Review: Call of Duty: World At War (360)

When rumours that the game would return to the roots of the series and be set during World War 2 were proved correct, that groan did become audible. Almost. With the Infinity Ward developed Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare proving to be by far and away the most successful title in the series, and arguably the finest FPS of the current generation, these decisions seem baffling. But, with Treyarch lifting both the single and multiplayer game engines from Modern Warfare and transplanting them into World at War, perhaps World at War can surpass the dizzy heights reached by its predecessor.

The first thing that strikes you about World of War is that it is easily the most bloody and visceral title in the series. From the unflinchingly brutal newsreel footage that bookends each level to the gruesome way that enemies can be dismembered by shrapnel and gun fire, this isn’t a title for the faint-hearted. As well as being the most brutal title in the series, World at War is also the best looking. From the lush jungles of the far-east to the battered and scarred streets of Berlin and the Reichstag itself, the visuals never disappoint. However, the same cannot be said about the frankly awful music. A great many of the levels are accompanied by dire, grinding heavy metal which is totally incongruous given the context of the game. What makes this worse is that there are some genuinely decent pieces of music fighting to make themselves heard amongst the dross.

The single player campaign flits between the Eastern Front in Europe and the Pacific Front in an attempt to offer a different angle to previous World War 2 games. The game is stuffed full of what Treyarch clearly hoped would be stand-out moments and set pieces. From fighting through Nazi occupied Stalingrad in order to assassinate a high ranking Nazi General, to assaulting a Japanese castle or manning the guns in a US sea-plane, World at War is always trying to engage and create a feeling of being part of something epic. Yet somehow, none of Treyarch’s efforts manage to hide the fact that World of War is still a very linear FPS at heart. The sea plane level is literally on rails and other levels never offer a choice of paths or a different way of tackling a set-piece. Worse still is that none of World at War’s big moments seem to be as memorable or standout as much as those in this title’s predecessor. Despite not having played through the single player campaign in Modern Warfare for some time, Gamestyle is sure that we could remember more about that game even immediately after finishing World at War.

And that really is World at War’s problem. It’s a huge ask to follow Modern Warfare and as admirable as the job Treyarch has done is, it just isn’t up to the standard of the last game, the inevitable yardstick by which World at War will be measured. Restoring the game to World War II hasn’t helped. World at War is indistinguishable from every other World War II shooter we’ve played. Changing the setting has altered the dynamic of the game and its relevance in today’s global climate.   

Also not helping World at War’s case is the stupid team A.I.  Teammates will often force you out from cover, block you in corners, have terrible aim, block your line of sight, or simply run in to the open only to be peppered with bullets. Oddly, the enemy A.I don’t have this problem and are generally cracking shots, who will inevitably go for you even when an aforementioned teammates are standing closer and out of cover. We don’t want the game to play itself, but decent team A.I. is a pre-requisite and no longer optional as Treyarch seem to think. Problems are also abound in Veteran difficulty. Veteran on Modern Warfare was challenging because of clever level design and well placed enemies. On World at War it’s challenging because you constantly spammed by grenades and avoiding them seems to be more down to luck than anything. Tackling the veteran campaign Gamestyle lost count of the number of times we could have thrown the pad through the TV in frustration.

The now compulsory online co-op mode makes its first appearance in a Call of Duty game. Sadly, it’s a stripped down version of the single player campaign and whilst shooting things with friends is always fun, it’s not going to be a much played addition. Of far more interest is Nacht der Untoten, a special co-op level unlocked when the game is completed. We don’t want to give away too much here, but it’s probably as much as fun as the rest of the game put together.

Online multiplayer is also a substantial feature of the package. Yet despite the engine being lifted wholesale from Modern Warfare, this is another aspect where World at War fails to match its predecessor. The maps are poorly designed, mostly being too large, enemies are too difficult to spot and the perks feel like a slightly worse version of those on offer in Modern Warfare. Doubtless, many people will, and already do, love what’s on offer, but for Gamestyle the overall balance of Modern Warfare online hasn’t been recaptured here. That said, searching for ‘locale only’ matches should be compulsory in all Xbox Live games, as you will be matched with players from your geographic region, largely eradicating the age-old enemy of online gaming, lag.

World at War is for the most part a competently made and solid game. Sadly, these two virtues are not enough to topple the masterpiece that was Modern Warfare. An entertaining diversion for FPS fans, but by no means an essential purchase.

Rating: 7 / 10

Words by Andy Lucas