It is almost unimaginable just how lazy Treyarch have been with the latest Call of Duty, World at War, released late last year. It has been said by many before me, but it needs saying again. There is so little different about World at War compared to Modern Warfare that it is almost not worth the purchase of the game.
But I did, on release day, and not just the standard version, the limited collector's edition, with a (fake) hipflask and huge metal box. At the same time as I purchased this game, I also bought Resistance 2. Having thoroughly enjoyed the previous iteration in the COD franchise, and having hardly played Resistance: FoM, the choice of which game to play first was obvious.
So I installed World at War, and was a bit surprised to find that there was already a patch notification icon waiting for me, less than 6 hours after the game was released (in Australia, where I live). But it didn't worry me, or annoy me; I couldn't wait to own some Japanese soldiers.
As with all games I play, I made the decision to complete the single player before tackling the online for two reasons, to get myself used to the weapons, and to see what the game is all about, to see what spin it has on the genre.
It turns out that the game adds absolutely nothing to the FPS world. Everything that is enjoyable in World at War was in Modern Warfare, and in most cases. The menu layout is the same, the graphics are the same, and you even jump around the world and switch which army you are fighting for, once again the same as Modern Warfare.
I almost feel like copying and pasting my Modern Warfare review and merely changing the plotline, and posting it as this review. After all, that is what Activision and Treyarch have with this game, it is a huge disappointment, and unfortunately one that has ultimately benefited the developer, with the game already selling well above 10 million copies.
But I won't, as there are some redeeming features to the game. The single player is one of those features, and although it may be similar in its design to Modern Warfare's, it is remarkably enjoyable for a WW II shooter, and is much longer, though still short, than Modern Warfare.
Your main battle grounds are the war-torn cities of Europe, and the jungles of the South Pacific. The appalling graphics engine, which remains unchanged in terms of quality from Modern Warfare, definitely damages the experience, as it simply can’t handle large amounts of detail, which are needed to do them justice. I just can't fathom how, seeing as the game is roughly a year younger than Crysis, the game can look the same on max settings as Crysis does on medium settings, and have people still saying that the game engine is excellent.
And it’s not like the game engine flexes its muscles elsewhere. There is still extremely limited use of physics, vegetation does not move at all, buildings are not in the slightest destructible, and plants are not interactive like in Crysis, where walking into a bush will bend the branches, for example.
The only two areas where World at War excels is the gameplay, and the weapon balance and handling. The gore in World at War is horrifically bad. Shooting someone with a trench gun (basically a shotgun) from very close range in the chest frequently has the effect of blowing limbs off. Why? No doubt WW II weapons are fairly inaccurate, but certainly not as inaccurate as the dismemberment system in the game engine.
But back to those two shinning lights in the sea of sewage. The game starts by throwing the player headlong into the war. As Private Miller, you experience the torture and execution of a comrade on Makin Island. You are eventually rescued in the nick of time by the Marine Raiders. The first mission starts two years later, and revolves around an American assault on a Japanese island. Here, you get to blow up some tanks, and shoot some Japanese, both immense fun. The second mission also follows Pvt Miller, before switching to the second playable character, Dimitri Petrenko, a Russian, for the third mission.
You find yourself in rather a tight spot, fighting for survival. After coming across Sergeant Reznov, a fellow Russian soldier, you fight your way out, in what is a truly epic tactical battle, the first sign of such a thing in a Call of Duty for quite some time. The mission culminates in a sniper hunt for the German, General Amsel. The German's go berserk at this point, and you are forced to flee for your life by jumping into the nearby river. The game then time warps you again, this time, your mission is to reach a German camp, blowing up some more tanks on the way.
Returning to the battle in Peleliu, the Americans have succeeded in pushing the Japanese back, and are ready for a full out assault on the island. Your job as Pvt Miller is to take out the mortar crews, allowing the American tanks to progress. Then it’s back to Dimitri's battle, this time at the helm of a tank, your mission to reach a train station in Berlin.
Upon arrival, you'll experience what is probably the best part of the single player, going through Berlin and clearing out the building of any remaining soldiers. It's all over too soon, though, and you'll quickly find yourself being whipped away to play as the third playable character, Petty Officer Locke. You shoot down some plains and some boats, and then rescue some comrades, that’s basically the entire mission. I found it to be pretty boring and uninspired, but at least it's over quickly.
Then it's right back to Miller, again, you goal is to clear out Japanese soldiers so that the tanks can move on. This time the target is machine gunner's, and it offers a slight taste of difficulty, but a seasoned player will not be troubled by it. You continue playing as Miller for a while, and are ambushed by the Japanese while resupplying. You fight your way out, and go on to storm a Japanese castle. After fighting your way through here, you encounter some Japanese soldiers who pretend to surrender, but when they are being disarmed, the soldiers pull out grenades, forcing you to choice which of your comrades to save. This was really disappointing, in that it was so obvious what was going to happen, but not a huge problem for most.
The game’s final mission is played out as Dimitri, and involves clearing out some more buildings, on your way to the Reichstag. You enter the Reichstag and proceed to clear out all remaining German resistance. After doing so, on the Reichstag's roof, you go to plant the Russian flag, only to be shot by an unseen German soldier. Your friend, Reznov, helps you up, and plants the flag, signalling the end of the war in Germany.
A nice touch that featured throughout the game was the mini documentaries that played during loading about the war. These were a great inclusion that has been largely overlooked by almost everyone. They really added to the solid single player experience quite significantly.
The online, upon release, was pretty lousy to be honest. There was practically nothing changed from Modern Warfare. The perks were still aimed at making the game a noob fest, and the inclusion of tanks continued this theme, and really degraded the experience. Since then, hardcore has seen them removed, and the award for a 7 kill-streak, the dogs, has been made optional for servers. I wish they had gone one step further and banned them altogether; it’s just ridiculous that on HC it takes longer to kill a dog than an armoured human. What were they thinking?
There has been little done to offer a different experience gameplay wise for World at War over Modern Warfare, everything from perks, to weapon upgrades and awards. The prestige system is the same, and still just utter rubbish, who in their right mind is going rank up to level 65 11 times just to get 5 extra weapon slot. Only a madman I tell you.
Zombie mode leaves another sour taste in my mouth. Not having played a lot of it, I can honestly say that it is quite fun, but only if you're playing with good friends, and where everyone has a microphone. It feels unbelievably tacky, and still comes across as an afterthought to get the console masses to wet themselves.
Audio is a step down from most current generation titles. The guns sound, just awful, it’s hard to explain how bad they sound. Apart from the bolt action rifles, everything, from explosions, to vehicles, to voice acting sounds distinctly last gen, which is baffling, considering it uses the same game technology as Modern Warfare, which has fairly impressive sound.
In general, World at War is a step in the wrong direction for the franchise. The single player offers the only highlights of the game. The multiplayer is disappointing, although free to download map packs have improved the online somewhat, having added some diversity to the game. Graphics are rock bottom, and almost every other part of game engine is right next door. It is just not good enough for a game released in late 2008 to be able to be maxed out by an early 2005 computer, which wasn't even that highly specked at the time.
After playing this game for three weeks, and getting to a point where suicide was the only option, I took the sensible route, and flicked on the PS3, and loading up Resistance 2. If only I had done that 3 weeks earlier, as that game turned out to be far more enjoyable, and actually offered a new experience, unlike the majority of World at War.
Huzaifa from eXputer: "2008 was home to the likes of Call of Duty: World at War, Dead Space, GTA 4, Far Cry 2, Left 4 Dead, and many other hits, which is outright remarkable."
Here here
Those that were around before 2000's i am sure are like me that think we entered a world of non readers or those that follow without question.
I can not wait to see fallout 3 a goty game even though it was about water with non content until you add the dlc/updates then you got the performance/crashing
1998 - the best year in gaming! Metal gear solid, crash bandicoot 3, medievil, half life, ocarina of time, thief, tenchu, resident evil 2, Spyro, tomb raider 3, oddworld abes exodus, banjo kazooie.
It was a different breed of a gaming era. You’ll never understand what it was like back then. The aura of gaming, it was different!
I second this. Gaming was a lot more varied and fun than it is today. I'm 35 so getting on compared to some here but I got to see all the changes from NES up to now but I've never felt so disappointed in any generation than I have this current gen. I was expecting more from this generation rather than prettier versions of games that came before it. Game mechanics have become so refined that alot of games feel the same and has done for a while now.
Maybe it's time to have a break for a while. I love gaming but I don't feel I get much fun in the traditional sense out of it anymore.
Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil 2, Abe’s Exodus, and Ocarina of Time are the only things from that list that I liked.
Here’s the 2023 game releases that I personally liked… and big releases that I didn’t care for:
- Dead Space Remake
- Wo Long Dynatsy
- Resident Evil 4 Remake
- Diablo 4
- Fire Emblem Engage
- Hogwarts Legcay
- Street Fighter 6
- Hi-Fi Rush
- Like a Dragon: Ishin
- Octopath Traveler 2
- Final Fantasy Pixel Remasters
- Final Fanatsy XVI (actually ended up not liking this, but it was still a big deal release)
- Baldur’s Gate 3
- Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon
- Lies of P
- Mortal Kombat 1
- Marvel’s Spider-Man 2
- Starfield (Ended up hating this one, but big release)
- Super Mario Bros. Wonder
- Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom (I’m an old-school Zelda fan, but didn’t really enjoy this game)
- Alan Wake 2
I mean, honestly I’ve never seen a year of major IP releases like that, ever.
Isn't it just a generational thing realistically.
I've been gaming since way back and I some of my favourite games go as far back as the late 80s for me each generation has a year or two of game changing releases one after another before an inevitable dry spell.
I kind of agree gaming had a different feel games hit different because we didn't have the internet nothing got spoiled and you really had to put in the effort to beat a puzzle which could set entire groups of people looking for a solution. But most importantly games were experimental and not as cookie cutter as today even basics like controls were not universal today r2 is shoot l2 is ads garunteed you can't deviate from that in a shooter back then it could of been square, R1 or R1 and circle nothing was standard.
But as time moves on a new generation picks up their controller they are going to be interested in different things that PS1 demo disc with the t Rex blew our primitive 16 bit brains back on launch but to kids today it's laughable.
The new gen of kids coming into to hobby seem to value different things to us there seems to be a huge focus on online play, streamers, gaming personalities, and social experiences, convience of digital downloads. To me I value none of that but that's ok like my parents not liking the band's I would listen to its just the natural cycle.
Just about every year in the 7th generation was great and something we most likely won't experience again.
2009 for example had Assassin's Creed 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dragon Age: Origins, Uncharted 2, Halo 3: ODST, Killzone 2, Borderlands, Bayonetta, and Demon's Souls to name a few.
It still amazes me we got over 7 rockstar games ps2/ps3 but 3 for the ps3/ps4/ps5
Dragon age 1-3 and mass effect 1-3 in 7ish years what a generation.
A very devoted fan of Call of Duty: World at War racks up incredible in-game stats while playing regularly for the past 15 years.
Actually it is very easy to up the number of hours you have been playing a game. Basically all you need to do (assuming you have a PS4 or 5) is to place the console into stand-by without exiting the game, so if you do this a one hour gameplay actually becomes a 24 gameplay or longer.
There's someone on my friend list that has more than 6200 hours on Uncharted 4.
7k hours over 15 years isn't that crazy. The fact that he's been playing the same game for 15 years is more impressive.
Nailed what is the Spectrum... For good and bad, Quality or Quantity..Or the unreasonable to reason for. ;)
Of course you will hit a ridiculous stat after 15 of anything.
My main character for Everquest had over 500 days played in the first 6 years of the game. I was young then and had a lot of time on my hands. I don’t think I could duplicate that again until I retire and not sure I could match it if I tried.
500 days in 6 years is nothing lol, you do realise how many days in a year right ?
I might be getting the maths wrong here, I think 500 days in 6 years works out at an average of just over 6 hours every single day. For 6 years. That’s pretty serious
Edit: wrote this early this morning, I understand it's lots of hours now lol at myself 😂🤣😜
With the impending launch of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, we've gone a bit nostalgiac and are taking a look at the top 10 Call of Duty games.
a really good review .
i got the game on pc and ps3 , the graphics are very bad
i didn't like the single player allot and i think cod 4 had a better sp
the mp is ok but nothing big really changed from cod 4
but i loved the nazi zombie mode it was good .
anyway this game gets a 7.5/10 from me
thx for the review keep it up .
good review. i would give it an 8 as well.
i liked the single player a lot, but i was disappointed on how treyarch ripped off a lot of segments from movies. for example, that vendetta level was a blatant take off of enemy at the gates with the whole sniping and stuff.
other than that, the single player was pretty good except for the enemy respawn.