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.

{pagebreak}

The American campaign is quite unique in its sense, as the Japanese forces are using unorthodox methods to win every battle. From snipers located in the trees, to camo troops that provoke ambushes and melee attacks, the whole scenario changes the normal ways of completing a battle. You have to pay attention most of the time, and be prepared to use the melee attack if some Japanese soldier jumps on your back. As I already mentioned the Russian campaign recalls the original feeling of former Call of Duty games, as it progresses through the ruins of Stalingrad and Berlin. With some exceptions, most of the time you will be part of a squad group, so you have to learn the A.I. behavior and its methods of fighting. Like Modern Warfare, the A.I. of the squad members makes sense most of time by its decisions, and if you play on high difficulty levels you need to use them in order to take cover or to provide covering fire.

Mr Miller and Mr Dimitri have their own commanders, old veterans, who will guide them most of the game. Their profile, this time, is much more believable due to the voice acting provided by Kiefer Sutherland for Corporal Roebuck and Gary Oldman for Sergeant Reznov. With the experience provided by Infinity Ward and by hiring some movie experts, the storyline and the cinematic scenes conduct again to a very dramatic experience and with the allowance of 'Mature' rating even more realistic. But something is missing in this equation, and again my mind is flying to Modern Warfare and its spectacular story with twists and turns and the Chernobil sniping mission. I feel that there was much more emotion involved in the story and gameplay. Of course World at War comes with a third playable character that brings diversity to the whole story, through its new point of view. In the 'Black Cats' mission you will play as Petty Officer Locke, a weapon operator on a Catalina airplane. You will take action in a night raid upon the Japanese merchant fleet and later rescue the survivors from a destroyed U.S. fleet.

The second change would the addition of co-op mode for the first time in Call of Duty series. If you want to play the singleplayer missions with a friend you can do this. The mode supports 2 players playing offline and up to 4 while playing the same mode online. Most of the missions being squad based missions, the introduction of this mode was mandatory. While in Modern Warfare after the credits you could play a bonus mission, this time Treyarch made us even a bigger surprise. If you complete the singleplayer campaign, you will unlock a secret mode called Nacht Der Untoten (Night of the Undead)", in which you have to defend yourself from waves of undead Nazi soldiers. The mode can be played in singleplayer, co-op mode (both offline or online) with up to 4 players. For each kill you earn points that can be used in purchasing new weapons and fortifications to further increase your defending power. The multiplayer mode is based on the same mechanics previously introduced in Modern Warfare with achievements, weapons upgrades and perks to be added as you progress through the matches and increase your rank. For a more detailed coverage please refer to this article.

The third change is a minor addition, that works like a twist in the extremely scripted world of Call of Duty. For the first time Treyarch introduced a more open-ended gameplay because of the multiple ways of completing an objective. And this could be done thanks to the large scale maps considerately bigger than the ones from previous installments. Although it sounds interesting, not every mission will include multiple ways of completion, and those who have, offer two or three elementary decisions: either take the left or the right flank.

The fourth change and the last one is the returning of the flame thrower from Call of Duty 3. As the graphical engine is a tweaked version from the one used in Modern Warfare, Treyarch could implement the so trendy 'fire propagation' effect that allowed a more logical use of the flame thrower. Present only in mission featuring trenches' battles, the flame thrower becomes extremely effective in clearing all the dugouts.

Conclusion

Call of Duty World at War brings all the good features from Modern Warfare relocated in the WWII events. This game it's probably the best WWII experience but it's still just a clone of the previous one. I was hoping for a different approach that could make the game to be a truly sequel, but this is not the case.

{pagebreak}

Gameplay: 88

Playing a Call of Duty game is always a pleasure, and World at War makes no exception. But being the fifth installment in the series you expect to bring something new. Instead the developers decided to copy the mechanics and dynamics of the previous one and to use an improved version the of the Call of Duty graphical engine. Using such a developing scheme lowers the financial risks but brings nothing new in front of the players. Anyway the community will be pleased to head back in WWII historical battles, guided by powerful characters, each with a good story behind him and performed by two Hollywood actors Gary Oldman and Kiefer Sutherland.

Graphics: 87

Although the graphical engine has been improved since Modern Warfare, by comparing the screenshots made back then, I still think that the previous one looks much better. On the other hand the environmental design seems more thematic especially in the American campaign where the Pacific Islands and the Japanese territories are remarkable recreated with different relief changes, from dense jungle to sea shores, or fields scattered with trenches. From a first look you can easily observe the improvements made for the dynamic lighting effects and the use of motion capture for most of the characters. In Russian campaign the textures look sometimes quite cheap reminding the quality graphics of the first two installments of the series.

Multiplayer: 94

This is where the Call of Duty series have always shined. And World at War proves that the developers still hold the key of success. Based on the so popular Modern Warfare achievements system , the multiplayer mode delivers the same experience. But because it is so well done, you cannot cry for a new one. You can easily consider the multiplayer mode as a different game with different mechanics. It's not just killing the other opponent, but it's also about prestige based on a well balanced ranking system which is extremely awarding by unlocking upgrades and new weapons.

Sound: 89

The game tends to be much more 'noisy', not only because of the high-end sound effects but also because of the speech used that tends from time to time to become quite trivial. But I'm not looking for any excuses, as I imagine that no soldier was a very polite person, back in those days, and instead of being offended of the mature language, you will become more attached to your virtual comrades.

Hardware: 90

Every Call of Duty game provided us with a good balance between good graphics and hardware requirements. Taking in consideration the large scale maps and motions involved in each battle scene, the game runs surprisingly smooth, especially in multiplayer matches.