Call of Duty World at War

The decision by Treyarch to take Call of Duty back to World War II is redeemed by two factors - The Japanese and Russian storyline of the main campaign and the fact that we don't ever want to see the day when people complain "Oh god, not another modern day shooter!"

The second point explains itself, but the first is a defining factor in what makes Call of Duty World at War a good WWII game - it makes WAW a good game overall. The multi-threaded storyline the COD series is famous for takes an interesting path with WAW, by putting the player in the shoes of an US marine during the Pacific Theater - as well as placing them in the somewhat familiar but satisfyingly different Russian offensive into Germany.

The two campaigns compliment each other well as they give the game the right pacing - it seems weird to type this, but the Russian missions as you march on Germany are like a breather between the intense violence in the Pacific. The Japanese constantly ambush you and rush you as the marine character, using the environment as their weapon as much as they do their other pointy and explosive objects. Your time as a Russian soldier is much more relaxed by comparison - though this might be more to do with familiarity than design.

Still, this doesn't mean the entire game isn't violent - there's just something about flamethrowers that seems that much more violent though. Flamethrowers and fire are a huge part of Call of Duty World at War, and they really highlight the amount of effort that's gone into creating an atmosphere of war - the graphics and sound effects are fantastic throughout the game, but none more so then when something catches alight. The voice acting all-round is superb but there's something especially cool about hearing Norman Stansfield and Jack Bauer screaming orders in their roles.



It's fortunate then that the single player experience is so good, because the real thing I was initially interested in about CODWAW isn't unlocked until after you've finished that campaign - the Nazi Zombie mode. One of the better trends we're seeing in games of late is return to good old fashioned storyless wave after wave of enemy gaming - even if it is only an extra mode thrown in. While finding someone to play coop with us through the storyline was tough we didn't have any issues getting a group together to kill undead Nazis, and the stand and defend style of gameplay is pure unadulterated fun. We honestly can't work out why it isn't available from the get go.

You won't have any issues getting people playing the other multiplayer modes either. I don't think Call of Duty World at War maintains the same feel as Call of Duty 4 - maps aren't well balanced and the difference in power between low level guns and higher level guns makes starting out a bit of a chore. Still, the perks system is still a great way to let you tailor your character to exactly how you want to play and once you unlock the trench gun things get a little easier.

Call of Duty World at War is the same but different to last years Game of the Year Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare. While it brings some great new features to the series and what Treyarch has done with the engine is phenomenal, we do feel that it doesn't have quite the same level of polish as COD4. The singleplayer storyline is fantastic, and we sincerely hope coop stays around but we think perhaps a little more work could have gone into making the multiplayer all it could be.

Overall Call of Duty World at War is a great game with some great ideas, but it feels too familiar to be a real must have title. If World War II FPS are your bag you'll have a tough time finding a better game - if you're neither here nor there on the genre give the demo a go first.