One year ago Infinity Ward released the fourth installment of the Call of Duty series giving a new war experience for all the fans by bringing the events into present day. The game made its debut on all the major consoles and PC, offering a cinematic experience like never before. With a powerful and catchy multiplayer mode, the game was voted by many critics as the game of the year. Even now, after one year the game is one of the most played games on XBOX Live. Treyarch were the ones to continue the series baring a hard legacy by creating a game that has to be at least as good as its predecessor. They thought that probably by changing the timeline of the story and placing the events again in WWII, more precisely at the end of it, would receive the support of the fans (many of them still longing for the WWII atmosphere so popular in the first three installments). But Modern Warfare was so good that it actually surpassed expectations of many. So this change was not enough. In such cases the only solution used by many big development companies is to follow the successful receipt of its predecessor without changing anything in the games structure and dynamics, but using bigger budgets in advertising. The good thing is that Call of Duty receipt is so good that by changing almost anything is a big mistake. So if it works, why bother. Just exploit the franchise at the maximum.

I give up the sarcastic tone of the upper lines, and I will tell your from the beginning that by World at War is by far from being a bad game. The only problem is that it doesn't bring many new features and from a look you can consider it as a standalone add-on not as a new episode in the Call of Duty saga. But on the other hand, as a Call o Duty fan, you have two products released at a short period of time, one that is already popular and achieved all its glory, and another one that brings back the force and drama of the WWII historical battles. Both will heat the Activision's servers for many years.

Such a product is a blessing for any games editor as it doesn't provide many new features to be commented, so I will try to focus the article more on the changes it brings.

The first change is a major one and from my point of view the biggest: the story is focused on the events of World War II in the Pacific and Eastern Europe. You play again from two perspectives, one represented by the events lived through the eyes of a Marine Raider and the other one through the eyes of a Red Army soldier. Of course the major battles in the game are based on historical battles such as Makin Island raid (present in the opening mission), the Battle of Peleliu, or the Battle of Berlin.

You start the game as Private Miller of the Marine Corps who is held prisoner in a Japanese camp in the Pacific. You will witness an execution of one of your comrades, through a couple of brutal but believable cinematic scenes (so popular in Call of Duty series). Also the presence of blood and 'dirty' words reveals a more mature approach than previous installments making the whole experience much more authentic and powerful. You will be rescued by a commando squad whom you'll have to help in order to get out of Makin Island. While the American campaign continues with the Battle of Peleliu, the Russian one begins in Stalingrad. You will play as Private Dimitri Petrenko, whose unit was executed by the German forces. Tired and defeated, you crawl through dead bodies in order to get out from a bloody fountain. In this place you will meet Sergeant Reznov who will provide you infos and a weapon to escape the situation. As you progress through the ruins of Stalingrad you will snipe General Amsel as revenge against the German forces.