The Call of Duty series has always been a depth defining series that has brought epic battles to a new scale. Unfortunately, we were stuck in a time trap and couldn’t seem to get out of World War II. Finally, Activision and Infinity Ward said enough is enough and delivered, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. With the big change, sales skyrocketed and the new engine was a huge success and will no doubt be used by other developer’s ala Unreal Engine 3. With Call of Duty: World at War we are once again visiting the troubled world of the 1940s only this time placing ourselves in the end of the war. Does World at War have the same flame as Modern Warfare, or is it a bullet that never fires?

The Keifer Sutherlands vs. The Gary Oldmans

World War 2 has all but come to a close, the Germans have a few strongholds left and the Japanese are pushing for their own purposes. This is where World at War starts off placing you in the feet of two campaigns in these two different fronts. You start first in the Pacific as Marine Pvt. Miller and the second in the Russian motherland as Pvt. Dmitri Pettrenko. The series brings back the classic way of storytelling through World War 2 file footage with added narration to introduce each chapter. The epic cut-scenes that have always shined through the past games in the series have much less of an emotional impact considering World War 2 has been run dry to death already.

The campaigns themselves are passable for the most part, each providing their own set of challenges. Your campaign with Pvt. Miller sees you against the raids of the Japanese army. The weaponry is unfortunately limited to that of the time period so don’t expect the full arsenal that you saw in Modern Warfare. The new addition is the flame thrower, which is used in both campaigns and is pretty much a one shot kill kind of deal just with putting the flame on tons of enemies. You never know what to expect with the Japanese. Even on normal difficulty, it can be hard to complete each objective, especially if you’re ambushed. The Japanese can easily run at you with their bayonets and you have to act quickly or it’s all over.

One of the bigger issues I’ve found is with the enemy AI, something that has always plagued first-person shooters. At times I’ve seen two enemy soldiers shooting next to each only to see nothing happen to them. A Japanese infantryman will run up to his enemy and just stand there shooting without killing anyone. I wouldn’t say that there is brain-dead AI as it’s only a few sequences here and there. I’d like to thank Treyarch for their efforts in the AI department. For once, they aren’t all shooting at me when I’m crossing the trenches. You’re teammates help but also have their moments of brain-dead during heavy firefights. Other issues stem from the campaign being extremely linear, which has you following strict paths in order for specific events to play out.

The campaigns are short and brief but provide enough firefights that its intensity level keeps you stressed and in the game as much as possible. Every level is violently detailed and the production values of the game make it look like the sequel to Saving Private Ryan. The battles are intense to the point where you’re scrambling for cover and trying not to get knifed by that Japanese soldier over there or sniped. The Japanese hide in trees for sniping in the forest, and cover themselves in camouflage for ambushes.  The Nazi soldiers throw their dogs at you so when you hear barking, make sure you’re ready for retaliation. The combat is in your face and you better hope your reaction time is up to snuff.

To keep the replayability of the title alive and well, a first for the series is split-screen 4 player co-op whether locally through system link or Xbox Live. Players are given challenges to compete with each player and a point score is spread as if you’re playing in a normal multiplayer match. It’s easier to keep track of your squad this way and you don’t feel completely isolated when huge firefights ensue. If one of you goes down you have about 30 seconds to revive one another before you lose the mission and have to start from the last checkpoint. Another addition is the multiplayer engine that was brought over from Modern Warfare and given a few tweaks to earn its WWII status.

Tanks are available for use in multiplayer though not quite as defined as Halo 3’s use of them. The occasional use of an airstrike or dog attack given your streak kill count is also available. The multiplayer has an uncanny resemblance to Modern Warfare. The multiplayer is again fairly balanced and the ranking system is one of the best of its kind and probably the easiest to get the most satisfaction out of. Challenges are offered to keep players interested. The game modes like Free-for-all and Capture the Flag return with Search and Destroy and Domination added to the mix.

Sound

Turn up the volume and you’ll be hearing every bullet fly past your head. You feel the explosions rocketing around you. I didn’t realize this until halfway through the campaign but Keifer Sutherland and Gary Oldman seem to have provided the voice acting narration in between chapter breaks. Pvt. Miller ends up feeling like Jack Baur with a flamethrower, kind of an amazing mix, don’t you think? So, you can feel like you’re in 24 but in a 1940s setting. The voice acting is ok for the most part outside of the two star narrators. However, things become shaky here and there when trying to figure out who is saying what if you’re in a heavy firefight listening for your next objective.

Graphics

The cut-scenes really shine through as everything is well polished. There don’t seem to be many texture pop ins as you might’ve seen in past Xbox 360 titles. Battlefields are well detailed and you feel like you’re in hell, because as the saying goes “War is Hell”. Despite the obvious scripted moments of the game, it doesn’t lose its overall feel and direction. The World War 2 file footage shown in between levels does get quite a bit boring after a while mostly because we’ve seen it all before. Yes, we’re in a different location, but sometimes it just isn’t necessary to prove a point we already know. The maps that showed the advances of the Axis armies were an interesting idea that would’ve been fine without the file footage.

Plasma Factor

The one draw that will more than likely keep players hanging around for a month or two after release is the multiplayer and 4 player Co-Op. This also goes hand-in-hand with the Zombie multiplayer. The 4 player co-op should be included in every up coming release of this caliber. World at World really benefits from having three other friends battling it out and helping each other out during major firefights and vanquishing the Nazi army.

The multiplayer, as I mentioned before, is a straight cross-over from Modern Warfare that has its own tweaks given to the time period. The ranking system is one of the best of its kind and should be enough to satisfy gamers looking to level up as the days move on. Hopefully Treyarch sees this advantage and develops the obligatory downloadable content with new maps and vehicles. The zombie multiplayer was a nice surprise and has your trapped soldiers in the middle of an onslaught of Nazi zombies fighting for survival. It’s a little hectic to keep all those doors and windows boarded up before the onslaught continues.

Conclusion 

World at War, despite being brought back in time to World War 2 again, is a nice twist to the norm. We’ve seen countless countries and battlefields throughout our campaigns, but I believe this hopefully strikes an end to the World War 2 onslaught from developers. Modern Warfare from Infinity Ward showed that you can make a successful war game in the modern world given the right formula. We can only hope and dream of what Infinity Ward has under its sleeve. Here’s hoping we get an announcement sometime within the next few months. Call of Duty: World at War is a decent title that should be given a look or rent before purchase. The World War 2 formula will not doubt put off a few gamers.