Call of Duty: World at War

Positives:

• Story
• Tone and atmosphere
• Gameplay
• Pacing
• Presentation
• Musical score
• Multiplayer

Negatives:

• Not much

I have no shame in saying this is the best world war two Call of Duty. Unlike its predecessors and WWII, it portrays the worst war in history the exact way it should be portrayed: dark, gritty, messy, gory, and horrifying. Also unlike its predecessors and WWII, you get to fight in the European theater and the Pacific theater. On top of this, you get the voices of Kiefer Sutherland and the great Gary Oldman, not to mention one of the best characters in the COD franchise, Reznov! Sure the dialogue could have been written better and Reznov is the only character you get attached to, but this game's focus is portraying world war two in the most realistic way possible, and that's something that it definitely accomplishes.

A classic, no doubt.

All the way through, Call of Duty World at War is an absolute masterpiece that every fan of the series should play. Even though it was released quite a few years ago, I think it's aged perfectly.

Not only do I recommend it to Call of Duty fans, but also any WWII buffs out there. It's both satisfying to play, but can also get people not familiar with WWII interested in researching the historical events and battles seen in the game.

The game is very accurate in it's brutal depiction of war, and I honestly can't think of another game this unapologetic with it's source material. It has the balls to avoid being safe, and instead decides to show the true horrors of war. And because of that, it's why fans prefer this game instead of Call of Duty WWII, because this game is not afraid to take risks and go to some pretty dark and unexpected places in it's gameplay, such as killing surrendered soldiers, body parts being blown off, and showing actual graphic footage from the war.

Campaign: The game depicts two sides of the Second World War. You play as both an American soldier, fighting the Japanese in the Pacific, and a Russian soldier fighting the Germans in Europe. It is interesting to finally have the Japs as enemies in a Call of Duty game, and the gameplay in the Pacific is fun to play, but I thought the story and characters should've been written a bit better. In my opinion, the gameplay in Europe is far more better. And Gary Oldman is AWESOME as Victor Reznov, a character so beloved and iconic that they brought him back for Call of Duty Black Ops. The European campaign also improves in terms of story and characters.

Multiplayer: I found the multiplayer in this game very fun and enjoyable, and the maps are nicely designed, and are big enough for the player to explore. And is cool the use WWII weapons in multiplayer. It was just as fun and simple as it needed to be. This was back when multiplayer was still fresh and good, mind you.

Nazi Zombies: Being the first Call of Duty game to include zombies mode, and think they nailed. It's extremely fun to mow down undead German soldiers, using a bunch of cool new weapons like the Ray Gun. The story in the first mission, Nacht Der In Toten is very simple to follow. You play as an American soldier who's planes been shot down, and you have to take refuge in a bunker of sorts, defending yourself against a bunch of Nazi zombies. It was very fun to play, and when I'm ever playing this game, it's mostly spent in Nazi zombies, so that's saying a lot.

One of the Best Games of All Time, and I highly recommend it.

This game came of just as well as I expected it to be. There were very little problems I had with it so I'll start off with those.

The main problem I had with this game was that the enemy A.I. is Incredibly dumb. Enemies will run right past you and not register who's in front of them. Another problem is that the story and music was not nearly as memorable as COD 4. The moments that made COD 4 so memorable, are not as great and underused.

Despite all of these problems, This game is endlessly addicting and WAY gorier than any other COD game. It still has its very great sequences, we just need to hand this title over to Infinity Ward because they handle it very well. Still, despite it being WW2, Treyarch has pulled it off as the best WW2 game ever.

I've read so many articles rubbishing w@w and treyarch and I can't help but wonder if they've even given this game a chance. It seems a lot of people are just unhappy that they've gone back to ww2 and that initial annoyance has tarred their judgement.

I played the game and tried not to compare it to cod4 but as it is so simular it's hard not to. If your looking for an opinion on which game is better I honestly couldn't say. If you stuck w@w in having never played cod4 you would be amazed, having played cod4 it isn't so stunning.

As for the single player campaign its 10/10, its lenghty and diverse, it captures you in a atmosphere never seen before in a ww2 shooter. The graphics are stunning and the gameplay is challenging yet rewarding. The content is much more mature than seen before and this adds to the other-all experience.

The multiplayer offers players a long term service and the map packs are a welcome enhancement. The improvements from its predecessors are many although some of the maps don't seem to have been thought through. Zombie mode offers a great break while offering merit.

To sum up, if you want to play a really involved FPS any call of duty will do ya, however world at war is special and will keep thrilled for much longer than other games.