Its fairly brief but dramatic and adrenaline-fuelled campaign has been greatly enhanced by the excellent co-op mode and XP incentives, while its multiplayer is every bit as good as CoD 4, making this arguably the definitive Call of Duty experience thus far.
Perhaps the guys at Treyarch haven't surpassed its predecessor's bar, but it really was too high. Nevertheless, this does not mean Call of Duty: World at War is not a very good game, it is indeed one of the best of its genre, and no shooter fan should miss it.
Those worried that World War II has been done to death, fear not. Treyarch's willingness to push the boundaries has uncovered a side to the war few developers even knew existed, and we'll be damned if it doesn't make for one hell of a game to boot.
Call of Duty: World at War is a great game that feels all too familiar, yet it's undoubtedly the best shooter based on the conflict. Comparisons between it and Call of Duty 4 are inevitable, but even on its own merits, it's a paint-by-numbers affair. The single-player campaign is intense and the cooperative play is engaging, but the competitive multiplayer, despite some added perks and tweaks, is subdued by the era it so accurately replicates.
Ultimately, the single player campaign is atrocious and I had a rotten time playing it. It seems to take everything that was frustrating about Modern Warfare, magnify those elements, and then leave out the interesting objectives, characters that matter, and anything that leaves a lasting impression beyond anger and disappointment.
This game is a work of art, the soundtrack fits well with the world war 2 setting and the sound design is magnificent. the guns sound like they pack a punch and are satisfying to use. The campaign was also really good and was action packed, i was barely bored for the entire thing. Not to mention the Easter eggs such as the ray gun you can get on one of the missions. Now for the multiplayer, it's incredibly fun, the maps are great and are designed in a way that makes them fun to pew pew on. Last but not least, the zombies mode, this was the beginning of something great. The maps they made were perfect for a creepy style of game mode. The detail in the maps is just ungodly, from the screaming noises on verruckt to ambiance in others they are great. The concept of shooting zombies and surviving waves upon waves of the undead on these 4 maps. Its amazing how something that started as a project for fun turned into something people craved playing. Thanks treyarch.
Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)
(If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player)
(If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is better than the visuals, review this section as if the visuals didn’t matter)
(Review this section only on Accessibility if the game has no longevity) (Review this section only on longevity if the game isn’t accessible)
This is a guideline for how to properly review games. Many reviewers like to get a “feel” for a game, and arbitrarily give a game a score that they believe it deserves. This results in wildly different scores between different reviewers, and vastly different scores between similar games. This guideline addresses these problems and scores games fairly and consistently. This guideline also gives scores that are usually similar to the metacritic score.
The review score is based out of 10 points. There are no “half” or 0.5 increments. It is impossible to have a score above 10 or below 0. The review score will change as the game gets new dlc, drops in price, or if more secrets are found through the game increasing its appeal.
The scoring is split into 6 sections. The first five sections can add a possible 2 points to the final score. The first 5 sections are Single Player/Multi Player, Gameplay, Visuals/Story, Accessibility/Longevity, and Pricing.
Notice that 3 of these sections have two parts. These particular sections will be scored based on the stronger part of the game of the two. For example, **** has a lousy single player campaign, but an excellent multiplayer component, that section will be based solely on the multiplayer as if the single player did not exist. This allows games to be based on their own merits, as many unnecessary features are shoehorned into video games by publishers to reach a “feature quota”. Games that excel in both areas of a section don’t receive should be noted in the written review, but cannot increase the score past 2 in that section. However, it can be taken into account in the final section
The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.
This rendition of the CoD franchise sees me frustrated at the poor AI in the solo campaign - especially on the so-called 'veteran' difficulty. Juggling grenades that the enemy throws at you soon turns into a clown worthy juggling act, if you weren't to die a billion times during the same skit, it'd have a comedic value.
The allied AI is terrifyingly rubbish. They may occasionally throw grenades back, but they are slow to use them, they may also get in the way. On earlier difficulties, it's a fun shooter, but from Hardened onwards, it's a major chore that eventually becomes frustrating the extreme.
SummaryUtilizing the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare engine, Call of Duty: World at War throws out the rulebook of war to transform WWII combat through a new enemy, new tactics and an uncensored experience of the climatic battles that gripped a generation. As U.S. Marines and Russian soldiers, players employ new features like cooperative gamepla...