When Call of Duty changed pace from World War II era games to the newer, modern setting, it was easy to think that they would switch gears and move forward with that. The huge success of the Modern Warfare franchise had seemingly confirmed that a good decision, and the series hasn't really gone back to the WWII since this game. With that in mind, it's easy to imagine World at War as a sort of epic finale of the WWII Call of Duty games. And quite frankly, it doesn't disappoint.
Since the Call of Duty is a money maker, they seem to be committed to putting one out every year. This seems a bit overkill, and it's easy to think that Treyarch's follow-up to the disappointing Call of Duty 3 was a let down compared to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, but the game actually does a pretty solid job with it's rather predictable narrative. One doesn't typically play a Call of Duty game for the story, but World at War does a nice job keeping it relatively grounded. It does this by actually making the war seem like hell. It's chaotic and brutal. There is blood and death. The soldiers (with the exception of Reznov) don't seem to have that weird "we're the best at warring!" mentality that permeates the rest of the franchise. The Americans are bitter at command for being so wrong about their opposition and they complain regularly about the lack of supplies. They also freak out at times and seem shaken by their comrades' deaths. This is a notable shift from previous games that had them constantly acting extremely confident in their war skills.
This shift in tone - making a war game fun, yet careful to make sure it's hellish attributes are clear (although still glorifying war) - is what makes World at War stand out. The level designs are a rather linear, as is typical of the franchise, but they do open up at times for a wider area that allows different tactical approaches. The weapon selection is a bit wider. They also include a few areas where mounted machine guns are accessible for use, or mortar shells are available to prime and throw like grenades. The Russians have molotov cocktails. The Americans use flamethrowers. The diversity here isn't ultimately great, but it's more than previous games.
The game moves pretty quickly too. It's broken into two campaigns: Russian and American. As Pvt. Miller, you go through a few key battles in the Pacific Theater - most notably Pelilieu and Okinawa. The Pacific campaign doesn't get a lot of attention, so it's kind of interesting to play in it. With Japanese soldiers popping out of spider holes or sniping from in the trees to bonzai charges and booby trapped bodies, it leaves you a little on edge. It creates an eerie feeling - that they can come out of anywhere - that really fits the campaign. It further brings to mind the real life horrors of that war and adds a unique dynamic to the franchise that otherwise is just run and gun with little thought to your surroundings.
The environments are pretty solid as well. You go back and forth between decimated Russia and Germany and then the lifeless rocky islands with palm trees in the Pacific. In Europe, you are constantly navigating a maze of destroyed buildings. In the Pacific, you often have to go into caves and mountains or jump into the subterranean tunnel network dug by the Japanese. What does hurt a little bit is how the time jumps around a bit too. Often when you finish an American mission in the Pacific, you switch over to the Eastern front happening around the same time. But when you go back to the Pacific theater, several years have gone by. It makes sense that they would want to show a few key battles through the war, but you never really get a good sense of the passage of time.
The Russian campaign (of which I'm still not sure why everyone wants to play as the Russians) has you playing as Pvt. Petrenko. First, you somehow avoid being mercilessly murdered during the German invasion of Stalingrad. It then leads you to a crazy chase sequence followed by yet another sniping battle. It's a bit tedious and unoriginal. It seems like every Russian campaign requires a sniping battle these days. What makes this Russian campaign different from others, however, is the sheer brutality of it. Reznov does not hold back. He demands blood and endorses cold-blooded murder of surrendering German troops or anyone who stands in the Red Army's way. There are a few moments thrown in where you have a choice on whether or not you want to be that brutal. Early on, you are held captive and Reznov bursts in. The German captures lie bleeding when he demands you shoot them to finish them off. You don't have to though, and it's nice to get the choice. However, there is an uncomfortable scene later where you trap retreating German troops in a subway area. You are given the choice to shoot them or not. If you don't, other Russians will throw molotovs down and burn them to death instead (in which Reznov will criticize you for allowing them to be tortured to death - even though he spends the majority of the game talking about how he will brutalize the Germans.) It doesn't shy away from how dirty and violent the Russians were in response to the German brutality.
The game play is pretty much just like every other Call of Duty game though. It's not particularly exciting or interesting at this point, but it is a solid scheme. I suppose if it ain't broke... One of the things that gets really annoying though is the way that they seem to increase the difficulty of the game is to simply throw tons and tons of grenades at you. It's more annoying than challenging, although the game does have its share of legitimate challenges. Additionally, there is a level where you are the gunner on a PBY Catalina flying boat. You take on the Japanese Navy and some Zeroes with kamizake pilots. It's a surprisingly fun mission that gets pretty crazy. It might be the only "ride something" mission I've enjoyed in a shooter.
 |
| Manning the guns on a PBY Catalina, you take on the Japanese Navy in one of the more fun missions. |
Easily the best thing about the game, however, is the ability to play co-op campaign. This was innovative for the time given that no Call of Duty game had allowed multi-player campaign. No Call of Duty game really allows it after as well, making World at War a bit unique in that regard. It might not seem like a big deal, and indeed most CoD players probably prefer online versus anyway, but for someone who prefers co-op, it is. There aren't a lot of WWII era co-op games in the first place, which makes little sense since you're often surrounded by other soldiers in the game.
Though the co-op campaign didn't become a trend unfortunately, it's inclusion of "Call of Duty: Zombies" weirdly did. A special bonus mission after the credits lets you play one last level in which you are holed up in a fort and must fend off an onslaught of zombies. All the while you earn points which you can use to buy upgrades. There's no way to win. You just go until you die and try to get the high score. For whatever reason, Treyarch would continue to include this in their games even though it is actually not that fun.
Here's the thing for me: I enjoy Call of Duty games, really. They're fun and action packed. They tend to be a good challenge while remaining very simple. All of the CoD games have essentially the same control scheme and play almost identically. I don't think they're amazing games and I don't think you need to play more than two because they are all so similar. Still, if you're only going to play a few, World at War isn't a bad one to pick up.
REDUCTIVE RATING: It's Fine
No comments:
Post a Comment