Archive for December, 2008

The hits just keep on coming.  This should be my last game review for a while since, for the most part, I'm caught up with my backlog.  Call of Duty : World at War has a lot riding on it.  It's the most anticipated and most promising of Treyarch's contributions to the Call of Duty franchise, and to be honest I have to say that it truly pays off.  With that said I've been a big fan of all of the Treyarch-developed Call of Duty games that I've played (I missed 1 or 2 of their original Xbox-era games) and I think that they get an extremely negative rap from a lot of people who don't even take the time to play the games they negatively critique.

With World at War the Call of Duty franchise takes its first steps into the Pacific theater of World War 2.  This is something I've been wanting to see for years because it has never been done right, until now.  The game definitely delivers on the more grimy and ugly part of war, rather than the glory of victory associated with the war in Europe.  This "scary side of war" allows for a lot of unique elements to be added to the gameplay beyond storytelling - things like Japanese banzai charges, new cover mechanics for enemies (soldiers hiding in deep brush, or snipers waiting to pick you off from the top of a tree).  There's also new weapons to play with, including the flamethrower which is always a crowd-favorite whether you're playing multiplayer or through the singleplayer campaign.  The best thing about fighting in battles from the Pacific theater though, is just the amazing change of pace visually.  Going from demolished European cities to dense and lush jungle environments is a welcome breath of fresh air.

The game includes everything you'd want from a Call of Duty game.  Epic battles that make your speakers thump and your heart race?  Check.  Realistic locales, weapons and vehicles?  Check.  Nerve-wracking defense missions forcing you to fight to the last man as you pray for backup?  Check.  It almost sounds derivative at this point but it's what I love about the series.  If you have any interest in World War 2 and the battles that took place all those years ago you should look no further, this is your game.  The story plays out on two fronts - first the Pacific theater, where you play Pvt. Miller of the Marine Raiders.  You go from being rescued on Makin Island to the Battle of Okinawa until you and your squad are left without ammo, aid, or any form of reinforcement as you're pushed towards the breaking point.  The second part of the game (not the second half, since you play through these two phases round-robin style) takes place in Russia and Germany.  You play Pvt. Dimitri Petrenko of the Red Army as you and your comrades help to drive the German army back to Berlin.

There has been a lot of fuss about this second portion of the game.  A lot of people were upset when they heard that there would, indeed, be some action from the European theater.  I don't mind it a bit.  Because the Pacific theater levels are so gritty and tense I think it's important to switch the levels up a bit, and that's exactly what the European levels do.  They're both linked in that they tell a similar story (in both cases you're a soldier that has been rescued by your comrades) and it varies things just enough that you won't get burned out from one environment or the other.  The European side of the story also approaches the campaign much differently than we've seen in previous Call of Duty games, so it's not as if old content has been rehashed.

The game runs great obviously.  That's one of the most astonishing things about the Call of Duty franchise - the games always run at 60 frames per second and still have beautiful environments and textures.  The explosions and gunfire interact with the environment very nicely, creating some of the best particle effects I've seen in a game.  The Call of Duty control style is also the optimal way of playing a first person shooter with a controller.  Basically, they've nailed all of the important stuff, and the game feels, looks and sounds great.  All-in-all it took me about 8 hours to complete the single player campaign by myself, but I always like to go back through and play on Veteran (the hardest difficulty) so you can double that...not to mention the fact that you can play through with a friend, but I'll get to that next.

So, multiplayer.  In my opinion the Treyarch CoD games have always had better multiplayer components.  After Call of Duty 4 came out I was a little concerned though, because CoD4's multiplayer, with its leveling system similar to a roleplaying game, was extremely addicting.  Treyarch was able to deliver this same experience with all new maps and perks, not to mention weapons and even vehicles.  They didn't stop there though, they even added a couple bonuses into the mix.  First, World at War finally brings co-op to Call of Duty.  You can play through the entire singleplayer campaign (minus a couple brief levels which were meant to be played with one player only) with up to 3 other buddies.  It works great and in my experience there's absolutely no problems with lag.  They've also introduced a new multiplayer gametype altogether in the form of "Zombie Nazi" mode.

Zombie Nazi mode is unlocked when you beat the game, and once you unlock it you get to play not only by yourself but with friends as well.  It's a pretty basic premise, and one that's completely contrary to the rest of the game.  You're locked in a house, zombie nazis are trying to break in, you want to keep them out.  There's only the one level but it's really fun to play, and the game is structured in successive rounds, with each round bringing more and more zombies for you to fight off.  Much like Left 4 Dead, it's a blast.  That's all I really wanted to say about World at War's multiplayer because I've already written a post about it:

http://davekemick.com/blog/call-of-duty-world-at-war-preview/

The game isn't perfect.  The story is kind of...well, worthless as harsh as that sounds.  It seems like the past few CoD games have tried to shoe-horn in a story.  I find this kind of unnecessary when it comes to World War 2 because the whole conflict in and of itself was a story.  I just like replaying and "reliving" the battles that went on, nevermind some attachment I'm supposed to have to the in-game characters above and beyond what I did already.  The story is serviceable, but not necessary and certainly not perfect.  My other gripe about the game is that the AI is dumb sometimes.  Every now and then you'll see a Japanese or German soldier just standing and looking at you, not firing his weapon or anything, just watching.  Sometimes you can sneak right by a soldier and they don't even really pay any attention to you - then all of the sudden you're getting bonzai'd with a bayonet from behind.  Honestly though, a lot of the times the AI was acting dumb I was kind of happy about it.  They call the difficulty "Hardened" for a reason.  It's hard. I'm sure I'll be even more thankful on veteran.

Another problem is that good guys sometimes look like bad guys, and it's hard to differentiate between the two.  This could be chalked up to the whole fog of war thing, but it can also be frustrating.  One nice thing is that, unlike previous games in the series the penalty for killing teammates doesn't seem to be as harsh.  A lot of the time in Call of Duty 4 I'd accidentally shoot one of my AI partners in the heat of battle and the level would end, prompting me to restart from a checkpoint because Infinity Ward despises traitors.  That didn't happen to me a single time during my play-through of World at War, and I know for a fact that I took out a couple of my teammates...always by accident, I swear.

So all in all this is a great addition to the franchise.  Is it better than Call of Duty 4?  I'd say yes, but I'm a sucker for a good WW2 shooter.  CoD4's singleplayer campaign might have been a bit better but considering the entire package there's no question in my mind.  World at War basically takes everything CoD4 did, turns back the dial 60 years, adds some sprinkles on top and serves up a nice hot dish of FPS soul food.  There's no question that the multiplayer portion of the game, both competitive and cooperative, is the best of any game this season.  Gears of War 2 is fun and all but it just doesn't have the hook that keeps me coming back to it everynight like World at War has.  The leveling system, the perks, the unlockables...not to mention 4 player co-op and nazi zombie slaying.  It's the perfect package.

Plus the news only gets better!  An article went up on Kotaku today reporting that Treyarch is already working on downloadable content for World at War.  It seems that there's a possibility that they'll be "bucking the tradition" of just releasing new multiplayer maps.  Perhaps we'll see some more zombie scenarios?  Or something entirely different?  Only time will tell.  You can read the article by clicking on this sentence.

So please do yourself a favor and at least try Call of Duty : World at War before you buy into the hype that Treyarch is "teh sux0rz."  At least play the game for yourself (rentals are cheap these days) before you judge it...chances are good that you'll get some fun out of the deal.  =)

Now Playing:
Jedi Mind Tricks - Walk With Me (Featuring Percee P)
LittleBigPlanet