[HEADING=1]Hello again.[/HEADING]
It has been some time since my last review. I was thinking of doing Red Dead and I'd quite like to although I bought it late and everyones already been and done it. Doesn't mean I can't reflect on things I've enjoyed in the past.
Black Ops is coming soon and while the timing of it is rather unfortunate, what with it being released at the same time as Fallout: New Vegas, Crysis 2 and LittleBIGplanet 2, I must admit that it's the first Call of Duty game I've actually gotten hyped for. This is because it's by Treyarch who made World at War, which I just so happen to think is the best Call of Duty game and at a stretch, the best World War 2 game.
I've never liked World War 2 shooters. Medal of Honour: Frontline is the closest I'd come before to getting into the genre and unfortunately for it the whole game was overshadowed by the incredibly epic beginning. As a result I never got into Call of Duty. The late comer to the sub-genre, it seemed to me liked all it was trying to do was capitalise on the success of the two other major World War 2 franchises, Medal of Honour and Brothers in Arms. Id found the sub-genre boring before everyone else did and as a result I never gave the first Call of Duty games much of a chance. The original was Ok, sort off, I never actually played number 2 and as for 3....well I stupidly bought that for the Wii. People told me of COD 4: Modern Warfare several months after release after I'd came to their houses asking why the hadn't been outside in 2 months. I managed to get a borrower of it from a reluctant friend having assumed that their claims of it having the best multiplayer ever had some validity to them. I enjoyed the campaign but probably wouldn't go back to it and had to assume that my friends hadn't played Left 4 Dead or Team Fortress 2. The online was decent but without actual classes, people had no reason to work together and the whole thing became fairly disjointed.
Come on. Is this really better than making out with a Minigun?
This was when the World War 2 genre died out. Both Medal of Honour and Brothers in Arms went down the shitters and for some odd reason Treyarch thought that the best way to follow up the game which may have been responsible for this was to set it in World War 2. Not so much a brave decision as a stupid one, even if it did pay off. World at War may very well be the final World War 2 gamewhich is a nice thought. It's a beautiful swansong for the sub-genre, one that shows up the franchises that died doing what It succeeded in.
[HEADING=1]Campaign[/HEADING]
I always judge games by their campaign (unless it has none) because I come from the Yahtzee school of thought in that I don't believe multiplayer will be any good if the single player isn't and as a result I always jump straight into the campaign. My main gripe with COD 4 was that the campaign felt insubstantial. Sure it was a well told story but I probably wouldn't return due to the mundanity of some of the missions. I was almost certain that I was going to hate World at War due to my aforementioned dislike of World War 2 and the fact that the Call of Duty series never really gripped me so you can imagine that I was taken by surprise when it turned out to rather exciting and gripping. World at War is a brutally violent, explosive shooter that plays out in some of that particular wars most interesting locations such as the pacific islands and even the Reichstag.
Gameplay
The combat in World at War is that same old affair of fast paced shooting action and hiding behind cover waiting for the red stuff to go away. It's the same unflinching formula that Call of Duty seems hell bent on sticking to. The gunplay is as solid and well flowing as it's ever been although World at War ups the ante with some brutal weapons and an extra dose of ever reliable gore. Shots to certain parts of the body result in some glorious dismemberment and even the odd exploding skull. It actually has a positive effect on gameplay because after all, a headshot is all the more satisfying when an enemies head explodes and last stand at least makes sense when the enemy no longer has any legs. However the game does pull COD 4's most detrimental trick. The whole infinitely respawning enemies that only stop once you get really close. This is something that happened every few feet in COD 4, testing my will to play it. I'm pretty sure this was to make the game more difficult although in the end it only resulted in some frustrating deaths when an enemy spawned behind me and did an Irreversible to my face with the butt of his gun. Oddly enough I wasn't bothered by this during my time with World at War. It pulls the trick yes, but unlike its predecessor it doesn't add nausea. The levels are well designed so that there is always substantial, well spaced cover meaning you won't become a bullet blamange trying to run between craters. You always have a few soldiers with you, on hand to soak up the bullets seeing as how actually helping with cause them to foam at the mouth. There are also plenty of tools like turrets and air strikes at your disposal for the few levels were cover is scarce. There isn't much you can say about COD's combat. It's unchanging in that it's always going to be simple to get used to and hideously easy to master. This doesn't mean that I can't complain about something quite petty.
Treyarch really need to figure out what they want to do with checkpoints. There's times were you get a checkpoint every 5 feet and others when Treyarch forget that they're there. Most missions you get them half way through combat yet during one particularly annoying mission called ?Blowtorch and Corkscrew? when you actually need them you have to advance up a rather high hill through persistent Japanese troops who've just figured out what grenades do before reaching your next checkpoint. Some freaking consistency would be nice.
Story
The problem with World War 2 is the plot. We all know how it ends and when you know the ending to a story it takes away the impact. Treyarch were aware of this and as such they let the locations carry the story. World at War uses the same quantum leaping, stroytelling techniques as COD 4. This time the game jumps between the Americans as they battle the Japanese across the Pacific and the Russians as they tear a swath through Germany to Berlin as they exact revenge for the destruction of their homeland. Both sides of the campaign are heavy on action as opposed to COD 4's mix of stealth and RATATATATATATATAT. Out of the two campaigns the Americans, for the first time ever, is the best. You play as lowly Private Miller who despite his low rank is continually given control over airstrikes. The first mission, Semper Fi (first person to tell me the meaning gets a cookie), sees Miller being held captive by Japs on Makin Atoll. His squadmates Sgt. Sullivan and Cpl. "keither" Roebuck arrive to save him and together they eliminate the Japanese forces and go island hopping across the Pacific. Over the course of the game the Americans storm the islands of Peleliu and Okinawa, two beautiful but deadly islands. The Pacific is so underused that it's a perfect location. It feels fresh and it carries the story brilliantly as the Americans conquer the islands bit by bit. The Japanese are brilliant villians too, employing deadly tactics like Banzai charges, hiding in grass and trees and dropping grenades as they die.
The Russians side of the story kickstarts in Stalingrad, 1942, after the Germans cleaned the place up. You play as Private Dimitri Petrenko who, working with rather charismatic and brutal Sergeant Reznov, assassinates German General Amstel. Three years later they meet up again, Reznov saving Dimitri from his German captors. He joins the Russian army as the fight to Berlin in order to reclaim the Reichstag, the German Parliamentary building.
Events like storming Shuri castle or battling through the sewers of Berlin haven't appeared in video games before (I think). They're about as exciting and fresh as World War 2 can get. There is attempts to fit a human story in there as well although it just comes off as an unecessary addition. Sgt. Sullivan dies remarkabaly quickly at which point Roebuck, who looked liked a clone of him anyway, takes his place. Dimitri and Reznovs ongoing relationship is quite creepy as well.
Seriously Reznov....We're just friends
After the events at Stalingrad, Reznov falls in love with Dimitri, never missing a chance to tell his men how "Dimitri is the heart of this army" or "You should follow Dimitri's example" all the while failing to promote him.
The story is elevated, somewhat, by a moral choice of sorts on the last American Mission.
Upon reaching the courtyard of Shuri castle you meet a couple of Japs who appear to surrender. Roebuck and some guy you only just notice now investigate at which point the Japs grab hold of both men and try to blow them up. You can only save one, you'll be bringing the others tags home. Unfortunately for me, Roebuck died first time which is good because there would have been no emotional impact if I'd let some random soldier get blown up. It doesn't help the drama when all the soldiers like to show off their mastery of the arts of ventriloquism and don't open their mouths when they speak
[HEADING=1]Multiplayer[/HEADING]
The only reason people play Call of Duty, the multiplayer has been one of the reasons I'm determined to put down Infinity Ward. COD 4 had good multiplayer but it wasn't great. The freedom to create a class was a novelty one that I would have happily traded in for some well constructed pre-made classes. I believe that the purpose of multiplayer is so that people can work together. Classes help with this as they have strengths and weaknesses that force you to either work together or stick to your role. Balance, orginisation. That's how it should be. With COD 4 you can level out any of your classes weaknesses, essentially creating the ultimate soldier. Without a good reason to work with somebody people turn into lone wolfs. World at War is basically more of the same. I've got to credit Treyarch for making a near perfect transition from modern day to World War 2. Obviosuly some of the weapons have changed. Sniper Rifles are now all bolt-action and the assault rifle category has changed to the rifle category. Basically large, semi-automatic pistols. The perks are almost exactly the same except older and even more annoying(Bouncy Betty Bastards). Treyarch must also be congratulated for thinking of a 7 killstreak even more annoying than the Attack Chopper. Being forced to camp out in order to hide from that damn chopper was nowhere near as annoying as spending a minute of the match running from damn dogs. The addition of vehicles doesn't make much of a change if I'm being honest. Few of the maps have tanks and the ones that do generally have alot of cover. At the worst of times tanks mop up the map, at the best the sight of one inspires short bursts of teamwork. The maps are all very good. There's ones you like and ones you won't and that's just the way Call of Duty is. If this bit sounded rushed then that's because I just couldn't care too much about the multiplayer. I was playing through it one day, enjoying it. I turned my PS3 off and after that I didn't play World at Wars multiplayer again. It's just so bloody similar to COD 4 and I got bored of that game after a month. It's still entertaining but if you've played COD 4 then this won't be anything new.
[HEADING=1]Co-op[/HEADING]
Co-op is something that Infinity Wards love note to the knife has been sorely missing. While a few co-op missions on the side are nice, being able to play the full campaign with a friend is so much better. As it is the campaign is explosive and exciting, playing it with a good friend is actually an improvement to the experience. Of course having to play split screen isn't doing anything for my eyesight but my TV is big enough that it doesn't physically hurt to watch. You can play it competitively as well, shooting for points which leads to gloating which leads to one less friends and a nasty stain on the floor. Being able to revive each other doesn't do much for the hideously forgiving difficulty curve and it leads to alot of shouting when I demand my friend save me. Guess I'm just a solo person.
SHUT UP.......I'M TRYING TO CLEAR THE AREA FIRST YOU TWAT
[HEADING=1]Nazi Zombies[/HEADING]
Ahhhhh....The infamous Nazi Zombies. People who play Modern Warfare do so for the campaign, people who play World at War do it for Nazi Zombies. My friend says it's genius, I laugh because it's not quite that good and he fails at sounding clever. Nazi Zombies is like something the programmers made during their lunchbreaks. It's essentially a tower defence game in which up to 4 people are stuck inside a bunker while Nazi Zombies attempt to break in through the many entrances. You have to hold off wave after wave of increasingly fast zombies until death do you done AND YOU WILL DIE. You collect points by shooting zombies, with more accurate shots earning more points, and by boarding up the windows that the zombies try to break through. Points are used to buy weapons and unlock new areas of the bunker which, while giving you access to new weapons, gives the zombies more ways to enter. Fun with friends and even with random people from across the globe (presuming you all have mics) Nazi Zombies is easily the smartest thing that the Call of Duty franchise will ever have to its name and I for one hope that Black Ops sees it make a grand return in Commie Zombies.
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. Just cause your Zombies doesn't mean I'll treat you differently.
[HEADING=1]Conclusion[/HEADING]
As I've already said, World at War is my favourite Call of Duty. While not particularly clever, the campaign is exciting and that's all I can ask from your average military shooter. The online is as good as Call of Duty has ever been but it's to similar too COD 4 to be worth most peoples time. Still, with the co-operative campaign and 4 player Nazi Zombies it's a good game for entertaining friends. If you're into this kind of thing then you really shouldn't go without it.
I'll be back soon, hopefully with a few Indie titles to review.
See you next time.
[HEADING=1]Other Talkative Articles[/HEADING]
- God of War 3 review [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.195439-Talkative-A-God-of-War-3-Review]
Indie game roundup and a quick word on Inception [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.223644-Talkative-Indie-game-roundup-and-a-quick-word-on-Inception]
LittleBIGplanet 2 Review [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.265522-Talkative-A-LittleBIGplanet-2-Review]
