Call of Duty: World at War
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
“War as you never have experienced it before! “, It says on the cover of the latest game in the Call of Duty series. Is this true then? Does Activision/Treyarch take some new initiatives with this game? Let’s read on and see.
One game of many in the same series
Call of Duty series has been around a long time, a very long time and almost all the games are set in World War II, a time in history that is trite politically, in literature, in film but also in the video-game industry.
The Second World War is probably the most dominant era in the FPS genre, but as such the most boring one as well. Call of Duty: World at War is still managing quite well in spite of what time the game is set in, and Treyarch should feel proud since the hatred they got for from the CoD 2 fans for CoD 3. So this time it’s successful then? Well I the game has almost the exact gameplay as in Modern warfare with a WWII theme, which in itself creates a pretty good action game, but it makes me really wonder how the game would be if Treyarch didn’t follow the template that Infinity Ward had created with Modern Warfare.
Call of Duty: World at War is based on the same engine as CoD 4: Modern Warfare, which is an incredibly good base for a successful and intense first-person shooter. With the same engine, the same menu system, scoring system, ranking system & gameplay and the overall feeling is very similar if not exactly the same as Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.
Among the Japanese, Germans, Americans and Russians
In Call of Duty: World at War’s single player mode, you play as an American soldier but also a Russian soldier. The American soldier as attempts to conquer an island in Japan, and the Russian soldier tries to survive and with the European front, trying to penetrate Berlin. The game features 15 levels, each level can take 20 minutes or up to 2 hours depending on how good you are.
I do not exaggerate when I write that each level can take up 2 hours but this is of course if you play on higher difficulty levels as the veterans, this also shows that the Call of Duty-series has succeded in the art of making players frustrated with cheating enemies.
But more on that later, during each level, a series of checkpoints follows , and as you pass these checkpoints you’re game is saved, so as long as you passed a checkpoint you wouldn’t need to worry so much about dying. It gives a good balance of frustration and the speed through each level.
The gameplay is very similar to other games in the Call of Duty series so nothing new to come from Modern Warfare. The only thing would be tanks and a cooperative mode. The game comes with the basic set of weapons, but a new addition to the weapon rack is the classic flamethrower. The weapon is clearly one of the best in the game and is perfect for clearing those caves infested with enemies.
Blood and explosions
A new feature in Call of Duty series is that the enemies now may lose their limbs if hit by a powerful enough weapon or explosion. If you thought Call of Duty 4 was intense World at War might take it up a notch. To see people lose body parts is certainly not recommended for children and that is why 18 + stamp is on the game. Seeing an enemy torn to shreds before your eyes by .30 caliber rounds, or when they scream and roll around on the ground while slowly dying by the cascades of flames can trigger the conscience for some people, however for those who love realism and gore it’s a pleasant addition.
Additional choices of conscience happens during the game and are generally about letting prisoners live or not, nothing that the average action-junkie thinks about when to taking a life in a video game is something you do often, but for a person that is not accustomed to these kind of games might get an eye-opener.
Frustration takes over
On lower difficulty levels you can get through the game without feeling any major frustration. However the game clearly suffers from poor teammate AI. Just like Modern Warfare the game or your allies will not advance until you move, you’re not the captain, you’re not the leader, why should you be the one to take point if no one is ordering you to? It’s a bit wierd. The game is also heavilty scripted in such events and it can actually destroy the experience.
At higher degrees of difficulty, ie Veteran difficulty the game clearly borders that of an impossible game, the enemies have what feels like 100% accuracy with both rifles and grenades, they seem even to know your position at all times and when you sit there covering behind a rock and fifteen grenades hit the ground just a few inches from you , you know that the enemy is cheating. You know it would much more sense if they enemies would actually throw grenades at my allies as well.
To the addition we also have the weak teamate AI, which never advances by themselves or tries to help you, and they will never even get close to all the kills that you do even on veteran difficulty, and they should considering how good the enemies are. Making this game one of the most difficult games of the year. That leads me to question whether the developers have played his own game and how they might think that it’s okay that it’s so friggin hard. Why would you play on Veteran then? Well of course for all the achievements but also for a realistic experience of the fear of dying, one shot and you’re practically dead. Unfortunately enough that experience is lost with the poor AI.
Single-player Co-op & Multiplayer
In addition to the classic single-player experience, there is also a coop mode, two players can play together on the same console or up to four players can play through the campaign together over system link or Live. When you play as four, it gets really chaotic.
I would say that it’s the games fault, given that it is always a player who must advance for the game to move forward. Chaotic or not, it’s an incredibly fun game experience, it is clear that successful playthrough with a friend or a few friends can be incredibly fun, the only negative might well be that you miss the best and the fun missions in the game, they are not included in the coop campaign.
The multiplayer component is basically exactly as addictive as Modern Warfare, but it is quite obvious, in the end it is about what you like playing online. The WWII or the present, it’s basically the same anyway.
Graphics, Sound and Music
The graphics in the game was actually above my expectations, the game looks nicer than Call of Duty 4, this is due to the beautiful palm trees and jungles, as well as explosions and lighting effects are really nice. The game is working on steadily for 60 frames per second and is a pleasant visual experience. The sound effects of the weapons are all right, not something that would surprise one with its brilliance but it’s not bad either. The voice-acting of the enemies and friends are very well complemented by pretty good music, however, the music is often overpowerd by screaming japanese and germans.
Conclusion
A valiant effort. In the end, so is Call of Duty: World at War a pretty good action game, but it has nothing that we have not already seen in past Call of Duty games or previous games in the same genre. Call of Duty: World at War is clearly a copy of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare in World War II theme. Treyarch developed it, but basically this is Infinity Ward work, Treyarch just followed the same template, and you know? It’s a good thing, good work Treyarch, it’s nothing wrong with that.
If you as a player love the Second World War, this is clearly a given purchase instead of Modern Warfare, but the players whom already are playing Modern Warfare, and are satisfied with it can actually stick to it, in the case of the online experience nothing new is presented in World at War. However, it is quite attractive with a co-op mode over the story mode, though it becomes very short when playing coop. In the end, it’s not a game you buy fullprice, if you find it a couple of bucks off then go for it. It’s a pretty good game.
