Call of Duty: World at War

Skrevet af: Snuggle   2009-07-09

Min sjette anmeldelse, og ja, i har gættet rigtigt, endnu engang på engelsk.

Call of Duty: WaW is the latest edition in the Call of Duty series, which was most recently represented by Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. CoD 4 was widely regarded as one of 2007's best games, featuring a short, but magnificent single-player campaign and one of the most addicting multiplayer components seen in a shooter. So the question is: can World at War lift this heavy burden? No. But it's still an enjoyable game, although it doesn't feature the fantastic story of CoD 4, nor is it a particularly innovating game and brings very little new and unique to the genre.

I was disappointed, like a lot of other people, when I first learned that World at War was returning to the World War 2 setting, instead of continuing with the modern setting of CoD 4 (Thankfully Modern Warfare 2 is coming out in a not too distant future), but fear not, WaW is easily the best CoD game taking place during the well-known time period of World War 2.

As in the previous games of the series you shift between two soldiers perspective's. In this case, between Miller (the American campaign) and Petrenko (the Russian campaign). You also play through one mission with Petty Officer Locke, a gunner aboard a Catalina. The two main characters have a "mentor" each, who guides the player through the missions, and provides the narration between the missions (In the American campaign it's Sgt. Roebuck (voiced by Kiefer Sutherland), and in the Russian it's Sgt. Reznov (voiced by Gary Oldman). The American campaign features the battles of Peleliu and Okinawa amongst others, while the Russian campaign mainly takes place during the battle of Berlin and the final days of the war in Europe. The story doesn't engage you in the same way CoD 4 did, but it is probably the best seen in a WW2-set Call of Duty game (......That's almost every single one of them.)

At the start of each mission you'll have a main objective (most likely making it to the end of the level. Preferably with all your limbs still attached to your body), you then receive your weapon and are now ready to kill loads and loads of either German or Japanese soldiers. With the exception of the flame-thrower and, perhaps, the bayonet, you'll have seen most of the weapons before. You have your standard M1 Garand and Thompson, which I think have been featured in every WW2 game ever, and of course one of my favorite video game weapons of all time, the MP40. You'll quickly find out which weapons are to your liking, and use them throughout the game.
It seems every Call of Duty game needs a tank, airplane and sniper section. Unfortunately they seem out of place and tacked on in WaW. The tank section is abysmal, while the airplane and sniper sections are quite good.
WaW is easily one of the most brutal and bloody games I've played, and you'll be disgusted every time you come upon the charred remains of a flame-thrower victim or when you see the torn-off limbs of someone who was a bit to close to a grenade. However, I don't know what Treyarch wanted to show with this. At times it is as if they try to show the meaningless slaughter committed during World War 2, and at other times it seems that the brutality committed (at least by the Allies) was justified. No matter what, WaW is immensely powerful because of this.
The AI is quite good, but don't expect a hard fight (this review was based on Regular difficulty), but the Japanese are, at times, completely, utterly daft and will sometimes just stand around in front of the enemy doing nothing.
NOTE: (I did not test multiplayer, as I for some reason couldn't create an online profile, but according to what I've seen it is quite similar to CoD 4's.)

WaW is quite pretty, and especially the facial animations are worth mentioning. The times you get a close-up of an enemy soldier (this was most visibly with the Japanese), you'll see that every one of them has a fairly unique look. The game is quite linear, and this is highly visible in the layout of the levels, as there's rarely more than one route to the goal. Explositions, guns and all that other good stuff I forget to mention is also very well made. There were some odd graphical glitches once in a while, but most were negatable.
The music consists of a mix between the classic orchestral music used in most games taking place in that period of time, and, oddly enough, hard rock! While the rock music works good in the game, I think they shoud've chosen one of them instead of both, as it only ends with the player becoming very confused every time the music changes. Voice acting, provided by Kiefer Sutherland, Gary Oldman and many other less famous people, is excellent.

Call of Duty: World at War is a great edition to the series, but it doesn't add anything remarkably new to the genre. If you need a shooter, this is a great game, but be warned, you have most likely seen most of it before.


Solid single player campaign
Beautiful graphics, at times
Excellent voice-acting
Will shooting people in games ever stop being fun?


Is another CoD game during World War 2 really necessary?
Weird glitches.
Odd choice of music

Samlet karakter: 7.3/10