It seems that game developers just can’t get over World War II. But “Call of Duty: World at War” has distinguished itself from others, essentially diversifying the fast-paced, first-person shooter genre that its predecessor, “Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare,” had introduced just last fall. A new torrent of flags, uniforms and war cries are new to the title, along with — oh, didn’t I mention? — man’s best friend. Apparently helicopters, airstrikes and artillery shells weren’t enough for TreyArch, the title’s new developer, since dogs, yes, man’s best friend, can be called upon to come over the fences and gnaw players into yet another frustration-filled re-spawn.
“World at War” has most noticeably redrawn the seemingly perfect war zone environment that “Modern Warfare” had introduced. The boisterous scenery has evolved from the common “burning car here, crumbling building there” approach and has rather added sprightly aspects to the environment such as glowing embers and picturesque flower petals floating across the battlefield. Players will inevitably be dumbfounded by the amount of detail put into the textures and scenery, stopping to gasp while unknowingly being monitored by distant enemies wondering why noobs pay so much attention to graphics.
Gamers who are looking for an entire paradigm shift in the way first-person shooters are played will be disappointed in seeing the title hasn’t really stepped up from its predecessors. Despite this fact, it is hard to argue that much change could be made without damaging the already immersive dynamics of the previous titles. Having played “Modern Warfare” just minutes before cracking “World at War” open, it seemed as though the contrast of the television was the only noticeable difference. The interface, the game-types (with the exception of a few new options) and the feel of the game seemed eerily close. Weapons seem to be the only significant change. As if to make sure gamers felt spoiled by the glorious advances in weaponry seen in “Modern Warfare,” the developers present a line-up of rifles far from high-tech. Primitive in the way they aim, shoot and blow up enemies, the arsenal of point-and-click weaponry creates the only new hard edge to the gameplay, making it harder to clinch the dog tags of fallen enemies.
The nuances previously mentioned accompany a new and incredibly refreshing campaign mode that takes players from Nazi Germany to the isles of Japan. The campaign sets the tone for the game, letting players rattle through a jittery banana clip and man tanks, a previously un-operational vehicle. Once again, the “Call of Duty” campaign introduces a surprisingly intimate brush with enemy forces while offering both a diverse and interactive view of wartime conflict. A new addition to the campaign allows up to four players, regardless of location, to link up on Xbox Live or PlayStation Network to take the bad guys down together.
One of the biggest setbacks of the title is that it seems to be uprooting a dead genre that never seems fully buried. World War II gaming was great when it was introduced in the first “Call of Duty: Finest Hour,” replayed in “Call of Duty 2” and then once again in “Call of Duty 3.” Aside from the graphics, the gore and the Cerberus-like bloodhounds, it’s hard to feel moved by something that has been reiterated so many times in the gaming culture.
Aside from the dazzling graphics, newly cooperative campaign mode and intriguingly primitive weapons, “Call of Duty: World at War” fails to breathe anything more than a puff of fresh air into the lungs of the respectable line of war games. Despite this setback, “World at War” still allows for countless hours of replay as players can still peer through the scope of the most polished World War II game to date.
3 stars out of 5
