Call of Duty: World at War Review

Written 04/09/2010

Note: This review is for the PC version of the game. Screenshot and video were taken from my machine.

Let me get this out of the way now, having played Modern Warfare 2 it's going to be difficult to not have some slight bias against this game. Plus, having only played the Infinity Ward entries of the Call of Duty franchise so far, I can't help but favor them over Treyarch. Don't get me wrong though, World at War is a very worthwhile entry to the franchise but...well...just read this review for the whole story!

Visuals and Presentation

Considering that World at War is made on the Call of Duty 4 engine, it already has a very solid foundation visually. Character and weapon models are solid, as are the textures. The animations are what you would expect from a Call of Duty title, with nice fluidity and believability. There are some pretty nice effects as well such as the water, dust clouds, and explosions. The environments are mostly well made and diversified. The lighting, while good, often felt flat in areas that some really interesting things could have been done.

The simple fact of it though, is if you're comparing Call of Duty 4 and World at War visually, Call of Duty 4 is still the superior looking game; even with it being a year older. It just didn't seem like Treyarch tapped into hardly half of the engine's real potential, which is a shame. On the design side, some pretty interesting things were done at some points, then other areas felt empty and lifeless. For example, the areas where you're required to clear out a trench of Japanese infantry and destroy anti-aircraft emplacements are great! They are well planned out, flow well, and are generally a lot of fun. Then you have an area where you drive a tank, and while it is a good experience, the constant dust clouds that take away all of your visibility for up to 5 seconds at a time along with some areas of the level that are completely barren really take away some of the enjoyment of it. Overall, the visuals are mostly solid, but suffer from the occasional design flaw.

Visuals and Presentation Rating:

Sound

I've never had any complaints about a Call of Duty's sound, and World at War doesn't force me to start now. Everything from the gun sounds to the voice acting to the music to even the footsteps are superb! None of it is out of place in the least, and the game would truly suffer without it. The voice acting in particular shines above everything else with its well written dialog and voice talent. I didn't recognize any of the other voices right off, but I do know that Kiefer Sutherland (you know, the guy who plays Jack Bauer in 24) voices your commanding officer in the American sections of the game.

The music is also worth noting because it successfully mixes modern hard rock music and metal into a WWII game without making it feel strange in the least. It adds a lot to the overall feel of the game and effectively gets you in the right frame of mind for almost any situation. Not to mention everything sounds better than usual with surround sound.

Sound Rating:

Gameplay

This is a Call of Duty game, so it's pretty common knowledge what the gameplay is like. The single-player campaign is a fast and furious ride from one action sequence to the next until the credits roll. The multiplayer is a very balanced experience that's moderately easy to pick up and play and nearly impossible to truly master. The gametypes are somewhat limited, but are varied enough to satisfy whatever play style you likely are. There's your typical Free-for-All, Team-Deathmatch, and Capture-the-Flag. There's also different gametypes such as Search & Destroy, which is very similar to Counter-Strike where every player only has one life and one team must successfully plant a bomb in the proper zone and detonate it or kill every player on the opposing team to win. The other team must either kill every player on the opposing team or disarm the bombs  planted before they detonate to win.

Unfortunately though, it's in gameplay that World at War shows it is not an Infinity Ward title. The single-player campaign, while enjoyable, doesn't have the same impact and flow as Call of Duty 4. The AI is also MUCH poorer than in Call of Duty 4. On countless occasions the enemy would simply stand out in the open looking right at me with his gun raised but never shooting, allowing me time to either line up a headshot or even walk right up to him and melee him to death. I also had some difficulty connecting to a multiplayer server without PunkBuster kicking me for apparently cheating. To the game's credit though, that issue was something involving Steam, and was easily fixed.

Even though those issues were everywhere in the game, it isn't without its saving graces. The main one of these is Nazi Zombies; an incredibly fun and challenging game mode that you can play solo or with up to 3 friends. You must finish the single-player campaign to unlock this mode, but it's well worth it. It's basically a base defense game where you must hold back ever-encroaching waves of Nazi zombies until you die. I simply can't stress enough how fun this game mode is, especially if you're into tower defense games. The game's other saving grace is the ability to play the entire single-player campaign cooperatively with a friend. Overall, the gameplay, like the visuals, is mostly solid with a few design flaws here and there.

Gameplay Rating:

Story

Just as in all of the Call of Duty games before it, possibly excluding Call of Duty 4, the story in World at War makes absolutely no sense. This is a WWII game that, unlike nearly every other WWII game in existence, looks at the less popular battles of the war. This is a good thing because quite honestly, I'm sure many people are tired of storming Normandy by now. The game follows an American and a Russian soldier as they go about completing their missions to further win the war. To put it simply, when you're playing as the American soldier the game will focus all on gameplay and hardly none on story. When you're playing as the Russian soldier, you'll still get some great gameplay, but with a pretty decent revenge story. Basically if you're considering buying World at War for its story and nothing else, don't! Play it for the multiplayer instead.

Story Rating:

Replay Value

Considering that World at War is a multiplayer game at heart, the replay value here is exceptional! Also considering that this is made on the Call of Duty 4 engine, you're guaranteed to have all the bells and whistles that were present there such as the ability to create your own weapon loadouts and perks. Nazi Zombies is also an incredible reason to keep playing, it's just that fun. Not to mention there is still a decently active online community for the game today. Basically, you just can't go wrong with a Call of Duty game as far as replay value goes.

Replay Value Rating:

Final Thoughts and Overall Score

Overall, while World at War is a very worthwhile addition to the Call of Duty franchise, I think that Treyarch does not fully understand what makes the series so great at its core, and thus cannot emulate themselves. If you see World at War in a half-off sale someplace, it's definitely worth a go. If you have to pay full price though, get an Infinity Ward Call of Duty instead. World at War is available for PC (system requirements below), PS3, and 360.

Call of Duty: World at War Overall Score:

Minimum System Requirements

Supported OS: Windows XP/Vista

Processor: Pentium 4 @ 3 GHz/AMD 64 3200+

Memory: 512 MB (1 GB for Vista)

Hard Drive: 8 GB Free

DirectX version: DirectX 9.0c

Sound: on-board or better

Graphics Card: 256 MB (nVidia GeForce 6600/ATI Radeon X1600)