Reviews of Call of Duty: World at War

A Great "CoD" Addition.

Posted : 12 months ago on 23 December 2008 11:09 (A review of Call of Duty: World at War)

If you liked Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, then you will surely love this game. I won't lie, it is basically the same just set in a different era. There is still that fast paced "arcade" style feeling to it, which is what everyone seems to enjoy. That was my only problem with "Call Of Duty 4" (I used to not be able to keep up, and would constantly get killed)

I was positively surprised with the increase of challenges and unlockables. CoD 4 had a lot, but this one added a pistol marksman challenge, and several other challenges. It's great fun. Not to mention there are now 65 available ranks, including the previous addition of Prestige mode.

If you asked me which was better between this and 4, I couldn't give you a solid answer. They are both pretty amazing first person shooters. I recommend buying CoD: World At War.



1 comments, Reply to this entry

COD:WORLD AT WAR

Posted : 1 year ago on 5 December 2008 07:16 (A review of Call of Duty: World at War)

CALL OF DUTY IS JUST SO COOL BECAUSE IT HAS BETTER GUNS,GRAPHICS,LEVELS, AND IT GO'S FROM EVERYTHING COMING OFF TO REAL LIFE ACTION.MAINLY JUST A HARDCORE GAME THAT YOU WOULD EVER HAVE.ZOMBIE LEVEL THE BEST UNLOCKED LEVEL EVER!
YOUR IN A HOUSE WITH YOUR FREINDS ALL ALONE TRYING TO STOP AN ARMY OF THE DEAD.
NON-STOP ZOMBIES,LEVEL OF ZOMBIE DOGS, AND JAGGURNAUT ZOMBIES.
ALL OF THIS WITH SOME ONLINE HARDCORE ACTION.
FROM TEAMDEATHMATCH TO HARDCORE TEMDEATHMATCH CALL OF DUTY WORLD AT WAR HAS EVERYTHING.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 1 year, 1 month ago on 12 November 2008 06:52 (A review of Call of Duty: World at War)

There will be two types of people looking over the box for Activision's latest entry in the never-ending "Call of Duty" franchise; those who believed Treyarch could make an outstanding WWII shooter without the involvement of Infinity Ward and those who will play it and never admit to themselves or anyone else just how crucial an experience it is even without IW’s non-involvement.

"World at War" is quite similar to "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" in many respects, but where it sets itself apart from the previous games in the series is how distinctively gritty it is. From its intense, grisly action set pieces to its esoteric soundtrack, this is Treyarch's game all the way and what it does steal from IW's previous game it does justice to, but Treyarch have done so much more with the formula - including expanding on its action and expounding on its drama - that the essential elements for any "CoD" game may remain, though that is all that has been left intact.

First and foremost, Treyarch had said from the very beginning that they wanted this to be a truly dark experience. "Modern Warfare" brought the series its first "M" rating and didn't shy away from violence, but there are so many gruesome atrocities committed throughout "World at War's" 8-10 hour campaign that players will start to become numb to its violence after about the three hour mark. No longer do grenades simply blow your enemies back: if close enough, their explosive contents will send a mass of enemy ligaments flying and spread a pink bloody mist throughout the air. Heavy machine guns will pop off heads and rip off limbs, while flamethrowers will leave enemies charred and emitting smoke. Every bullet leaves entry and exit wounds on your foes complete with arterial spray and a smattering of red on the objects behind them. Bayoneting is graphic and damn near perverse as you watch your blade cut through Axis soldiers like a hot knife through butter.

War is Hell, and "World at War" portays that exquisitely. The in-game cinematics are executed with spectacular flair and the memorable characters are voiced superbly (the American's Sgt. Roebuck voiced by none other than Kiefer Sutherland, and the Russian's Sgt. Reznov brought to life by the inimitable Gary Oldman). The moments you may find yourself not pulling the trigger, though, are also some of the most essential as you get the chance to witness war's unadulterated chaos, rendered in all of its unsightly glory. "World at War" looks and feels like a big-budget war picture - replete with endless swarms of Allied and Axis troops (sometimes converging in the background of sequences), Banzai charges, countless explosions, and some surprising Hollywood-esque touches (which I won't give away here) - which adds to its unforgettable experience. Infinity Ward may have paved the way with "Modern Warfare's" game play and spectacular graphics technology, but Treyarch have taken a game that was a fairly generic shooter at its core and capitalized on its trio of technology, formula, and added element of increased on-screen violence.

Although I'm sure a lot of folks don't play video games strictly for the bloodshed, this is a series that was sorely lacking it. While always a rather violent series, Treyarch's inclusion of truly heinous torture, violence, and mutilation makes "World at War" feel much more realistic to the setting. Just as shocking to us as WWII was to those who witnessed its real-life atrocities first-hand; this is a game that pulls no punches. However, the gore is never overdone to the point of nausea, but having a "CoD" game that realistically depicts the carnage of war instead of the lighthearted fare that was the earlier "CoD" games - as well as many other WWII series' - is something I'm looking favorably towards.

As much as "World at War" is virtually no different than its predecessor(s), perhaps that was the smartest thing Treyarch could have done. They may have upgraded the game visually, changed the time period and locales, added better weapon balance, and also made this a far more harrowing and ultimately disturbing experience than any "CoD" title before it, but not much has REALLY changed between "World at War" and any of its predecessors. Sure, you are able to virtually wade through water with resultant slowdown, as well as take part in some fantastically immersive scenarios: one of them being a Russian sniping segment that is so steeped in atmosphere and tension that it puts "All Gillied Up" from "CoD 4" to shame. But, cosmetically, this is nearly the same game you played last year.

And as they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it. "Modern Warfare" is a brilliant piece of software and altering its core formula would result in disaster; at least only a year after its initial release. "World at War" plays the same, to be sure, but it feels so much more refined and, thankfully, just as intense as the game before it. Even if IW didn't develop, Treyarch have done a phenomenal job of including both a real, tangible atmosphere as well as keeping its action just as riveting and satisfying.

Visually-speaking "World at War" isn't a marked improvement over "Modern Warfare," nor does it look much different, but “Modern Warfare” is still one of the best looking games available on the Xbox 360, making this a no-brainer for "World at War's" visual quality. The character models look a bit better here, there is a marginally higher polygon count, and the locales are much more varied and intricate also. I loved the color palette Treyarch utilized throughout and their reliance on varying the style and tone of each level as much as possible. This has been the case with all of their games thus far, most notably with the recent "Quantum of Solace" VG adaptation. If anything, much of "World at War's" visuals are on par with "Modern Warfare's," but there is the rare occasion - through higher poly's and vibrant colors & varied maps - that it is a better looking game altogether. The flame effects are of note as well, and the gore is all-too-believable.

"World at War" won't be mind-blowing to those looking for a bigger and better version of "Modern Warfare;" it simply takes Infinity Ward's winning formula, throws it into a WWII setting, adds a great sense of drama and pace, and gores it up like crazy. If you can get past the overt violence and intense, gritty atmosphere, then this is undoubtedly one of the best "CoD" games in years. It is light-years ahead of Treyarch's last franchise effort, "Call of Duty 3," and I'd dare say it’s better than “Call of Duty 4” in some areas. All things considered, this is one of the finest WWII shooters ever made. If Treyarch aimed to completely redefine the subgenre then they have certainly succeeded. A must-play for fans of the series.

0 comments, Reply to this entry