Call of Duty: World at War-The Finest Hour or the Big Red One? (Call of Duty: World at War (Xbox 360))

Member Name: Stunt 101

Product:	Call of Duty: World at War (Xbox 360)
Date:	06/01/09 (451 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: See review...

Disadvantages: See review...

Call of Duty: World at War-The Finest Hour or the Big Red One?

Let's be frank-Infinity Ward are pretty much the only developer who can make the Call of Duty series the Game of the Year. At best, Activision hires a development team which can make a great, not brilliant, Call of Duty game. At worst, they completely balls it up. Thankfully Treyarch, the developer of Spider-Man and Call of Duty 3, didn't balls up unlike Spark Unlimited's Call of Duty: The Finest Hour (and they haven't gone much further since). So when they announced Treyarch would develop CoD5, I had some hope. Unfortunately, I lost hope when they said it would be in World War II. No disrespect to the men who fought and sacrificed their lives, but this setting has been done plenty of times, like in Brothers in Arms: Hells Highway. While BIA added innovation with brilliant tactical combat, Call of Duty 5 sticks to what made CoD good in the first place; this is both a good and a bad thing. Let's see why...

Call of Duty: WaW puts you mainly in the perspective of two men. The first man you'll play as is Private Miller of the U.S. Marine Corps as he is captured on the Makin Island. Just before you are executed by the Japanese, you are saved by Sgt. Roebuck (voiced by Kiefer Sutherland) and other Marines. After escaping the island, Miller then joins with Roebuck's unit and helps them repel the Japanese from Japanese controlled islands. The other character you play as is Private Dimitri Petrenko of the Red Army. As his unit is executed by German forces and he is the last alive, he and injured Sergeant Reznov take revenge by sniping the German commander Amsel. Three years later they reunite and battle on the Eastern Front against the Germans. The story is much more dramatic than Treyarch's last effort, and some of the moments in WaW are incredible. The game could have done with more cutscences to add dramatic effect, but what's here is great.

Let's get one thing out of the way-Call of Duty: WaW is not as good as CoD4. You can't really compare them though-their settings, weapons and levels are completely different. Let's just compare CoD: WaW on its own merits. You may be annoyed that CoD went back to WWII, but really you can just go back to CoD4 and play on the multiplayer some more if you aren't happy about it. Let's just leave the CoD4 comparisons out of the window in terms of its setting. Because, really, this game is the same game we played in 2007, just with a different setting and weapons.

Okay one more comparison-WaW looks stunning as it uses the same engine as Call of Duty 4. Everything that looked good about CoD4, from the stunning environments, to the detailed, extremely well animated characters to the incredibly smooth 60 frames per second. There are some new visual tricks, like being able to carve holes in wood, and the burning effect of the flame thrower. The weapon models are extremely detailed, and the reload animations are excellent. There are some occasional issues however-some textures don't pop in quick enough, some of the textures look rather flat and blurry, and there can be some odd glitches (i.e. floating bodies). Don't get me wrong though, CoD5 benefits from the CoD4 engine and looks stunning, even on multiplayer.

Call of Duty: WaW plays mostly like its predecessors. Each of the 15 single player levels play in a linear fashion-you will only make a choice in which direction you once throughout the whole 7 hours of campaign gameplay. Invisible walls make their putrid return and are, frankly, a pain in the ass. This wasn't as noticeable in CoD4, as the game made the right direction obvious, but in CoD5, the invisible walls can constantly push you down in the right direction. This was a major issue in CoD3 (also by Treyarch) and it seems the developer didn't improve it much here. And sadly this kind of divulges down to battles. They feel scripted at parts, for example in one section of the game there were no enemies yet as soon as I went pass a certain point in the level they suddenly came out of a nearby building and rained bullets on me.

There are also some major issues with the Artificial Intelligence. They aren't terrible per say, as they do an excellent job of killing you (especially on the harder difficulties) as they take cover and throw grenades 100s of yards at your feet. Not terribly realistic I know, but it's intense. What hurts the game most with the A.I. is that they do some of the most stupid actions of this year. The issue is that when they lock onto a target, they only fire at that target and even when they're dead, they still keep firing. And whenever you see a two A.I. controlled people fighting in a melee confrontation, it's horrible as they just stand next to each other as if they're squad mates. It hurts the realism, though when grenades are being thrown 100 yards, you have to question if there was any realism to begin with. And sadly, this affects both enemy and friendly A.I. which is a shame.

With going back to WWII, the game also has the same WWII weapons we've come to expect. There's the Thompson, M1 Garand, MP-44, and the Colt. 45. There are some interesting and exciting new weapons added to the mix though. The most explosive of the bunch is the Flamethrower, an exciting new addition to the series which is a brilliant weapon. As you burn the area down to its last shrubs and fry enemies to a crisp, you find yourself immensely satisfied. And it makes its impact, as there's a whole level dedicated to using a flamethrower and other levels where you can use it. The other main new weapon is Bayonets. This is a rifle with a knife attached to the end, making for some violent melee kills without using your knife. Unfortunately, both of the new weapons are completely ignored in the Russian campaign. All the weapons, however, are very satisfying to use, even if most of them will be familiar for past CoD fans.

You should take note about the major differences in the two campaign sides in terms of gameplay. The American side of things feels a bit more gung-ho while the Russian side starts with more tactical precision but too boils down to simply killing everyone. In a way, this is a slight bit disrespectable to the people who fought in the war, as the men who fought to protect our country probably didn't get in as many of these Rambo-esque situations. It does make for very exciting action, but not very deep action. You do need to make use of the crouching feature to avoid gunfire (especially on Hardened and Veteran) but for the most part is seems to be about going to one place, killing everyone there, and moving onto the next location once the invisible wall has been removed. The game can also be a bit tasteless at times-some of the violence and gore. Whether it be a Japanese man shoving a cigarette into someone's eye and then slitting their throat as blood sprays on the wall, or seeing an enemies legs being blown off, it can be rather over-the-top.

It should be stated how similar CoD: WaW us similar to its predecessors. Like before, it's all about aiming down the Iron Sights. You can shoot from the hip, but it's so inaccurate and hard to aim with that you'll find it useless. The game uses the same snap-target lock-on as other games in the series, where you aim at one target and then can snap onto the next by pressing the Right trigger again. The entire control mapping is near identical, and movement/aiming is still some of the finest in the series. It's the ultimate debate-it's similar enough to create some Déjà vu, yet the series has been so good since its first game that why fix what isn't broken? This is a tough debate and should be fought for, yet you can't deny that no matter what, CoD: WaW is a better than average game.

One area where CoD: WaW innovates the series is by featuring co-op for the first time ever, whether it's online with four players or split-screen with two. Word of advice though, don't bother with the split-screen co-op. The issue is that there is a picture border around the two screens, making the co-op screens tiny and hard to see. This makes the game harder and ultimately ruins the split-screen co-op. However, online co-op can be a blast. You can play through most of the campaign with four players (aside from some exceptions of levels) as you can either play it co-operatively or competitively. On campaign co-op you simply play through the levels, but on competitive it keeps each player's score of kills and revives and the winner gets the Blue Ribbon achievement. There's also a co-op mode where you fight off Nazi Zombies (a nudge to Left 4 Dead maybe), which is awesome. Co-op also adds experience to the biggest meat of CoD5-the multiplayer.

Yep, the best multiplayer experience of, well, ever is back and in WWII this time. Sorry to sound like an advertisement, but it's true. Call of Duty 4's multiplayer innovated with its ranks and prestige system with immeasurable rewards. It returns this time around, and the ranks and perks system is still brilliant here. As you rank up, you earn more weapons and attachments, as well as perks, which are special abilities which aid you in your multiplayer struggles including Second Chance which puts you on the ground with a pistol if you ''die'' and lets you revive people in a similar situation. The perks, like CoD4, add unique twists multiplayer matches, but sadly some unbalance the experience like Martyrdom-too many times have I died by a grenade dropped by the dude I just killed.

Most of the modes from CoD4 are present. This includes team deathmatch, Free-for-all, Capture the flag and search & destroy. Most of the modes also contain a hardcore version of the mode where there's no HUD and bullets do more damage. It certainly ratchets up the tension. The best of the new modes is War, which is a Capture the Flag style mode where you must capture multiple flags as you pass through enemy territory. I personally enjoyed this mode most because of its tactical depth, exciting fights it created and unique style of play. The maps are intuitively well designed; the perk and ranks system is still fantastic and you can even pilot vehicles now. If there's one area where CoD: WaW tops previous games it's in its fantastic multiplayer.

While the campaign isn't long, clocking in at about 7 hours, the multiplayer can keep you busy until CoD6 is released. The achievements, however, aren't as strong. They focus on the hardcore, where you must complete the levels of the campaign on Veteran to get some decent gamer score out of CoD5. The level achievements where you must complete specific challenges are really good, but there aren't enough of them. There are also some good co-op achievements, encouraging players to go online as well as two secret achievements related to the prestige system.

By far the strongest area of CoD5 is the sound. The music is probably the only exception. While it's epic enough, it feels a bit trashy with some guitar riffs and metal madness to accompany the game, which doesn't fit in with the game. Everything else, however, is excellent. The voice acting (including actors like Gary Oldman and Kiefer Sutherland) is brilliant, as having Gary Oldman screaming in your ear with a Russian accent is quite something. The sound effects are brilliant, guns make a huge impact and the sound of hearing the bullet go through an enemies head is quite gruesome. The sound quality is always consistent and you should have it as loud as possible. It sounds much more like a War Zone then which is awesome.

Is Call of Duty: World at War good, bad or ugly?

CoD5 is a worthy sequel to the legendary Cod4 because it sticks close enough to the series roots to be better than average, even if it's a little too close for comfort. The graphics and sound are spectacular, while the level design miffed me off with linear levels and horrific A.I. yet whether you're on the campaign, co-op or multiplayer, you are having a good time with World at War. If you have stuck with the series since its first game then this is worth it, yet if you only have played CoD4 and hate the WWII setting, this isn't for you.

Controls: 9
Gameplay: 8
Graphics: 9
Sound: 10
Value: 8
Overall: 8.8

CoD5 was released on November 14th 2008 on Xbox 360, PC, PS3, PS2, Wii and DS. It is rated 15+ for strong violence and language and can be brought for around £40.

Summary: A great, if familiar, World War II game.