Call of Duty World at War

Score 9/10

World at War is the second game from Treyarc with its new graphics, new guns, and overall a totally new game. This is the fifth instalment in the Call of Duty series.

Difficulty: extremely hard on veteran
Time spent: 100-200 hours
The bottom line: better than COD3
Platform: Xbox360

After their very mixed reviewed Call of Duty 3, Treyarc has created an even better game with new graphics and a better campaign as you crawl through the Japanese controlled jungles, watching out for deadly surprise banzai attacks as an American or pushing the Nazi fascists out of the motherland and into their land as a Russian.

The character’s that you play as through the campaign is Pvt. Miller, an American who we meet being tortured by the Japanese on a Japanese captured island and Pvt. Petrenko a Russian who we meet surrounded by his fallen comrades in a fountain in Stalingrad. We also meet a very popular badass Call of Duty character in the fountain and his name is Viktor Reznov. During the campaign as Pvt. Miller you fight from Makin to Okinawa both filled with determined Japanese soldiers who would rather die than surrender which isn’t really the best thing in the world when you’re playing on Veteran difficulty as you die over and over again while being repeatedly stabbed in the heart by an extremely annoying banzai solder. And there is a death thing on the Russian front as you push the “fascist rats” out of Stalingrad and all the way back to the heart of the Reich (Berlin) and capture the Reichstag to end the war in the western front and as soon as you get shot by a German MG or sniper you die and the feeling that it’s raining grenades.

But there is an award for completing the campaign on any difficulty and if you don’t want to know what this mode is just skip this paragraph now or read on. The secret game mode you receive for completing the campaign is called Nazi Zombies and the map you get with it is called Nacht Der Untoten (Night of the Un-dead) with the description “You drove them deep into the heart of the Reich. You thought they were dead. You were wrong.” Soon after WaW was released Treyarc created 3 more maps: Verrukt, Shi no numa and Der reise which also brought along the enticing story to the background of the Nazi zombies. With the music from Elena Siegman which is for the end of game music for all of the maps and Lullaby for a Dead man for Nacht Der Untoten’s end of round music it make Nazi zombies even better. But there are a few problems with the Nazi zombie mode as it is full with glitches like; invisible barriers, invincibility and many others but that is what happens when a games developer puts something into a game at the last minute but still it’s a really good game mode.

Now the graphics in the game have majorly improved over Call of Duty 3’s graphics as the blood effects are the best in the whole Call of Duty series. The gun designs and usage have improved greatly so instead of your character randomly reloading your gun the wrong way, it now can actually use a gun properly. Also the gun sounds have changed (as they always in every call of duty game) like the mp40 and the trench gun. Also the blood effects have hugely improved as you now can shoot dead bodies and blood will come out of them and if you kill an enemy with a grenade they explode into bits and pieces with just their torso left. You also now sometimes get a bayonet on the end of your gun and this is a lot better than the normal melee knife as the range is increased.

In Call of Duty 3 you got to drive motor bikes, jeeps and tanks in the campaign and multiplayer but unfortunately in World at War you only get to drive a tank in campaign and in some of the maps in multiplayer but you do get a flamethrower on your tank in the tank mission which is sort of a bonus.

To sum up this is good game to play on with its new graphics, guns, and Nazi zombies this is 10x better than COD3 and even if you’re not a fan of Call of Duty you should at least give it a go.

Good:
• New graphics
• New campaign
• New guns
• Better blood effects
• New enemies
• Nazi zombies
• Nearly impossible on Veteran difficulty

Bad:
• Nearly impossible on Veteran difficulty
• There is a lot of grenade thrown at you on Veteran
• Banzai solders keep stabbing me

pretty good man i actually enjoy reading your reviews, keep them coming and p.s., difficulty isn't the ones on the game it means how hard is the game in your opinion

thanks for telling me about the dificulty of the game thing and i am going to be doing more reviews

good, the more reviews the better, keep them coming

Very good review, I think it is better than your last one. Good to see you apply the advice that you are given in order to make your future writing better. Keep up the good work.

By the way, if you're interested in reading my opinions about the game - I've posted my review below (it's one of my older ones, written almost two years ago, so there might be some stupid mistakes; nut feel free to criticize and advise, as always).

---

Score: 8.5/10

With a grim atmosphere, action-packed gameplay and hours of great multiplayer fun to offer - this game rocks!

Difficulty: Hard
Time Spent: 40 to 100 Hours
The Bottom Line: "Rocks"
Platform: PlayStation 3

The Call of Duty series used to be all about World War II. Every single game in the series was set in that period. But all of that changed with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, as it took this classic series into (as the title suggests) modern warfare. However, in 2008, the series is briefly taken back into the WWII setting for one more title - Call of Duty: World at War, by developer Treyarch. Is the old setting used for effect to create another quality shooter? Yes. But is the game executed in a way that it stands out from all those older World War II games? Yes. Are you interested in how this is achieved? Then don't hesitate to read on...

World at War's story feels a bit awkward; it spans two campaigns that demonstrate warfare from two different perspectives, on two completely different fronts. In each of these you play as a different person. One campaign takes you through the battles between Americans and the Japanese, where you play as Private Miller of the American Marines through most of the missions (with the exception of one, where you play as Petty Officer Locke). The other has you playing as Dimitri Petrenko, a Private in the Red Army of the Soviet Union. I found Petrenko's missions to be much darker & more atmospheric than the ones set in Japan, and in my opinion, it would've been better if the game focused on just Dimitri instead of throwing you between various missions, where in one you play as Miller, the next as Petrenko. This is especially because the Japanese campaign feels a bit out of place.

Of course, that is not to say that Pvt. Miller's missions are bad. Actually, they are far from it. There are a few things that you do not see in Petrenko's campaign, such as: Banzai attackers hiding in the grass, waiting for the right moment to pop up in front of you and stick their bayonets in your stomach; or playing as Locke for one mission, operating a machine gun on a plane, shooting Zeros and sinking boats. However, like I said, the missions set in Stalingrad, Seelow (and later Berlin) are much more atmospheric and show the grim nature of war in an almost perfect way. It also does well to show how war can change people.

The gameplay of Call of Duty: World at War is, as expected from a Call of Duty title - fun, entertaining & full of explosive action. The shooting is solid and the controls are well-picked, as well as easy to grasp for newcomers. The difficulty even at the easiest level of "Recruit" can be a bit challenging for newbies at times, meaning the game itself is fairly hard and you will die many, many times on the higher levels of difficulty. There are a total of over 30 weapons (some of these are variations of weapons, such as a scoped version of one gun that is already in the game counts as another weapon) plus 7 types of explosives, meaning that the arsenal is full of powerful weaponry that was utilized in World War II. The shooting and melee combat is also significantly gorier than in the previous Call of Duty games.

To give you a fairly good example of the variety in weaponry that you will find in World at War, I will list a few guns that can be used in this game: the bolt-action rifles such as American M1903 Springfield, the Mosin Nagant, German Kar98k and the Arisaka. Semi-automatic weapons like M1 Garand or the M1A1 Carbine. Fully automatic guns, amongst which are: the Soviet PPSh-41, Japanese Type 100 submachine gun, the famous (or in most cases, infamous) MP-40, the Browning Automatic Rifle and many more. These are only some of the weapons you can use in Call of Duty: World at War. If you are a gun geek or you know these names from other war shooters (most likely the first three CoD games/Medal of Honor series), then you should be excited. If you are new to this, then all you need to know is that all of these weapons were at some point used in the Second World War and they are all recreated in this game with great detail, but most importantly... they all pack a helluva punch!

Audio design in this game is fantastic! Voice acting is great for all characters, including rivals. Details like the Japanese enemies shouting in Japanese and the German enemies shouting in German are great, however it would've been awesome if in the Soviet missions the characters spoke real Russian (with English subtitles included) for extra immersion, but instead, they just speak English with Russian accents. Still, some of the game's best performances come directly from Petrenko's missions, especially from Sergeant Reznov (voiced by Gary Oldman), an experienced soldier who befriends Dimitri and is changed by the war and its effect on his beloved country. The shooting and all those "booms" and "thuds" heard around the battlefield feel authentic and believable, making the whole experience a lot more immersive.

The soundtrack is all-good. Some of it is just good, other pieces are great. Most of the stuff that is played in the missions where you play as Private Miller is good but not outstanding, and sometimes (but rarely) feels a bit out of place and unsuitable... a bit too modern, perhaps - with the exception of the theme used in the chapter called "Black Cats", where the soundtrack feels fast-paced, strong and very well suited to the action on the screen. On the other hand, the music in the Russian missions is great. It captures those feelings of sorrow, gloominess and death that surround war and conflict flawlessly. It is usually less action-oriented and slower than what you hear in the American Marines campaign but much more atmospheric and, well, sadder.

Neither the Russian or American missions offer much character development, but they don't really need to. This game is a shooter. There is no need for romance, long dialogue sequences and great amounts of choice as in games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age. All a video game developer team needs to create a fantastic shooter is some fast-paced action, great shooting mechanics, easy controls and some breath-taking, linear, gameplay sequences. World at War has all of that. However, although the characters aren't immensely developed nor do they possess deep backgrounds or personalities, they are good enough for the player to get attached to them. For example, Sergeant Roebuck of the American Marines is a natural leader and a good tactician. He respects the player character, Private Miller. On the other hand, there is Sergeant Reznov of the Soviet Union. He is tough and unforgiving, but knows how to survive all alone in the wretched ruins of a city that is controlled by Nazi soldiers. Reznov respects Petrenko's aiming abilities, admires his ability to cheat death time after time and eventually befriends the player after all that they go through.

When looking at Call of Duty: World at War's visuals, a much more grim environment can be seen as opposed to all previous games in the series. The texture work is good and the characters are well-designed. A much darker colour palette is used for this game than in any other CoD before it and it is utilized in such a fantastic way that, in my opinion, World at War offers the most accurate depiction of World War II over all other games set in this period, including the first three Call of Duty games. Also, this game is much bloodier than the ones before it. Dismemberment, soldiers looking for their lost limbs and gouts of blood flying all over the battlefield is included. On the technical side, there has been a slight improvement from Modern Warfare. World at War is powered by an enhanced version of CoD4's engine, with several improvements to the physics model. Also, due to the addition of a flamethrower, new burning effects are added but not just for the environment... on characters' skin & clothing too!

When it comes to multiplayer, the game features three main modes: Co-Op, Nazi Zombies and Competitive. For the first time in the franchise, a cooperative mode is included. This multiplayer mode can be played offline, split-screen with one other player - or online, with up to three others. Nazi Zombies is also something completely new. It pits up to two players offline (split-screen), or up to four players online, in shelter against incoming waves of (as the title suggests) Nazi zombies. Each player starts with a pistol at first, but as they shoot and kill zombies, score headshots and rebuild barricades; they gain points which can be spent on more powerful weapons or to unlock other parts of the shelter, which may give you a better position and more weapons to buy but at the expense of more ways for the zombies to enter the shelter. This mode is obviously not to be taken seriously and with that in mind, it's a great amount of fun!

The online multiplayer is just what we have come to expect from this on-going series of FPS war games, the same Call of Duty quality experience. With traditional modes (seen throughout the whole shooter genre) such as deathmatch (called free-for-all in this game), team deathmatch, capture the flag and others, as well as some other modes, already seen in the Call of Duty series before, like: domination, headquarters, sabotage, search and destroy, war etc. World at War also offers modified versions of these games. That said, it doesn't offer much new in terms of competitive online multiplayer, but that's because it doesn't really need to ("don't fix it, if it isn't broken") and only further polishes what we have seen before. Perks, custom classes & loadouts, ranks are all still here. The more you play, the more you advance in level and rank. As you advance in rank, you unlock new weapons and perks. The more challenges you complete, the more bonuses you will unlock (weapon attachments, perks and so on).

Now to sum up all the positive and negative points of Call of Duty: World at War.

The Good:
+ Both singleplayer campaigns offer something unique to feel distinct from each other
+ Atmosphere of the Soviet missions is dark, grim, bloody & overall great
+ Introduction of the flamethrower and its effects is a welcome addition
+ Both of the campaigns recreate the setting of World War II with brutal detail
+ Gameplay is fun, exciting, gory & satisfying, and offers a challenge
+ Massive arsenal of authentic, powerful WWII weaponry to choose from
+ Voice acting is great, with some fantastic performances of different accents
+ Sound design for guns, explosives & other weaponry is good and believable
+ Soundtrack features modern, fast-paced music and sad, atmospheric melodies
+ All the ingredients for a memorable shooter are here and in-use
+ Characters feel "real" and it is easy to get attached to some of them
+ Darker colour palette & grim environments are used to great effect
+ The visuals, although not as advanced as Crysis, are still great & fairly unique
+ Nazi Zombies, local co-op and competitive multiplayer are entertaining features
+ Online Nazi Zombies, co-op and competitive modes offer hours of action-packed fun

The Bad:
- The game would've benefitted from fully concentrating on just one campaign
- While it's not bad, the American campaign is a bit less unique than the Soviet one
- Might be a little too unforgiving for some newbies and newcomers
- Will not appeal to people who dislike gore, flying limbs and other "fatalities"
- Would've been awesome if your comrades in Petrenko's missions spoke Russian
- Soundtrack is overall very good, but there is nothing that stands out enough to get stuck in your head
- There is improvement, but not much innovation at all, in the multiplayer modes
- Although it's an updated version of the engine, gameplay still feels very similar to Modern Warfare
- One bug that forced me to restart the same mission two times to complete it
- Although it's nothing drastic there are some minor and occasional graphical hiccups
- Some may argue that a few weapons are unbalanced (I call it realism)
- The singleplayer campaign is very short at 10 hours, at the very most.
- Story is based on facts and made more epic for gameplay, so it's quite basic
- Some won't like the jump from modern weaponry of MW to older guns of WaW
- At times some of the more modern parts of the soundtrack don't fit too well with WWII, but they do match the action

In the end, Call of Duty: World at War is not a big jump from Modern Warfare like some might have expected it to be. It is a very similar a game, running on a modified version of the same engine, with only slightly improved graphics. However, the game is set back in WWII and somehow it manages to make an overused setting interesting enough to be played through again. It offers some quite memorable moments in the singleplayer campaign, introduces us to some badass characters and gives us hours more of fun with multiplayer options. World at War is one of those games that doesn't really bring much new to a series, but it does polish the successful elements already built and utilized by previous games, in an attempt to make a better game overall.

Overall, this game was a very fun experience to me, I have enjoyed, its pros overshadow the cons, and that's what really matters the most. It is also quite surprisingly atmospheric for a war shooter and manages to recreate the horrors of the Second World War like no other FPS game before it. If you're a CoD fanatic, this should be on your list already, but don't expect too much new stuff. If you're into shooters then I suggest picking this game up. It should be worth your time and money as it definitely was for me. Even three years after release, there are plenty of gamers still playing this game online - and with good reason!

it's good to compare these two reviews for the sole fact that they were made quite some time apart. both very good reviews guys

that review is a lot better than mine and im not just saying that i actualy mean it as it is very detailed unlike mine.