A 
Review by Siraris
Report This Review
Call of Duty 4 is arguably the defining shooter this generation. It did its job so well, that even the venerable Halo 3 was left in its wake. The multi-player component that Infinity Ward developed has, and will be copied for years to come in every way shape and form. Fortunately, and unfortunately, Call of Duty 5 has copied everything about its older brother down to a T.
I went into the beta not expecting much from the World at War. I knew that it was using the engine from Call of Duty 4, but I hadn't read up much on the new title due to a general malaise I have about Treyarch. In recent months, I heard that it was actually a really great single player experience, which piqued my interest, but not enough to drive me to look deeper into the multi-player component. Upon firing up the beta, I didn't feel so bad that I wasn't more prepared for what was in store, because I knew everything to expect from playing Call of Duty 4. This game, at least in its multi-player component, is the exact same game as 4; even down to its flaws.
I enjoyed the hell out of Call of Duty 4 in the beginning. I played with friends for hours and hours, wracking up 20+ kills per round. I churned my way up the ladder to level 50, and eventually tired of the experience after going into prestige mode (a journey I still regret embarking on). I came back to the game after a month or two, and was instantly turned off by certain idiosyncrasies the game has, as well as the new penchant for random grenade spam.
World at War is the exact, same, beast. I honestly found myself wondering in a play session today, whether or not Treyarch even altered the codebase whatsoever. The shooting is the same, the controls are the same, the weapons are the same, the gameplay is the same. The only difference that I have found, is that guns reload slower, and have less bullets, which turns me off at times. Are there people who are able to run up scores and go 20/2? Sure, and I wish I knew how they did it. There were a few matches recently where I approached 20 points, but invariably, I would kill one opponent, only to be shot in the back (frustrating but understandable) or shot in the front (plain frustrating due to constantly running out of ammo). I had numerous occasions where I would literally empty a clip into someone before they would go down, and it doesn't seem to me that one weapon is much more effective than another in terms of taking someone down.
The only visible additions I have found to the experience are new specials that you receive when you get kill streaks (artillery barrage, and dogs), and the soothing sound of Kiefer Sutherland in your ear when you play as the Marines. The artillery barrage is nothing new, as it is basically a re-skinned air strike, but I do like the fact that you can see the artillery shells arching in from some distant location; a nice touch. The dogs are really the only new addition to the game, where when you get enough kills in a row, you call in a pack of hungry dogs that run wantonly around the map finishing off guys on the other team before moving on to the next victim. You can kill the dogs pretty easily with a knife, while shooting them is a bit more difficult due to their size, speed, and I believe hitbox (need to test that more).
Aside from that, there isn't much to say. I still find it very frustrating to hit people, and I find it takes way too many bullets to kill someone. Knifing is also still completely broken, as in one match I knifed 4 guys in one area without killing them, and another time I was in a literal knife fight with someone for 30 seconds or so before he was able to actually hit me. One other thing that has been bugging me is that I am having trouble distinguishing the other team. The enemies don't pop to me, and I have to rely more on their name showing up in red, as opposed to being able to visibly identify them from their model. Can be frustrating as there isn't that unconscious reaction where I just fire off a shot at the first sight of an approaching Japanese/German/American soldier.
All in all, I am not impressed with Treyarch's fare. I understand that they want to work off Call of Duty 4's success, but I expected a little bit more than a carbon copy. There are definitely things that they could have done to change the experience and make it feel more original, but they decided to rest on the laurels of CoD 4's success (can you blame them?) and so you're left with more of the same. There is not enough compelling content in this iteration to warrant spending $60 on a new game, when you can just keep playing Call of Duty 4 (which is alive and well). Tack on the fact that it is arriving at the same time as Gears of War 2, Left for Dead, Resistance 2, all of which have more compelling multi-player experiences.
If you get into the beta, it's a nice distraction until the end of the month, but I wouldn't commend buying it any time soon unless the single player is really fantastic.
Want to write a review of Call of Duty: World At War?
© 2008 PlayItReviewIt.com | About Us | Contact Us | Report a Bug | 
RSS Feed
