Call of Duty returns to its roots in the next main iteration of the series with one of the marquee locations being something new for the CoD series: The Pacific Theater. With this comes a more gory, ruthless adventure that hardly slows down in the action. However, since all who have played previous CoD's are used to that already, one must wonder what WaW does to branch itself away from the rest.
In this campaign, you play through the eyes of 3 characters: Pvt. Miller, Pvt. Petrenko, and Petty Officer Locke (for one mission). The campaign expands through a couple of highlighted battles in the Pacific, Russia, and Germany. With these come some pretty big battles that are well known throughout history. While these battles may be enjoyable to see again, there's a yearning for its story to play out differently then that CoD4's.
Unsuprisingly, WaW's (World at War's) engine is again up there with the elite console games (argueably the best looking console FPS). The landscape is larger, textures seem smoother, and everything just looks like an expected notch higher than CoD4; not to say it is without flaws though. It's eye candy is most noticeable in the foilage you see throughout the Pacific Theater. What's even more worth noting than the gfx is the music score. From the up-beat moments of victory to the somber moments of tragedy around you, WaW's able to evoke feelings in an unexpected way.
Gameplay of WaW is not going to show a heap of variety compared to that of Treyarch's Call of Duty 3. While you are offered new weapons such as: bayonets and flamethrowers; you're never really given much else that you haven't seen in WaW's predecessor. Certain SP faults are still here that would've been nice to address. On top of respawning enemies, you're also given an unfair and unbalanced incline when playing it on higher difficulties. Certain give and takes seem to be more silly, which become more prominent towards the end of the game. Sure the Germans/Japenese toss grenades like candy, but why must they sometimes run by me unphased? It becomes fairly convincing towards a certain point that you may be inclined to believe the enemy/friendly AI is worse in WaW than it was in Modern Warfare.
Certainly one comendable feat for WaW is the huge revamp in value. There's many things to do locally and online in this game: 2-4 co-op/ competitive co-op campaign (local or online), Nazi Zombies, and another robust online MP. The most of notable of these is Nazi Zombies, which you may have heard has a great following. The jist of Nazi Zombies is a round-based mode that rewards you with points for how many zombies you kill. With these points, you are then abliged to use the point for weapons, traps, or opening up new parts of the level. The idea is simple, but it's the execution(s) are what make it such a standout. Things really get going once you realized you're outnumbered twenty to one.
If someone said "You've played WaW online MP if you've CoD4's MP" they'd be telling the truth. Although, that shouldn't be considered an entirely bad thing because CoD4's mixture-esque style of perks hasn't been seen so often. Most of the challenges, gametypes, and perks are the same. Get the idea of it with WWII paint, change the 7-killstreak copter with a pack of rabid dogs, and throw in tanks for good measure to get your result of WaW's MP. In the end, you should expect a more balanced system but not the next evolution IN it.
Call of Duty WaW can be summed up in a few words. While it's fortunate that those few words will mostly come out as complements, it's still getting a label that the series wasn't known for beforehand: copied. It may have some great change in modes and other trivial things, but when it comes down to it the gameplay formula is virtually unchanged. Treyarch (devs) even re-used the AC-130 gunship in the WWII setting. While there's certainly some bad, the execution is still one of the best that has so many other FPS' using it as well. Overall, Call of Duty: World at War is another solid WWII experience I can recommend for FPS vets. WaW may not have that "it" factor to make it a must-try for all FPS players, but the game still offers a boatload of fun content.
coolbeans' *FresH* badge
Huzaifa from eXputer: "2008 was home to the likes of Call of Duty: World at War, Dead Space, GTA 4, Far Cry 2, Left 4 Dead, and many other hits, which is outright remarkable."
Just about every year in the 7th generation was great and something we most likely won't experience again.
2009 for example had Assassin's Creed 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dragon Age: Origins, Uncharted 2, Halo 3: ODST, Killzone 2, Borderlands, Bayonetta, and Demon's Souls to name a few.
A very devoted fan of Call of Duty: World at War racks up incredible in-game stats while playing regularly for the past 15 years.
Of course you will hit a ridiculous stat after 15 of anything.
My main character for Everquest had over 500 days played in the first 6 years of the game. I was young then and had a lot of time on my hands. I don’t think I could duplicate that again until I retire and not sure I could match it if I tried.
Gamespot : Call of Duty: Vanguard launches with 20 multiplayer maps, three of which are actually remakes from 2008's Call of Duty: World at War. Let's take a look at how the maps have changed with this side-by-side comparison.
Hope you guys/gals enjoyed the review :).
totally disagree. this is my favorite cod, zombies...!! and i actually loved the gameplay and backdrop.
9.5
9.5 for Graphics? o_O
Apart from this, good review...