Conventional wisdom — or at least Metacritic — holds that I picked a bad time to walk in on the Call of Duty series. Critics say COD4: Modern Warfare was the real cream of the next-gen crop, and while World at War is an admirable remake in World War II clothing, it’s viewed as more of a black sheep than a favorite son. But the truth is, after playing the entirety of World at War, it didn’t strike me as better or worse than Call of Duty 2 and Modern Warfare based on the limited time I’ve spent with both. The series has always struck me as a fun way to shoot guns, albeit lacking the coolness factor that pushes me instead towards futuristic shooters like Halo and Fallout 3. Playing the latest addition has provided new insight, but it’s not likely to draw me back.
This is standard COD fare from what I recall about the series. Instead of stepping into one soldier’s combat boots, you get two different perspectives. As the U.S. army’s Pvt. Miller, you fight the Japanese on Makin Island, Peleliu and Okinawa. For the Russians, you’re Pvt. Petrenko, who joins several fights against the Germans at home and in their country. Both characters narrowly escape death before their stories begin and go on to be instrumental in winning the war. Aside from the plot, the two vantage points provide subtle but necessary changes in play style. The Japanese are a sneaky lot, hiding in trees, laying in grass and generally using their surroundings to ambush the Americans. The terrain while fighting the Germans is decidedly more urban, and you’ll find yourself escaping burning buildings, dodging rocket fire and sniping out of windows.
I’ve never been in a war, but Call of Duty seems to approximate it well. Gunfire has a way of coming from every direction, forcing you to take cover as your squadmates scream about incoming grenades and flanking attackers. There’s also a calculated mayhem that goes into your attacks. This is no Gears of War, where enemy sprites are chunky and distinct. Often, your enemies appear as mere muzzle flashes in the distance, and the best you can do is lay down a few rifle shots, throw a grenade and pray. You’ll don’t always know for sure if you cleared out the opposing force, so moving to the next cover point requires a leap of faith.
It helps to have allies in steady supply. Your squad usually consists of a few indestructible regulars, including a leader to guide you through each mission. Their lines lean more towards trite than insightful, but I admittedly got a little tingly when I heard Kiefer Sutherland’s voice as Sgt. Roebuck, no matter what he was saying. Gary Oldman dons an admirable Russian accent for Sgt. Reznov. Your buddies are pretty capable overall. Like any AI (or, perhaps, any battlefield), there’s a chance they’ll stumble inadvertently into your gunfire, but they know how to run when you toss a grenade, and they make excellent distractions while you execute your own battle plans. On several occasions, I was able to lead my squad into a skirmish on one side of the map, only to run around to the other side and flank the enemy.
Even more satisfying were the times I dashed straight into enemy lines, unnoticed during an ongoing shootout. Enemies are quick to respond to these shenanigans, making my heart pound franticly during do-or-die attempts. I enjoyed the visual style of World at War, which fits nicely with the arcade aesthetic of the gameplay. Frame rate is smoother than the kind of “movie look” you get in some shooters, and the graphics, I’m told, are notably gorier than previous installments. There’s spurting blood, severed appendages and even a few graphic cutscenes.
At a distance, I swore someone’s head popped off when I shot it, but it could have been a helmet. Unlike the kinds of shooters I usually roll with, Call of Duty: World at War’s weapons are fairly indistinct (though they all sound excellent). You’ve got a few basic classes — submachine gun, machine gun, rifle, automatic rifle — plus a few specialty weapons, but it’s you’re rarely change loadouts to accommodate different fighting styles. It’s more likely you’ll pick a reliable pair of guns and stick with them as long as there’s ammo.
Perhaps for that reason, the game gets tiring in the later stretches. By mission 15, you’ve seen pretty much everything Call of Duty has to offer. Fortunately, the campaign is fairly short, leaving time to enjoy some of the game’s other modes. Multiplayer is about what I expected based on my time with the previous games, but much faster than I’m used to. This game combines the military loadouts and instant deaths of Counter Strike with the unrelenting pace of Quake. Like most games, there’s a bit of strategy in where you place yourself and how you work with teammates, but this is mostly a “shoot first, ask questions later” affair.
Also, after two weeks of Gears of War, it’s truly refreshing to see a multiplayer experience so streamlined. Matches begin quickly, and rematches are automatic unless you choose to leave the group. The ranking system goes beyond typical level-based incentives, offering new weapons, add-ons and special abilities as you invest more time in the game. Since I’ve been pretty complementary of the game overall, you might wonder why I’m still not likely to return to the series. World at War, though enjoyable, lies squarely outside the fictional realm of video games that often gathers most of my attention. War games are troubling to me, not necessarily because they profit off human suffering, but because they are just too predictable. I had a pretty good idea of what Call of Duty: World at War had in store, and now that I know for sure, there’s little reason for me to go back.
