Call of Duty: World at War - 360

For all the talk about how first-person shooters have milked World War II dry, the conflict's sheer battlefield variety and tactical scope make it a natural home for the genre. World at War doesn't innovate with quite the ambitious vigor of Call of Duty 4, and it falters a little on the single-player front, but it's every bit as energizing where it matters most.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Developer Treyarch did a fantastic job of not reinventing the wheel with World at War. Rather, they took the best elements of Modern Warfare and expanded upon them. The end product is a thrilling experience that injects some of the visceral punch back into World War II. The single-player mode is short but sweet and it unlocks the awesome Nazi Zombies mode but the true strength of WaW is the compelling multiplayer, which should have you huddled in the virtual trenches for a long time to come.

Tropic Thunder

Adrenaline floods my body the moment I set foot on the Makin Atoll and gun down Japanese troops who'd rather jab a bayonet in my guts than squat behind cover. As I cross invisible lines that trigger cinematic spectacles and troop advancement, the heavy scripting that World at War relies on for the main campaign's six hours is plainly apparent, but the intense action never lets up. My comrades are often reluctant to prove themselves useful, but the exciting encounters range from tricky river crawls and flamethrower trench-scorching to a chaotic assault on Shuri Castle in Okinawa, and the stunning presentation sears a personal highlight reel into my memory.

Every couple of missions I get a break from these jungle adventures and catch up with Petrenko and his struggle to rid Mother Russia of the Nazis. The contrast is stark: while the crafty Japanese hide and charge with their own alien logic, the Germans shun shrieking martyrdom to dispatch high-powered bullets by the bucket-load. This side of the campaign boasts its own spectacular set-pieces and minor surprises, but the journey from Stalingrad to Berlin is a shade too familiar to be truly stirring, and I found that the seizing of the Reichstag felt more like the completion of a theatrical chore than the personal symbolic victory the developers probably intended.

Call of Duty: World at War

Rising through the Ranks

Thankfully, the incredibly rich online components save the day, and then some. Tackle missions with a few friends in co-op mode, and whether you stick to the objectives, or rack up headshots and score multipliers for bragging rights, that short campaign suddenly becomes eminently replayable, thanks to branching paths and sheer social magic. When you do finally get tired of that-it'll take a while-there's the awesome Nazi Zombies mode that pits you and your pals against an unending ravenous flow of undead war criminals.

But just like Call of Duty 4, World at War's premier battlefield might lies in its eight virtually flawless modes of competitive engagement, and its deep long-term experience-based advancement system. From the large library of weapons, perks, and upgrades, to the long list of creative, addictive, and time-consuming challenges, everything that made the Modern Warfare a dominant multiplayer favorite has survived the trip back to the 1940's beautifully. The thirteen maps vary in size and style, exploiting the differences between jungle and urban locales, but every one is fluid, balanced, and filled with gritty detail and tactical opportunity. If you had any lingering doubts that World at War would be as fun and addictive as its predecessor, put them to bed: the online action is silky smooth and supremely satisfying. Unless you're stuck offline, there's never been a better time to enlist.

PROS: Phenomenal multiplayer; outstanding graphics and sound; varied enemies and locales; intense scripted action.
CONS: Short and somewhat uneven campaign; Allied AI is a bit stunted; some checkpoint placement quibbles.

Call of Duty: World at War
Call of Duty: World at War

Comments [16]

post a comment

3ple2x

Shammon wrote:

I thought gamepro couldn't award halves of stars. lol

i thought so too

phebo

come on the multiplayer is phenomenal but no 5 stars. im suprised. especially with nazi zombies

Combat_Monkey

no plans for this one, and zombie mode=horde on Gears 2. I will definately be getting COD 6 when that comes out next year.

camhead25

IM sorry but, I cant bring myself to buy another WW2 game, I...I just.....I JUST CAN'T!!!!

gmayronne

gonna have to wait for this. Fallout 3, Little Big Planet, Motorstorm 2, Left 4 Dead, and THIS are on my list......but i just bought Resistance 2 and Gears of War 2 a couple weeks ago....with Fable 2 just sitting there until i finish up with Resistance 2 (already finished Gears 2). anyway, gotta say......the ending of Gears 2......sucked. everything "story-wise" throughout the game was solid but the ending was just crap.....and that "boss" at the end......im assuming it was meant to be REALLY easy because playing through the game on HARDCORE only to breeze through the "boss fight" at the end in literally seconds was just a "what the hell moment". the story is MUCH better and i love the game.....but damn.....things got weak for the last 10 minutes. whats with the locust queen???......i was expecting something hideous.....she was kinda hot haha.

Post a Comment