Call of Duty: World at War

When creating Call of Duty: World at War, Treyarch didn't stand a chance. If released two years earlier this title would be a game that everyone would be waxing lyrical about. However, it followed in the footsteps of the fantastically addictive Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Anyway, what is done is done and Treyarch tried to make the best game they could.

As happens on all games the first impression you have is of its graphical capabilities. World at War has a different feel to those of Modern Warfare as its set in World War II but the graphics are still impressive. They take some getting used to if you've played Modern Warfare meticulously but the details on everything are very realistic and its refreshing to see a game set in different locations such as Russia and Japan. The sound quality in the game is as impressive as its predecessor as well.

Now the most important factor whats the game-play like? For those who delve into the campaign, its almost on a par with Modern Warfare. It lacks the intensity and brutality of Modern Warfare's campaign mode but makes up for this with its interesting set pieces on the Eastern Front and in the Pacific. One level replicates the fantastic Chernoybal snipers levels from number 4 but moves the action to Stalingrad. It doesn't hit you with the same 'wow' factor as the levels in the predecessor but its still a great level. Overall, the campaign mode is incredibly enjoyable to play through but the main criticism is, its even shorter than the campaign mode in Call of Duty 4. And that was short.

Now to the online mode. Franky it is excellent, the problem is if you are not a newcomer to the series: it is no Modern Warfare. The matches are a lot of fun and contain a good mixture of close quarters combat and long distance shooting. Tanks spice proceedings up nicely too. The maps are generally well constructed, however some are just too big. A particular level called Outskirts is insanely large and there are few kills to be made on this map. The weapons just aren't as fun to play around with as those in Modern Warfare either. I understand that Treyarch are vying for realism but the inclusion of more powerful weapons would have been welcoming.

To conclude, World at War is a game that should be played in isolation. Forget that Modern Warfare came before this title and you'll have a lot of fun playing through this. This should be viewed as a great game and a good stop-gap before Modern Warfare 2. However, it is easier said than done to forget how good Modern Warfare is. You will most probably go back to play it but give World at War a chance - especially you Mr Taylor

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.

this game, without any doubt is the best World war II experience you will ever have! the campaign is superb with you fighting as the Americans in the pacific front against the Japanese and the Russians invading Berlin to defeat Nazi Germany once and for all. it's intense, it's fun as hell, the action is none-stop the voice acting is some of the best i ever heard in a game and just plain fun to listen to, the realism makes this game so much more fun to play

i would like to address a special note to this game's presentation - it's amazing, it's dark and moody and it is no longer the silly "BAM WAR IS FUN!" kind of game. atrocities committed by all both axis and allies, serious gore - limbs being blown off and big puddles of blood on the battlefield, and horrid screams of pain from all sides. this is real war, yet still scripted well enough to be enjoyable and fun. no WWII can be compared to this game until World at War 2 will come out.

This game set up the black ops franchise and is very good. The campaign has you play as the Soviet Union and Americans in Japan. It is a realistic game and very gritty. It is underrated and should be appreciated more.

This game is one of the best I feel that Treyarch as put out. There are two campaigns, one with the Marines fighting the Japs in the Pacific and the Russian invasion of Germany. Some of the missions are well done, however, the campaign is short. It takes about 5-6 hours to complete.

The graphics are a plus, they include flying limbs, blood, and some good shadow effects. If you have played COD 4, then you already know how World at War looks like. There are some neat perks and vehicles in multiplayer as well.

The weapons are the same old WW2 weapons that you have seen in the first 3 Call of Duty's. However, there are always new weapons for you to mess around with including portable MG-42's and .30 cal's. My favorite is the flamethrower. The Fg-42 rifle adds a bit more variety as well. This will disappoint those COD 4 fans who love their customized modern weaponry.

Overall a good buy for any Call of Duty fan or newcomers to the series. I think this will be the last WW2 game in the franchise, so enjoy it.