I had a bit of an FPS frenzy recently, release dates and payday conspired against me, as did a deal at Asda, and I got hold of Bioshock, Resistance 2, and Call of Duty: World at War, within three weeks, and now I've completed all three, giving me a lot of comparisons to look at.

To be honest CoD:WaW plays very much like CoD:4, not a bad thing considering how good that was. Control is tight, the guns feel balanced, the whole package runs very smoothly, and Treyarch haven't messed anything up. Is that a compliment? I don't really know.

The differentiation factor then, is setting, with CoD:WaW returning to WW2, which many people worried was a step backward. It could have easily been the case, instead Treyarch succeeded in creating a game that breaths a certain amount of fresh life into the setting, without really threatening to wrench away CoD:4's crown.

First up the game looks good, not really stunning or different, but barring a couple of jagged textures on some of the plant life, I have no complaints. I’m not really a technical guy so my knowledge of framerates isn’t brilliant, but I never noticed any slowdown, and only vaguely spotted pop in on a few occasions.

The Single player is divided between the Pacific Front, and the Eastern Front, of all the levels only Stalingrad felt like I had seen it before, but the missions in which you play as the US Marines were certainly the better for taking place in a more unused locale. Although the experience of battling respawning enemies until you reach a checkpoint and spectacular set-pieces is similar to the set up in CoD:4, (including a gunship style level). This comes with all the benefits of CoD:4 and some of the weaker points. For instance, you've heard of the red army right? That tide of flesh that poured out from the Motherland and drowned Germany by sheer weight of numbers? Well in WaW that massive force seems to never consist of more than 10 men, and it leaves everything up to you. They will resolutely hide behind furniture or back down the street until you have moved forward and cleared the way for them. To be honest though there are only a few moments when level design makes this a major issue, when it does happen you'll be drawing the full attention of all your enemies until you can trigger the advance of your men. Playing through the campaign there is no doubt that this is still a lot of fun, and with the addition of sections involving the flamethrower and a level in Control of a Tank, there is enough here to make the single player campaign a weighty beast.

The presentation is also top notch, mission briefings/loading screens seem to have a history channel feel to them, with perhaps a dash of action movie bravado.
The voice acting of Gary Oldman and Keifer Sutherland also add a lot to the personality of the game, as both actors seem to have put effort into their scripts, it should be noted though, that even with these actors on board, the game did not have as many dramatic moments as CoD:4.

At some moments World at War was a darker grittier game than I had expected, the new damage engine that has been added in creates some horrific war wounds on allies and enemies alike, but there certainly wasn’t the same OMFGBBQ moment, as when you crawl out of the chopper into the glare of an atomic explosion in Modern Warfare. I think in part it’s we’ve been desensitized to WW2, we get a hell of a lot of conflicting images of WW2, from tacky heroic action films and games to serious and sombre pieces of work and even onto documentaries. Everyone knows that people died in WW2, and it's the norm in WW2 games to kill of at least some of your squad mates. In CoD:4 you didn’t know how it was going to end up, and you certainly didn't expect a player character to die. One piece of advice to games writers is to watch Dr. Strangelove and learn that sometimes dead buddies don't have as much impact as a little black humour.

Now onto multiplayer, once again it’s not a revolution, but it’s got the same excellent pace and balance, even more perks to pick up, and it’s got tanks. These new changes don’t affect much, but it’s nice to see them there, and they add variation. In reality Treyarch didn’t have much to do here in order to make a passable online experience, the little changes they did make, such as changes the attack helicopter out for a pack of dogs, work well and help mould the feel of the game. I think what has been done makes WaW different enough from and yet similar enough to Cod:4 to be worth sacrificing many, many hours to.

Finally WaW has something special hidden away until you've beaten the single player campaign. Zombies. Everyone has now heard about it, but for me, it's a deal maker, I love zombies, if you don't maybe you won't enjoy this mini game so much. Anyway the bonus level sees you alone, or with a friend on split screen, or with up to three additional friends online, taking on wave after wave of the living dead, as you attempt to hole up in some sort of bunker/house. The more zombies you kill the more rooms you can unlock and the more powerful weapons you can wield, it's fun addictive and it can be done in short internet free bursts. An excellent addition to an already great game.