News

• Call of Duty: World at War
• Reviewed on: Xbox 360
• Also available for: PS3, PC, Wii, DS
• 
  
• The Good: Great production values all around; New weapons add to the overall chaos; Multiplayer is full of goodies, including vehicle maps; Main characters voiced by actors Kiefer Sutherland and Gary Oldman
• The Bad: Maybe a little too linear, especially when fighting in open jungles; Storyline can be a little confusing for those who don't know the history; Glitches in graphics here and there, as well as some parts where the AI comes off as being cheap
• The Verdict: A World at War has never been so intensely vicious

Bertrand Russell once said that “war does not determine who is right – only who is left.” His assessment makes a lot of sense, especially when it relates to the final days of the Second World War. While some might roll their eyes at the idea of yet another shooter depicting those events, Call of Duty: World at War isn't exactly in the same vein.

We all know war to be a terrible thing; brutal, grotesque and unrelenting. World at War goes further than last year's Modern Warfare in showing the realities of the battlefield, and how madness can take over no matter who's winning or losing.

From the Pacific to the gates of Berlin

Finally, we get a CoD game that offers the war in the Pacific against Imperial Japan. As a U.S. Marine, I hopped islands and took out enemy ships before finding myself on the home stretch in Okinawa. As a Russian soldier, I cheated death in Stalingrad and found myself among the first troops to storm the gates of Berlin. These two theatres were picked because they exemplify the ferocity and unforgiving chaos of the combatants on both sides. The opening scene shows a Japanese officer slapping around a Marine, putting out a cigarette in his eye and then slicing his neck open, leaving all kinds of blood splattered on the wall.

It foreshadowed a lot of what I saw in the rest of the single-player campaign. I watched fellow Russians gunned down in cold blood in Stalingrad, only to return the favour in kind when my boots were planted on German soil. I was ordered to execute wounded German troops with impunity. I blew a Japanese soldier's head off with a shotgun blast. Body parts flew about, corpses mounted after being mowed down and blood stains trailed the scenes from start to finish.

Needless to say, it was ugly, and I'm sure it was far worse in real life. The developers made the right move by keeping the tactics of all sides true. German and Japanese troops fought in different terrain with vastly different tactics. The Japanese came across as more fearless, even playing dead to ambush oncoming Marines. The German AI, though not as insane, fought with more desperation than I've noticed in other WWII games.

New weapons from Japan's arsenal, as well as sticky bombs, gas bombs and anti-tank guns make things go bang, while the flamethrower, Molotov cocktails and bayoneted rifles contribute to the close-quarters chaos. The flamethrower sees the most action in the Pacific, where enemy troops burn alive with reckless abandon. At one point in Berlin, three German soldiers tried to surrender. My commander reminded me of past events in Stalingrad and told me to shoot them or they'd face worse treatment. I purposely did nothing, only to see them end up being showered with Molotovs anyway. The price for victory is high on all sides, I suppose.

World-class multiplayer

The single-player campaign can be played in co-op with up to three others in split-screen. A few missions are omitted when playing this way because they wouldn't work with more than one player. No matter how you play, World at War is scripted all the way through. There wasn't much room for choice or creativity because of the linear nature of the game, but it didn't matter because the action maintained such a frantic pace. Even if I wanted to move and explore, I probably would've been killed more often.

And I did get killed often – very often. There are some maddening points in World at War that will require many continues. Luckily, checkpoints were frequent and the game only pushed me back a very short time before I died.

As for multiplayer online, World at War is world-class. It expands on some of the things Modern Warfare did by including four maps made for vehicles. I could fight as an infantryman on these maps as well, though it's hard to co-ordinate with everyone else when there's little communication on a huge map.

The reward system now provides cool incentives for being able to run a continuous number of kills. Three in a row gave me a spotting plane. Five for an artillery strike. And seven for a pack of dogs that could flush out and swarm a hiding enemy to tear him apart. It's easier said than done to rack up kills this way, but it's well worth trying to get that extra helping hand.

There's an unusual co-op mode called Nacht der Untoten, or night of the undead, that consists of you trying to hold off a horde of Nazi zombies while holed up in a bunker. Each wave becomes harder to suppress, but the points you earn can be used to prolong your inevitable deaths by purchasing ammo, weapons or unlocking new areas of the bunker. You will die no matter what, but the objective is to stay alive as long as possible, so you can compare your stats with others on the leaderboard.

A war worth fighting for

Civilians caught in the crossfire might've been the one element missing in this game that really would've added to its message. This was easier to avoid in the islands of the Pacific, but it's been well documented that most German deaths in the fight for Berlin were likely civilians. Their absence isn't a deal-breaker for me by any means, but it might've offered a new perspective not seen in a game before.

Still, World at War is a great game from start to finish. The visuals are superb, especially during some of the Berlin street-fighting scenes. The lush jungles also make for a nice departure from the standard fare of other CoD games. The co-op modes are fun, the multiplayer is entertaining and the single-player campaign is good enough to play through again.

Activision did get some flack for releasing this game on November 11, as critics felt it glorified war on a day where we all remember those who fell in the line of duty. I disagree. Playing through this campaign has done a better job than many other games of showing the conditions these veterans fought in. It is just a game, after all, but at least it has a historical message that we should all heed.