Review News
Related News
Social Gamers Podcast - Episode 1
A new feature to ED, Social Gamers takes a look at the latest gaming news .. read more
Return to the Cafe '80's
A look ahead at the games spewing forth from a 1980's inspiration valve, you lucky kiddies! .. read more
When Dictators Attack or: When Good Wars Go Bad!
When Dictators Attack or: When Good Wars Go Bad!
Posted by SmellyMoss on Nov 26th 2008 22:16
By RT Dekko
When the news was released that Treyarch were taking the reins of Call of Duty 5 the howls of derision that could be heard across that Great Static Ocean we call t’internet were as deafening as the Katyusha rockets (or Stalin organs) which echoed across the Russian steppe sixty years ago. For Call of Duty is a tale of two developers, one hero (Infinity Ward) and one villain (Treyarch), the latter being the people behind the newly released Call of Duty: World at War.
Treyarch were the people behind the lamented and even hated Call of Duty 3, the sequel (obviously) to the awesome CoD 2 - the benchmark of next gen shooters, World War 2 games and indeed a major selling point for the 360 on its release. The release of CoD 3 seemed to be a death knell for the series until CoD4's re-working. Then the news of CoD 5 broke...
Okay, so you know all of this anyway; you know CoD 3 sucked and that CoD 4 was huge and you, like the rest of us, thought that CoD 5 would have to be written off while we waited for "CoD: Modern Warfare 2" but hark, the herald angels sing! For we were (mostly) wrong!
Call of Duty: World at War is not the major heap of dung that all were expecting. In fact, by working with the Infinity Ward CoD 4 engine rather than using their own, Treyarch have taken away the sting of difference for a lot of players who cling so fretfully to the heaving bosom of gaming that CoD 4 offers up. This new Call of Duty is like a "CoD gumbo," with a little bit of each of the major games from the series thrown in; CoD 4's multi-player system of grades & perks, CoD 2's World War 2 dramatic set pieces and CoD 3's vehicle use.
If you have sampled the multi-player mode in CoD 4 then the multi-player mode here will be instantly recognisable. It is Modern Warfare with a CoD 2 mask on. This will split players in to three groups: some will say World at War is too similar to Modern Warfare and that Treyarch have just taken Modern Warfare and put a new skin over it - more like a mod than a new game and not worth your money. Another group of players will say that if this game had been released as CoD 3 then we would be heralding its multi-player as the best Dubya Dubya Two shooter there has ever been on this here planet - but we have CoD 4 so don’t waste your money. You see the problem in this? Both sets of players have a negative issue. One side thinks its but a mod, and the other thinks it would have been great if not for CoD 4. The question really is, should you waste your money?
Yes, World at War is good but it seems to be a case of it arriving too late. Poor Treyarch can't win. Maybe the problem is actually Modern Warfare?
“But Uncle Dekko!” you cry, "You said this game would split players into three. What of the third set?"
Ah yes, the third set. This would be that weird minority of players that prefer World at War to Modern Warfare. They will argue that the World War 2 weapons offer more balance and a fairer fight between beginners and those with a Rank 50 than all the new weapons of CoD 4 (such as the .50 cal!) and that the scope of the war means a fight over the whole planet, or thereabouts, with a global scuffle of desperation and infamy never before seen! But they'd be mad. I might happen to agree though, at least in part.
CoD: World at War is not a total waste of your time or money. Yes, the multi-player is very similar to CoD 4 just with WW2 weaponry and, yes, the dogs are bloody annoying but you can come away with some great matches. The tanks in this game, compared to 3, are used less & aren't as hard to kill but they still pack a punch where as jeeps and bikes don't get a look in which is better as it keeps the fighting focused. The use of the perk system works well with the WW2 setting and that wars 'all or nothing' outlook, as does the ranking system which earns you unlocks and a reason to keep playing where as in, say Gears of War 2, once you have used all the weapons and played on all of the maps you are just repeating the experience. With a ranking system you have something to aim for, a "just another 100 EXP and I can get that sniper scope!" experience.
Graphically you can’t complain either, it's not an instant 'wow' like CoD 4 but that's because you've seen the engine before, it does what it’s designed to do and provides all the visual fizz and sparks.
A quick word on the campaign; it’s not bad, personally I prefer the Russian segments to the Pacific war parts but maybe that’s because I keep thinking I’m being ordered about by Jack Bauer in those sections? The campaign has a 4 player co-op which is worth doing as it provides more of a laugh and works well later on in the game - in the beginning it can get a bit cluttered with A.I. team members thrown in as well. I did find the sniping section to be incredibly annoying though, not the same thrill as CoD 4 at all. Look out for it.
The final word has to go to the great Zombie mode as it is one of the best things about the game. It is unlocked on completion of the campaign (again providing incentive to play, especially if you get stuck on a section) and is again available for use with co-op online. Imagine the game play in Zombie mode as a WW2 version of Gears of War’s Horde mode but with Nazi zombies instead of the Locust. It has a good desperation factor when you reach the higher waves as you race between windows to shoot away the zombies out in the fog while you try to replace the planks over the windows to slow them up.
Summing up the CoD: World at War experience:
Initial thoughts: This is better than I thought.
One hour in: Shut up Jack Bauer!
Long term: 6 months down the line I can’t see World at War clogging up servers or XBox Live airwaves as Modern Warfare still manages to do, but it is a worthwhile addition to any games collection and offers something different for clan games.
Overall: 7 out of 10
Digg
Facebook
Delicious
reddit
StumbleUpon
Be the first to comment on this news post! Login or register to do so.