Call of Duty World at War has a lot to live up to. Last year Infinity Ward surpassed all expectations with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Heralded by many as the best game of last year, CoD4 impressed everyone. It was the multiplayer that everyone loved; it remains one of the most played games on Xbox Live, and I'm sure its the same on the PlayStation Network.
So after last year's success, development duties have passed back to Treyarch, who have made the third COD. In a nutshell, CoD World at War is everything CoD4 was (but now in World War 2). But that's the problem. There isn't really anything new. Sure, there are some original weapons (ie a flamethrower and bayonets), the voice acting is great and the single player campaign is also good, but it feels like World at War is trying to emulate CoD4, not improve on it. But hey, that's not necessarily a bad thing; CoD4 was very, very good. Now, a year on, World at War is nearly there, but falls just short. Its not perfect, not brilliant, just good. We experienced a number of times when we got stuck on random objects. Enemies fail to notice you walk up behind them, and often take no notice of you if you don't come at them head on.
That said, World at War does have its high points. You are fighting with the Americans in the Pacific one level and the Russians marching on Berlin in the next. Again, something we saw last year in CoD4, but still a good feature nonetheless. The videos leading into each level are very impressive, switching between real life and animations smoothly. They give you a background to where you are, where the war is at and how things are going in your area.
This year saw Battlefield Bad Company's destructible environments take a massive step forwards for shooter games. Unfortunately, there are no such environments in World at War. Your movements feel very restricted, and even the smallest obstacles can block your path. You can easily stroll upon a small wooden fence that is indestructible and unjumpable.
Something that is new is the Halo style four player story mode co-op. You can play either over the internet or locally and play through the missions. This is a great addition to the game, and adds that extra replayability to the storyline. Speaking of online multiplayer, the feature that everyone loved last year is once again present. I've said this before, during the beta, but I'll say it again. World at War doesn't really bring anything new to the multiplayer, it just pushes it back in time, and adjusts the weapons accordingly. An impressive feature, but its what you'd expect. The perks system will have you going back for more. And then some.
CoD4 brought a lot of new people to the series, and World at War, whilst not building on CoD4 much, World at War is still impressive and is recommendable to any FPS or Call of Duty fan. A solid World War 2 FPS.
Nometet.com says: 
Xbox 360 version reviewed. PC and PS3 versions should not differ too much. PS2, Wii and DS versions will be different.
5 Responses to “Review – Call of Duty World at War” Leave a reply ›
First of all, Treyarch didn't develop the first CoD, Infinity Ward did. Treyarch only did the third one and it was utter crap. Like this one. The multiplayer is good but the single player is completely rubbish. You're caught up in the hype. Have you ever actually played a good video game? 8.1? Are you trying to tell us it was fun? The singleplayer campaign actually made me angry it was so bad.
Yes, there are some issues with the game, but I think 8.1 is a fair reflection. Its not just a random figure plucked out the air, the impressive voice acting bumped up the score, as did the visuals. The single player whilst not brilliant, was fair. Its the multiplayer that keeps the score up.
This one seems like they took a step back to me. But people are still going to buy it because of COD4. But I don't think the COD4 servers will empty out just yet.
There are several issues with this game regarding historical inaccuracies.
Firstly why is the FG42 classed in the 'machine gun' category when it is clearly a rifle. The FG stands for Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 which translates as 'Paratroop Rifle'. Therefore it is not a machine gun.
.
Secondly, there are no officers in the game, they are all NCO's. This is not how it would have been
Also i reject to Treyarch's portrayal of the sniper scene in 'Enemy at the Gates', as it is not faithful to the respective film.
Thirdly, the sound which the M1 Garand makes when all rounds are ejected is an E sharp when it is so obviously a G flat. This is disgraceful and an outrage to the weapon and those who used it in combat.
Lastly, WHY is the PTRS 41 categorised as a 'Bolt Action Rifle' when is so clearly a semi-automatic, due to there being no manual cocking required to reload the weapon in between each round.
As a conclusion, i would like to express my distaste for this game, as, if a war game is to be successful, it needs to included all of the relevant material and be faithful to the history which it follows. Anyone looking to buy this game should completely ignore the review given here, and opt for a more realisctic game, my recommendation being 'Destroy all Humans 2', since this is an accurate depiction of invasion to the Earth, rather than this piece of tosh being totally out of its depth.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to convey my often disregarded opinions, and I look forward to complaining more on this lieing review site.
Historical accuracy is good, but I do not see what the problem is. The system is designed to fit with the types of gun, not the exact detail. So the FG42 has been put in as a machine gun because that is what it fits as best. Same for the PTRS 41. Evidently, therefore, a war game does not need to be perfect to be succesful
And how is "Destroy all Humans 2" more accurate? Comparing it to the actual invasion of Earth - oh, sorry, there hasn't been an invasion of this Earth. What planet are you on?
And you spell "lieing" lying, by the way