Call of Duty: World at War

Positives:

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

Negatives:

• Not much

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 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.

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.

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