While Call of Duty: World at War’s campaign is enjoyable, the multiplayer ultimately proves to be more frustrating than it should have been.
After several hours of attempts through the Veteran campaign’s last two levels, I can finally say I completed the game’s single player campaign. It was definitely frustrating at parts, but I don’t recall it being any more annoying than Call of Duty 4′s Veteran mode. I’ve dabbled a bit in the co-op modes as well as the Zombie mode, and leveled up to about 40 or so online. While I was initially hesitant about what Treyarch would do, I found the campaign to be pretty enjoyable for the most part and had very little issues with it there.
My only beef is with the multiplayer, and to be honest, I’m just trying to hit the first Prestige so I can be done with it. It’s odd because on the surface it looks nearly identical to Call of Duty 4′s multiplayer, but apparently I’m “seasoned” enough that the imbalances I see make the online game lack the addictiveness that Call of Duty 4 had. Of course, maybe it’s the more hardcore gamer within me that notices these things and the general gamer will overlook them.
Good
- Enjoyable campaign and interesting Pacific front
- Presentation is still top notch and it’s hard to tell WaW has a different developer than COD4
- Multiplayer still has addictive perk and rank system of Call of Duty 4
Bad
- Multiplayer balance is poor
- Multiplayer maps and addition of tanks poorly designed
- Co-op mechanics not well designed
Intro
The Call of Duty series has become a household name in gaming these days, thanks to the phenomenal success of Call of Duty 4. While Halo 3 was the top selling game in the US for 2007, Call of Duty 4 holds the crown as the top selling game worldwide for 2007. It was only natural then , in our capitalistic society, for Activision, the publisher behind the Call of Duty series, to decide to whore it out and have annual releases on the game not unlike the ultimate money making series, Madden. Fortunately, if Call of Duty: World at War’s quality is any indication, maybe that’s not such a bad thing.
Infinity Ward, the main developers behind Call of Duty 1 and 2, could not keep up with releasing a game each year in the series, so Activision brought on the Treyarch development studio to work on Call of Duty 3. Thus we were able to see Call of Duty 2 release with the 360 back in 2005, then Call of Duty 3 in 2006, Call of Duty 4 in 2007, and now Call of Duty: World at War in 2008. What had happened was that Activision decided to have the two studios alternate releases, so after Treyarch finished Call of Duty 3, they jumped right into working on Call of Duty: World at War. After Infinity Ward released Call of Duty 4, it’s only natural to assume they are working on the next iteration of Call of Duty for 2009, as each team takes about two years to work on the game.
Players groaned when they discovered that Call of Duty 5 would go back to WWII and would be developed by Treyarch. Many thought it was going to be horrible and planned to skip out on the game based on how Call of Duty 3 was. To Treyarch’s defense, they said they had less than a year to put out Call of Duty 3, but would have the full two year project life cycle for Call of Duty 5. Activision decided to do away with iteration numbers on the Call of Duty games starting with Call of Duty 5, instead calling it Call of Duty: World at War. Borrowing many aspects of the Call of Duty 4 game such as its game engine, matchmaking, and perk/rank system, Call of Duty: World at War has gone on to sell very well this holiday season and has bumped Call of Duty 4 beneath it on the Xbox Live top 10 played games list. Whether it stays above Call of Duty 4 will only be known with time.
Call of Duty: World at War opens with you and your squad being tortured by the Japanese.
Storyline and Premise
Call of Duty: World at War follows a similar setup in storyline that earlier iterations had: two protagonists, so you would be jumping back and forth between the two characters’ missions throughout the game. Call of Duty: World at War focuses on the end of World War II, with one character fighting as a US Marine in the Pacific while the other character a private in the Soviet Red Army fighting on Germany’s Eastern Front. Both storylines chronicle the end of the Axis powers, as the Americans push through Japan and the Soviets push through Germany. Also of note is the US Marine’s superior officer, who is voiced by Kiefer Sutherland, of 24 fame. For fans of the TV series, it’s pretty neat to hear him barking at you throughout the single player missions and online.
The Soviet campaign is not too different from other Soviet WWII campaigns, although its biggest difference is you get to push Germany so far back that you invade Berlin and topple the enemy on their home turf. I found the Pacific campaign to be quite more refreshing and engaging, however. The way that the Japanese fight are pretty ruthless and scary, as they pretend to be dead, hide under trap doors, run up and try to stab you with bayonets while shouting “Banzai!”, and even climb up trees to snipe you. Fortunately, Call of Duty: World at War introduces a new weapon that certainly helps against the Japanese’s move stealthy ways: a flamethrower. I was initially skeptical about how effective the flamethrower would be, but I can now say that it’s quite enjoyable to use, and very useful in burning out the Japanese that lodge themselves in bunkers throughout the campaign even on the hardest difficulty setting.
Call of Duty: World at War doesn’t stray much from the general premise of previous Call of Duty games, offering over a dozen missions that take place in first person. Its campaign length is similar to Call of Duty 4, namely, about six hours but that seems to be the trend these days with multiplayer-heavy games. In most likely a nod to Call of Duty 4′s Death From Above level, Call of Duty: World at War introduces an additional mission type for one if its levels, called Black Cats, which mixes things up a little by allowing the player to play as a third character on an American flying boat that raids Japanese merchandise ships and rescues American survivors. Unlike diversions from the core gameplay levels of other games, Black Cats is well done and enjoyable.
The flamethrower is a great way to clear out fortified positions in a hurry.
Gameplay Mechanics
The gameplay mechanics of Call of Duty: World at War have not changed from previous Call of Duty games. In the single player, the regenerating health bar still exists, and whether you hate it or don’t mind it so much, the infinite enemy respawning still exists. That makes progress in this game just like in previous ones – the only way to beat a level is to advance forward so you can bring your AI partners to the front lines while stopping the enemy respawn point. I can see a realistic argument to this: in wars everyone is fighting over a frontline that they want to push forward. But some complain about this aspect of the Call of Duty series since it is not present in any other first person shooter. Most players are used to killing everything on the screen to progress, instead of just trying to progress against an infinite stream of enemies. It’s a hallmark to Call of Duty now.
Also specific to the Call of Duty series is aiming down the sight. This returns in Call of Duty: World at War’s single player and is quite useful in dealing with large numbers of enemies. Holding the left trigger allows not only the player to aim down the sight of his weapon, it also auto-locks onto the nearest enemy so by hitting the Left trigger and firing several times, the player is able to auto-lock and hit several enemies in a short period of time instead of manually aiming for each one.
The jump from Call of Duty 4′s modern combat system to Call of Duty: World at War’s WWII-based era means a definite downgrade in weapons and tech. While grenades and smoke grenades still exist, Call of Duty 4 fans will be sad to see that night vision goggles are no longer present in WWII time but at least you’ll now fire: molotov cocktails in the Soivet campaign and the flamethrower in the Pacific campaign. The clips for many of the WWII-based weapons are a lot smaller than clips of this day and age, so you’ll also find yourself reloading a lot more.
New to Call of Duty: World at War are Death Cards, a set of collectible cards with one hidden in almost every level of the game. These cards allow the player to turn on mutators in the online co-op campaign. They are very similar to the hidden skulls of Halo 3, which when turned on, add more challenge or amusing elements to the game. Some of the Death Cards in Call of Duty: World at War include a card that make enemies that are headshot explode, a card that only allows you to regenerate life when you kill an enemy, and even one that has you shooting paintballs. All in all, the Death Cards give the game more replayability and enjoyment should you want something more amusing in subsequent playthroughs. These “cheats” remind me of the big head codes in NBA Jam.
Also new in this iteration of Call of Duty is the graphic depiction of limbs being torn off by explosions.
Multiplayer
The multiplayer aspect of Call of Duty: World at War is so vital to the package of Call of Duty: World at War that I would even go so far as to say it’s probably not worth buying World at War for full price now if you don’t have access to multiplayer. World at War is the first time co-op has been introduced in the Call of Duty series, and not only that, but there are now individual Challenges associated with playing co-op as well.
Co-Op
Call of Duty: World at War allows up to four player online co-op in practically all of the missions except the flying boat mission and the sniper mission. Co-op can be played either co-operatively or competitively. Co-operatively is pretty self explanatory, as the players make their way through a mission and if any of them take too much damage, they will be “downed” and another player needs to go up to them to revive them from being incapacitated.
Competitive co-op is similar to the non-competitive mode, except there are now scores and multipliers added into the game so the players compete for the highest score in the level. Performing campaign actions or more skillful maneuvers like headshots award more points, while constantly killing allows for a kill streak that also awards extra multipliers in score. As long as you keep killing, you’ll keep scoring higher and higher. The biggest oversight to this competitive mode, however, is what occurs when a player gets incapacitated. The competitive co-op mode is practically a race, as all of the players try to move as fast as they can and kill whatever they can see. But should a player take too much damage and be downed, he can only be revived by one of the other players.
In the spirit of competitiveness, why would any player want to revive another when they’re competing for score? It makes terrible sense. With the game being more of a race, it would have made more sense that the player could revive on his own after 10 seconds or something, that way he is penalized for taking too much damage but he is not penalizing others that have to save him. The scenario is that with four players competing, say one falls. Then one of the other three will rescue him, while the other two move on ahead. The third player that rescued the fallen one can no longer catch up to the other two players and has taken himself out of the competitive race by helping the other player.
Even though the competitive co-op is a mess and the non-competitive co-op makes the game rather trivial, there is one saving grace to all of the co-op modes: Night of the Undead. This is the most fun co-op mode of the three offered, and is only unlocked once the player has beaten the campaign. The zombie mode pits up to four players together in a house with windows that zombies try to invade. Killing zombies nets the players money that they can use to buy new weapons and ammo, and as they clear each round in this infinite mode, the invading zombies are faster, stronger, and more abundant in number. While the core mechanic seems pretty simple, it’s a lot of fun as players empty WWII weapons into zombies invading the house and they compete on Leaderboards to see who can get the highest score or reach the highest round.
Adversarial
Call of Duty: World at War’s adversarial system is very similar to Call of Duty 4, right down to the lobby. However, there are some notable changes that are both welcome and unwelcome. Some of the notable changes include being able to see the Leaderboard of the players in your current lobby so you can size them all up, being able to create squads during matches so you can see where the other players in your squad are, and finally, being able to unlock additional custom class slots for every Prestige mode you enter. There are also a couple of new multiplayer modes that were not present in Call of Duty 4, but in Call of Duty 3.
The multiplayer modes included are:
1. Team Deathmatch – the most popular mode, as two teams simply fight against another
2. Free For All – every man for himself
3. War – similar to Domination, but with 5 flags and only one contestable flag at a time, centralizing the conflict around a particular flag (not in Call of Duty 4)
4. Ground War – 18 player War and Team Deathmatch games
5. Capture the Flag – 2 rounds with both teams switching sides between rounds (not in COD4)
6. Search and Destroy – Teams try to either defend or destroy an objective without respawns or vehicles
7. Headquarters – Teams compete to capture a neutral base and hold to gain points
8. Domination – 3 flags on map and holding each or all of the flags earn your team points.
9. Sabotage – Both teams fight to take a neutral bomb to destroy the enemy team’s objective.
In addition, the Hardcore setting can be played for Team Deathmatch, War, Search and Destroy, and Free For All. Hardcore has a more limited HUD, extra bullet damage, and friendly fire on.
There are thirteen different maps to play, with four of the maps allowing for the use of tanks. The tanks are a new addition that were not present in Call of Duty 4, and I personally think they are terrible. With their use, most of the maps that include them have been enlarged far too much for 6v6 play, as players that don’t use the tanks have to travel all over the map great distances to find enemies. The tanks themselves also are quite annoying, as they very powerful defensively but move very slow and take a while to reload. However, with their strong defense and their one-hit kill cannons, teams are forced to use them even if they aren’t fun to use due to the imbalance they bring to the game.
The Perk system also makes a return from Call of Duty 4, with a few additions including a Perk 4 slot for a tank perk:
Perk 1 slots
1. Satchel Charge x2 – 2 remote detonation explosives
2. Special Grenade x3 – 3 signal flares or tabun gas grenades
3. M19A1 Bazooka x2 – 2 RPG’s with M19A1 Bazooka
4. Bomb Squad – Ability to seek out enemy explosives
5. Bouncing Betty x2 – 2 pressure-activated mines (like COD4′s claymores)
6. Bandolier – Extra ammo magazines
7. Primary Grenades x2 – 2 Frags
8. M2 Flamethrower – self-explanatory
Perk 2 slots
1. Stopping Power – Increases bullet damage 40%
2. Fireworks – Increases explosive damage 25%
3. Flak Jacket – Reduces explosive damage 25%
4. Gas Mask – Protects against Tabun Gas
5. Juggernaut – Reduces bullet damage 25%
6. Camouflage – Undetectable to enemy recon planes
7. Sleight of Hand – 2x faster reload time
8. Shades – Reduces the intensity of signal flares
9. Double Tap – Increased rate of fire
10. Overkill – Carry 2 primary weapons
Perk 3 slots
1. Deep Impact – 2x damage through wall
2. Extreme Conditioning – 2x sprint distance
3. Steady Aim – 35% reduced hip fire targeting radius
4. Toss Back – Resets fuse of picked up grenades
5. Second Chance – Revive downed allies and become downed after health knocked out
6. Martyrdom – Drop a live grenade when killed
7. Fireproof – 45% reduced Fire Damage intake
8. Dead Silence – Quieter footsteps
9. Iron Lungs – +5 Seconds to hold breath when sniping
10. Reconnaissance – shows artillery, dogs and tanks on map
Vehicle Perks
1. Water Cooler – Decreases turret overheat
2. Greased Bearings – Increases turret rotation speed
3. Ordnance Training – Decreases reload time of turrets
4. Leadfoot – Increases tank top speed
5. Coaxial Machine Gun – Driver controlled machine gun
Many of the Perks new to Call of Duty: World at War that were not present in Call of Duty 4 are quite unnecessary. Perks like Gas Mask are just laughable – who would sacrifice the increased bullet damage Perk to protect against a particular type of grenade no one really uses? Still, the bread and butter perks from Call of Duty 4 still exist in Call of Duty: World at War and some are made stronger while others weaker due to the limited clip sizes of WWII weaponry (i.e., Deep Impact becomes worse since semi-automatic rifles have only a fraction the number of rounds as a contemporary assault rifle, while Juggernaut becomes better for the same reason – less rounds in WWII weaponry increases the survivability % while using Juggernaut).
Prestige Mode returns, allowing the player to give up all the unlocks they leveled for to start back at level 1 with a new Prestige icon. Challenges also return, although their associated weapon unlocks are more imbalanced this time around due to the sight on rifles no longer unlocking at 25 kills like in Call of Duty 4, but at 75 kills. Based on the combination of unlocks and perks, there’s a huge gap in power between a lower level player and a higher level one. This gap was nowhere near as large in Call of Duty 4. It appears that Treyarch favors implementing an “RPG” like reward system, where the more you level up, the better your gear becomes. This system works in RPGs, but does not work in competitive play as level 40s will slaughter level 5 players due to the weaponry alone. But what can you do? You either quit or go through the system and get to those high levels.
The Black Cats mission proves to be a well-crafted and enjoyable diversion in the campaign.
Achievement System
I have to commend Treyarch on their design of the Achievements for this game as they are quite thought out. The Achievements for this game follow very similarly to the Call of Duty 4 Achievements but World at War introduces a handful of multiplayer ones. World at War’s single player Achievements are along the same lines as Call of Duty 4: going through the campaign, accomplishing certain tasks in the campaign, and beating it on the hardest difficulty.
The multiplayer Achievements aren’t too frustrating: a few of them involve playing through a level or two in co-op, and there are two zero point Achievements for earning your first Prestige level and earning your 10th Prestige level in multiplayer. This was the one thing I wished for in Call of Duty 4 – Achievements that showed you went through some Prestige. I like that there’s no points associated with them (in fact, I wish all Achievements in every 360 game did not have point values, but that discussion is for another day). That way it would be a nice little extra in your gamer profile that demonstrates that you do spend some (or a ton) of time playing online. The only thing I wish was if there was actually an Achievement for getting to a high round in the Zombie mode, but sadly, there are none.
I also liked that the Veteran Achievements were locked at single-player only, considering the game can now be played through on co-op. Other games, like Halo 3 and the Gears of War series, allow you to get the most difficult setting Achievements playing co-op. The co-op makes the difficulty to any game a lot easier, so I’m glad that Treyarch was smart enough to know that. Now when you see someone with the Achievement for beating World at War on the hardest difficulty, there’s no doubt that the person earned this respectable feat all by himself.
The Japanese prove to be a formidable enemy with their constant ambushes.
Final Thoughts
For the most part, Call of Duty: World at War is a great game. How could it not be when it’s almost a carbon copy of last year’s excellent Call of Duty 4? Treyarch did a marvelous job copying over the Call of Duty 4 template to World at War and it can generally satisfy both fans of WWII and Call of Duty 4. The addition of co-op was also quite welcome, although the main co-op modes are bland compared to the zombie mode, arguably the major the highlight of this game.
I give the game an A-. While the Russian campaign was a bit derivative, I thought the Japanese campaign was a noteworthy edition to the franchise. From the jungles and castle levels to the Japanese fighting style of ambushes and tree climbing, I was hooked. Add in Kiefer Sutherland telling me what to do, and it’s hard not to enjoy fighting in the Pacific. The multiplayer looks to have legs as well since it copies everything that made Call of Duty 4 so successful. Casual Call of Duty fans will probably be playing this for the long haul, but more hardcore fans may share the same feelings I do with the annoyingly large maps, the lack of proper multiplayer balancing, glitches, and the poor implementation of tanks. I’ll probably be done with it after I hit my first Prestige.
If someone were to ask me which game I liked more today, I would still recommend Call of Duty 4 over World at War. While World at War doesn’t really do anything wrong, Call of Duty 4 is a more polished product and the multiplayer far more balanced. Plus, my opinion is that using modern day weapons with 30+ round clips beats an 8-round semi-automatic rifle any day, but that’s really up to the player. If you already own and enjoyed Call of Duty 4 and are considering World at War, I’d say go for it as long as you know what you’re getting yourself into. I thought Treyarch did a great job, but just be prepared to be frustrated at lower levels in multiplayer. Rest content knowing that if you stick with it, you will eventually unlock the weapons that allow you to kill (hint: the STG-44 is at level 37).
