I've been a long-time fan of the Call of Duty series, though I was a little hesitant to try World at War. The developer, Treyarch, is generally considered to have produced the weaker titles in the Call of Duty series, though I played Call of Duty 3 and found it enjoyable enough to buy it. First thing's first: I enjoyed Call of Duty: World at War, and I think Treyarch did a pretty decent job with it. If this offends you, you may want to go back the way you came. Also, a stern word of warning for any parents: this game is NOT suitable for children. It contains very graphic violence and harsh language. Now I'm no censor, but I believe there are some things kids just don't need to see. This game is one of them.
I'll start with the good. World at War is built on the same technology as the critically-acclaimed Call of Duty 4. As a result, the graphics, gameplay and even the menus have the same shine that CoD4 has. The sets are beautiful and I actually found myself wishing I could visit the castle near the end of the American campaign, were it not being blown to pieces.
The action is, in a word, intense. I have played every other Call of Duty game and I have yet to see a scene (in the WW2 games anyway) as intense as the one I experienced while storming the Reichstadt. I stormed it back in the original CoD, but it sure didn't look anything like it did in WaW; there were enemies swarming out the doors, artillery to blow up, a maze of barricades to work through...it was something else. Speaking of intensity, I've got to say one of my favorite levels was the Black Cats mission. You take the role of Locke: a gunner on a PBY Catalina on duty in the Pacific. You come across a merchant fleet en route to Okinawa and decide to attack. The Catalina has four gun turrets and only two gunners. Not only do you have to shoot down enemy planes, PT boats and fill the cargo ships full of holes, you have to do it while running between four different turrets. The game handles this for you (you press X to change at appointed times. If you don't press it, the games moves you automatically) and this level was just FUN.
While WaW may have returned to the well-tread scenario of World War 2, I did appreciate that they took it to the Pacific. Most WW2 games deal solely with the war in Europe. There is a flipside to this coin though (more on that in a minute.)
Being a weapons man, I enjoyed World at War for two reasons: the M-2 flame thrower and deployable machine guns. CoD3 and CoD4 had these, but in different ways. CoD3 had a portable MG-34 that was horribly inaccurate and only found once or twice. CoD4 has modern machine guns like the Russian PKM and the American M-249. Both act as big assault rifles. WaW gives us a whole new category of weapon. You can get a U.S. Browning .30 cal, an MG-42 and a couple others. They can either be set up as you'd normally see them, or used at the hip to great effect. I doubt I experienced much that was more satisfying than playing the final American mission with a machine gun in my hands.
Some have said that the flamethrower is overpowered. I won't argue, as I agree. It kills instantly and never runs out of ammo. The only limiting factor is that sustained usage will cause it to overheat, initiating a few seconds of cooldown that is easily negated by switching weapons. But really, how long have we been waiting to douse a bunker with purging flame in a Call of Duty game? While I'd say the flamethrower mechanics still need some tweeking, it's still nice to see a new weapon on the block.
The enemies have learned a few tricks too. I can't tell you how many times I got skewerd by banzai bayonet charges or got surprised by enemies coming out of spider holes. Making the enemy more dangerous, even on lower levels, goes a long way toward making a more enjoyable game. While the flamethrower usually takes care of them, it can work against you as well. Almost as numerous as the times I got skewerd by a banzai charge were the times I lit myself on fire by attempting to torch charging enemies. Using flamethrower at point blank range = dead grunt.
The last thing I would like to applaud Treyarch for is their transitions between levels. While they did include graphic images of atrocities and things people generally do not like to see (more on this later) the layout of the cutscenes and the graphics in general look like a jazzed-up version of a history channel special. Nicely done!
The good news is that I believe this was a fun game, a worthy entry to the Call of Duty series and a good blast in the multiplayer/co-op department. Is it worth buying? Maybe, if you like shooters, the Call of Duty series or the history channe and are not easily offended. Now for the bad.
Anyone who thinks the Call of Duty series has grown stale with World War 2 would do well to steer clear of World at War. Many of the scenes visited, particularly in the Russian campaign, are nothing new. Though they may look different, we've stormed the Reichstadt before. Also, fans of the movie "Enemy at the Gates" will either love or hate the intro to the Russian campaign. It's almost an exact recreation of when Vasilli Zaitsev meets Danilov. Not that it isn't fun or that we haven't seen Enemy at the Gates in a CoD game before (let's not forget your crossing the Volga in the original CoD; right out of Enemy at the Gates, even down to where you get handed the bullets instead of the rifle. I know, I know: that actually happened, wheras the scene in the fountain...I know. But it was still laid out almost exactly like the movie.) The good news for this scene is that immediately after it, you and your new friend go on a cool chase through a burning building. Nothing like a little fire to liven up a cold winter.
While the trip to the Pacific in WaW has done something for spicing things up, there is still more to be had. Let's not forget that World War 2 was fought in quite a few places besides the Pacific, France, Germany, North Africa and Stalingrad. What about China, Italy, Sicily, Czechoslovakia? Plenty of other nations have WW2 stories to tell. While you could make the argument that such places and stories are not well-known enough to make a game about, I would suggest that this implies something more about the ignorance of the American public (and if I may be so bold, speaks a little to the American educational system. Yes, that's right. I went there.)
Take CoD3. You spend most of the British campaign working with the French resistance. Why not do something along those lines again? You can keep it as the American or British campaign, just give us a taste of another country's struggle that we might not know so much about. Heaven forbid a mainstream video game should be educational in any way.
Finally, I would like to speak a little about the graphic nature of the game. Very few would dispute that World at War brings to light a bit more violence and graphic imagery than previous games. Shooting someone produces a lot more blood (and possibly a missing limb) than it ever has. While it may be more true-to-life than one would expect, it's not the kind of thing we're used to seeing in a Call of Duty game. World at War also contains graphic/offensive images of actual footage from WW2 of piles of bodies, hangings and other unpleasantness. There is also the distinct presence of, shall we say "coarse language." Now don't get me wrong: I am not squeemish, I don't mind swearing and I personally am not offended by war footage. I am of the opinion that war is a dirty business. World at War, in my opinion, brings the user closer to actual war than any other game in the series. Some argue that the manner in which it is done is inappropriate; that the game does not handle graphic imagery with a sense of reverence and is using said images purely for shock value.
While I would agree that the imagery was not handled in the most appropriate manner possible, I don't think it was placed there purely for grotesque shock value. I believe that the designers wanted to impart a greater sense of what it was like to participate in the events portrayed in the game. Exposing the player to the graphic images one would've witnessed in real life had they been there to see the event is part of the experience.
I am of the opinion that nobody is trying to shove games down your throat. If a game offends you, don't play it. If a tv show offends you, don't watch it. World at War shows you what it was like to be in World War 2, in all the gory details. If you don't want that, don't play the game. It's that simple. If you can get past the mess that is war, you will find an enjoyable (if short) companion to the WW2 entries in the Call of Duty series.
No comments:
Post a Comment