NIDZUMI+

Developer of Call of Duty 3, Treyarch have had tough time in the last couple of years. Call of Duty 3 wasn’t a particularly bad game but it it didn’t come close to Infinity Ward’s effort in the original two games. Now Treyarch have a brilliant chance to re-coup some reputation by having better tools with the CoD 4 engine and longer time to work on the game. Unfortunately there is something about World At War that feels slightly off.

World At War is another World War 2 game that this time, mainly takes place in the Pacific Theatre. You’ll play a part pushing back the Japanese back to a final battle at Shuri Castle. This side of the story is interesting after key people get killed and the fact that your Sergeant is voiced by Kiefer Sutherland (24). Despite that the more engaging side is the story of Private Peterenko of the Red Russian Army. After a brilliant scene in which you are nearly dead you are soon introduced to Sergeant Reznov who teaches you how to snipe and guides you through the city of Stalingrad during the Nazi invasion. It’s a real shame that the story then jumps forward a few years to you invading Russia although nothing is really mentioned you feel like your missing out on some of the story.

The story mode is pretty solid albeit relentless and although it does feature a few sniper missions they fail in comparison to the one featured in last years rendition. You can play the full story out in co-op but again you feel like your missing out as opposed to singleplayer. World At War also has a weird way of splitting the screen, instead of a straight vertical spilt they have what can only be described as two boxes jauntily put next to each other. It results in you not really seeing what’s going on. Also the scripted events that happen to your character feel awkward and happen to both players at the same time. Co-Op is a good addition to the game but don’t expect you to be engrossed in the story through this mode.

Call of Duty has always had a great variation of weapons of offer and World At War isn’t different. You have your standard rifles, machine-guns, heavy machine-guns and so on and so forth but this time you can unleash seemingly this years favourite weapon the flamethrower. It might be slightly over-powered but it’s surprisingly good fun to set alight to everything. Everything from trees to bushes will set alight the way you would expect. You can really let your inner-pyro out.

The fire effects also look very nice when your shooting fire but not so much when foes are alight. Meanwhile the game graphically holds up well. The reflection of the moon on the water is stunning along with the water itself. Explosions looks especially nice and the game does a good job of a few scripted events that on first viewing look brilliant. Although your slightly taken out of it when the same tower falls over and over again in the exact same way. The presentation is similar to MW but the loading screens also look a lot better with some interesting typography and video effects.

The game also features the same solid online portion that you played last year. A few new modes are tweaked or added but it’s pretty similar to last years and that’s actually good. Although it’s always nice to see developers try new things, last years multiplayer was so good that Treyarch have deployed a ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ ethos. Well almost, at times the extra player limits seem a bit overbearing and the levels with tanks aren’t particularly fun unless your in the tank. Otherwise the maps are brilliantly designed as usual and matchmaking is quick and painless. The only thing bringing it down is the less dynamic guns of the era.

To be honest that’s the only way you can describe the game. The story is good, the graphics are smart and the multiplayer is as solid as ever but the setting lets it down. World War 2 has been done to death and the reason why last years Modern Warfare was so well received was because it was exactly that, Modern. Although what you have here is one of the best World War 2 First Person Shooters you can only help but feel that you’ve been there and done that.

Otherwise World At War is a competent game that does a decent enough job of what it set out to achieve. The combat is decent, the story is good if a bit disjointed at times and the multiplayer is slightly flawed but otherwise brilliant. The only real thing that is stopping the game from really excelling is the fact that the setting was tiresome a couple of years ago. So now the game comes off as feeling dated and seen before. If you don’t mind the unoriginal setting then by all means you should pick this up but otherwise you might be better off sticking to Modern Warfare.