announced last year, it received quite a mixed reaction from reviewers, and this mixed reaction did carry on right up until the reviews came along. This was because of two reasons; Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was not set in World War 2, something people considered to be a welcome change from the ageing WW2 genre. And secondly, Infinity Ward, the developers of Call of Duty 4 were not developing this game, but instead decided to make the 6th game. 2 separate developers develop the series to keep the CoD games coming out on a yearly basis. Not all people were pleased about this, as it was Infinity Ward who developed COD4, something that took the gaming world by storm. And Treyarch, developers of Call of Duty 3 really didn't have the best reputation.

Something to think about though is, though World War 2 games have been done to death, recently not many have been high quality games. It would be nice for Treyarch to make that brilliant final WW2 game, before the series can hopefully move on. Overall, it works, to an extent. The engine used in CoD4 is now used in this game, which really helps with the first impressions of the game. The graphics are absolutely brilliant, and the controls and HUD (heads up display) are basically the same as CoD4. It means you can head into the game and like it right away, with thoughts of CoD4 shadowing Treyarch's previous attempt, Call of Duty 3 which was quite average.

Though not far in, you are suddenly reminded of the developer as you get an in-game, unskippable cutscene that you find in a lot of Treyarch games. The problem here is that this cutscene is generally used to try to get you closer to the character you are playing as and personalise you with him. However, the problem is that the characters are incredibly wooden. They all seem stereotypical of the American army, and none have any true character. Plus, we all know the story of WW2 so this great tale is better told when you are shooting people, not in an unskippable cutscene.
From then on though, the game does get a little better. There are 2 stories that you play out, in order to stop the game getting dull. The one story revolves around the American advance on Japanese soil, and the second story is the Russian advance on the Germans. It is actually a welcome change. Although I'm not the biggest fan of stories in WW2 games, the two different stories do offer different types of gameplay. Whereas the Russian's will be going through the dark streets of Germany, something you'd find in many WW2 games, the Americans are facing the Japanese outside, full of vivid colours and enemies that use unconventional fighting methods. It does stop the game getting boring and certainly offers variety. There are some great moments in both stories, and the American storyline in Japan stops the graphics getting too dark.
When playing through the story, you come across some vehicle sections. This is a second sign that this is a Treyarch game, and the lack of vehicles in CoD4 was a welcome change. However, at some point in WAW you'll hop into a tank, in order to give the game some variety where it isn't needed. It just can't be made at all realistic. Your tank can take too many hits, the controls are awkward and the entire section just doesn't capture the magic you can get from firing a gun.

Just as I have been comparing the game to CoD4 at every available moment, you are reminded of the game in WAW. The special sniper mission in CoD4 has been poorly replicated in the Russian side of the story, and there is a pretty average shooting section from a boat that reminded me a little of the one vehicle section in CoD4. It is a big sign that in reality this game is only made special by the game engine, and without it, you would have another Call of Duty 3. The developers just don't seem as talented, and if they're not trying to replicate the magic from CoD4 by copying it, there's an awful vehicle mission.

As for the levels themselves, they are okay. There are a few too many missions that just involve going to one objective and blowing something up, but overall they're good. The problem with the type of objective I've just mentioned it that it always feels like you are doing the work. This isn't right considering you are in an army. It means you never feel like you are really relying on your team mates, because you are doing all of the work. It is worth pointing out here that both the enemy and the friendly AI get quite bad at times. Your allies will frequently run through the line of enemy fire, to an open space just to shoot enemies. And a lot of the enemies will just ignore them, and carry on shooting at you. An interesting thing that happens in battle is when the Japanese do a kamikaze run at you, trying to melee you. The problem is though, that they all run for you unless scripted not to. Enemies just focus on you. This has been tried out, and they will run right past your allies, easily 50 metres, just to stab you. In theory, it's a very good thing to do, and it requires quick reactions. In practice however, it is deeply flawed because of the enemy AI. AI also seems to constantly respawn in some sections, which is a bad way of making the game harder in my opinion.
The actual level layout is quite nice. In single player a lot of the levels are good. It's when you get to the multi-player that the faults stand out, though this will be described later. The problem with the level design is that sometimes enemies will be in a place you can't be. The boundaries for the levels are placed poorly and ou can die many times by trying to run to a place that has an invisible wall. For example, a waist high fence that the enemy can get behind, but you can't. That's poor level design.

So the final thing to discuss is the weapons. After CoD4 the weapons would have to be designed extremely well, and on the whole they are. Most of the weapons from previous games are there, and some of them are extremely satisfying to fire. Some of them really don't feel like they have power though, such as the Garand.

No doubt if you get this game, you'll be interested in the online mode-which was a huge thing about CoD4. It offered an in depth online mode with a brilliant ranking system and some amazing levels and game modes. WAW does to an extent, but nothing has changed. It may not seem like a bad thing but it is. Though it has artificially been made longer by making it take longer to rank up, all of the faults, all of the problems are still there. In online mode you can choose 3 perks that can highlight your strengths. You can make your weapons do more damage for example, or have slightly more health than other gamers. Mostly it works, but the annoying perks from Call of Duty 4 are still there. You are also rewarded for kill streaks, allowing you to call an air strike for example. This was a brilliant feature used in CoD4, but it has been ruined in this game because of dogs. When you get 7 kills you can call dogs in to attack the enemy. When one comes they're pretty easy to get rid of. But they just keep coming for a minute regardless, 2 or 3 at a time. The fault here is that there is nowhere to hide from these dogs, and secondly, it completely messes up the balance of the teams. It means a team that is already doing well, will just do even better because the dogs are such a bugger to get rid of. It is just one more thing that shows Treyarch have no idea what they are doing at times.
The maps overall are good. There are a few that are a little small, and a few that are maybe too big but they all have their good and bad spots, and allow for some nice tactics. They aren't as good as the maps in CoD4 however; they don't seem to offer the same skill and don't generally have battle points, a place where people will constantly battle for. But they are, overall, very good. The main problem comes from vehicles, which are included in some maps. With no filter options, you can't avoid these and they're very annoying. Some of the maps are designed quite well so there is enough room for Infinity battle away from vehicles, but others don't. So it just becomes a race for the vehicles. It's boring.
Another problem with the online is glitching. People have found a way, on 3 maps to get under the floor, where they can shoot you but you can't see them. Glitches are expected to be found, but it's quite appalling that they have not been patched yet.
One final thing to mention about the online is weapons. Most of them are quite well balanced, but not all of them. Some weapons do stick out as being a little too powerful. Whereas others don't seem powerful enough. For example, bolt action rifles which should have a lot more power to even if out, because of the slow reloads.

There is co-op mode in the game. Online co-op actually adds quite a bit to the game. It is always fun to play with others and the levels are designed for it, mostly. However, when playing co-op on the same screen, the screen sizes can be quite annoying. The screen is split horizontally, and the full screen is not used. It is enough to put you off offline co-op.

Overall I have been a little critical of the game. If it weren't got Call of Duty 4 this game would have probably gone down better because it would not have had such high expectations. The game just can not compete with Call of Duty 4 though, and this isn't because it is a WW2 shooter, it's because clearly, the developer is not as good as Infinity Ward. It's a decent game and some effort has been made to make the game good. But there are just too many moments that make it clear you aren't playing a game that will be talked about in 10 years time, and when Call of Duty 6 comes along it will be Call of duty 4 is has to beat, not this.
If you like WW2 then it may pay to actually get this game, because it definitely has its moments and is an enjoyable experience. As long as you don't set your expectations too high, it can be enjoyed. Just don't expect it to be as good as Call of Duty 4. It is generally available online for £40 at.

I am in two minds about the rating. Because of the annoyances and expectations, I'd give it around 77% which is right on the bored of a 3 or 4 star rating. 3 it is, though it's quite close to 4 stars.

Summary: Not the classic people hoped for, but at least better than CoD3.