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
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