Call of Duty: World at War

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.

Positives:

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

Negatives:

• Not much

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.

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