Harken82 reviews [b]
Call of Duty: World at War[/b]

I’d like to ask you a question. How many World War 2 games do we need? I’ve done the Normandy landings so many times, I could start a historical re-enactment society. And as for Nijmegen, I’ve never been there, but thanks to Medal of Honor, I could run tours of the place. I’m surprised Medal of Honor: Rising Sun didn’t get from Pearl Harbour to Guadalcanal via chuffing Nijmegen. Don’t get me wrong, I like Nijmegen, I imagine it’s quite lovely when it’s not swarming with the footsoldiers of the Third Reich, but I don’t want to go there IN EVERY GAME.

Here’s a question for the developers. Do you want us to feel bad about World War 2, or do you want us to have fun? Make your minds up. It’s either an exhilarating, flag-waving, Allies storm to victory romp, or it’s a sombre, “look how sad the war was” documentary. I’m all for realism, but I struggle to feel bad about shooting people when it’s the point of the game. It’s only a matter of time before developers get so arty and pretentious that they decide the discovery of the concentration camps should be depicted in a game, and I don’t know how we’ll feel when it happens. There was a time when developers wouldn’t dream of depicting torture, but the opening scene of World at War is a graphic depiction of Japanese soldiers mistreating their prisoners. It’s done tastefully and it fits the story, but developers are all about going one better, and I wonder what the next game will have to do in order to achieve that.

As I said earlier, we’ve been fighting World War 2 from our armchairs for about ten years, and I feel thoroughly fed up. I’ve got shellshock, I’ve lost a few limbs and probably a testicle or two, I’ve got a thousand-yard stare, and my feet have rotted to stumps. The simulated war has gone on longer than the actual war, and I’m starting to pray for WW3 so developers will have something original to say. If I want to be educated about the 40s, I’ll talk to my Granddad or watch the History Channel. Games should be about escaping from our miserable lives, not simulating the miserable lives of other people.

Anyway, enough of all this first year philosophy ‘games as art’ babble. Let’s talk about why Call of Duty: World at War is a load of old rubbish.

Jack Bauer plays your commanding officer, and unlike the big name voice talent we usually have to endure, he actually sounds like he gives a monkey about the script. I hope you’re taking notes, Mr Neeson. And in an ironic twist, he plays a character who DOESN’T condone torture.My only problem with Jack Bauer is that he expects you to do everything. He doesn’t seem to realise there are other guys in your platoon. You have to sort out the airstrikes, you have to bomb the banzais out of their holes, you have to run into a hail of machine gun fire in order to grab the flamethrower, you have to shoot down all the zeroes. I’d go on strike but he’d probably growl at me until I cried.He’s also unfeasibly hard, and seems to be there just to make you feel inadequate. He runs around yelling and cursing, rarely shooting at the enemy, preferring to run up and stab them in the throat. He’s like Captain America on crack, and his superhuman antics make you feel a bit redundant. Why does he want me to call in an airstrike? Why doesn’t he just run into the enemy bunker and punch them all to death?

Well that’s the bad stuff out of the way. Now let’s talk about why Call of Duty: World at War is the best World War 2 game I’ve ever played.

I hate talking about graphics, because graphics do not a good game make, but visually, this game is exceptional. The characters are intricately detailed and expertly animated. Trees, grass, dirt, bricks and windows all look breathtaking and react to bullets and bombs in a very realistic way. The buildings and streets of urban Russia and Germany are elaborate and immersive.Call of Duty: World at War has the best presentation I’ve seen in any current-generation game. Better than Far Cry, better than Halo, better than Fallout. And apologies in advance to all those Medal of Honor fans, but it’s ridiculously superior to MOH: Airborne in pretty much every way.

Every so often, there’s a newsreel between levels, and they give World at War a very realistic feel. The last newsreel is particularly poignant and does make you think. The chapters about the destruction of Berlin are unflinching and morally ambiguous, challenging you to ask: are the Germans the bad guys any more?

You get a go on everything, rifles, mounted guns, aeroplane guns, tanks. The weapons feel solid and tough and the grenades are good clean fun. And for once, the injuries you inflict on your enemies are shown in gritty detail. World at War does not shy away from showing you horrible things, and it’s a better game as a result.

I also enjoy the achievements in World at War. One of the best ones requires you to scorch a Japanese soldier out of his tree with the flamethrower. Delicious. And scouring the levels to find all the Death Cards should be good for my OCD ‘must-collect-everything’ syndrome.

So what’s my verdict?Call of Duty: World at War is by far the finest WW2 games I have played in my life, and soundly knocks MOH: Airborne out of the top spot. If you like WW2, if you like shooters, if you like masterful storytelling and frenetic action, and if you don’t mind Jack Bauer overshadowing you with his gigantic steel balls, I suggest you buy it now.

Call of Duty: World at War
A Harken82 review

The game was just a re-skinned COD4 but with the good bits taken out (IMO)
I wouldn't have said it had masterful story telling or amazing graphics, but that's just me.

I believe it had great graphics. I don't think the American bit was terribly inspired (it was good, but as it's been said, I've done this shit already), but I thoroughly loved the Russian parts. The Russian sergeant is an absolutely brilliant character, and the game ending is very stirring. Matter of fact, the beginning and the ending were two of my favorite parts.

MW2 multiplayer? Ripped straight from W@W. Exactly the same, but with a different skin.

I can't say I disagree with anything here, Harken, though I think that a game in this vein where the AI did stuff for you would be pretty pointless.

Haha yeah, imagine if the AI did everything, it would be gash -- but imagine if they did the occasional thing... instead of just being obstacles / human shields...?

I take it you haven't played COD4.

It's been forever and I didn't play online much.