The beta was expanded, with a higher level cap, more weapons, and the inclusion of Hardcore playlists. I held off a few days to reach a reasonable verdict. I'll proofread this when I get home, but I lazed around something fierce with this draft, so I owe it to you all to at least give those who can't play it the general gist.
Call of Duty: World at War Roughly a year after it's commercially and critically acclaimed predecessor graced us with it's presence, Call of Duty: World at War will hit shelves worldwide, pitting itself against franchise sequels like Gears of War 2, Far Cry 2, Resistance 2 and Killzone 2. All are large-budget flagship titles, all have received rave critical preview, and with the exception of Killzone, all have a rabid multiplayer fanbase in their previous renditions.
I stated earlier this week that I would not be judging Call of Duty in relation to it's competition. However, re-examining my previous statement, I found that not only did it not make much sense, it wasn't the best philosophy for review of commercial products of any kind. As a products quality is determined only by the status-quo set before, or alongside it, the necessity is to compare it to previous works, even if they're not named specifically has become apparent to me.
So, with such fierce competition, does it's title alone elevate Call of Duty: World at War to the status of multiplayer heir-apparent? Keep reading to find out.
Maps/Gameplay
Much to the ire of the Call of Duty fanbase at large, the fifth entry into the series hearkens back once more to the turbulent WWII era, this time setting itself primarily in the Pacific, and distant Eastern fronts. Thankfully, the time period a game is set in does little or nothing to effect the mechanics of the multiplayer experience, so for this review's purposes, the era is mostly irrelevant. The setting however is important indeed.
Let me first make note of this. There is nothing particularly wrong with the maps we have been exposed to thus far. They're large, diverse and complex. However, they lack a sense of coherence; a flow if you will. Even if you had never played the game in your life, Call of Duty 4 directed you towards the action naturally. You were never far from a firefight, because while the maps were expansive, they weren't daunting, or counterintuitive.
Three multiplayer maps are made available in the Beta. The first is Roundhouse, set in a Russian train-yard, in late afternoon. The map is primarily circular, converging on a roundhouse in the middle of "no man's land". This provides for some of the best action I've experienced thus far. Penetrable cover and an unconventional level design prevent games on from becoming a campfest. Two tanks are made available, and thanks to some additions to your explosive arsenal, and a more fallible set of weapons, they're just as, if not more engaging than in Call of Duty 3.
The next map is a Pacific village. This is the only map in the beta set at night. It's located on a beach providing for an interesting set of low-light conditions (and a serious advantage to those rich enough for a high-contrast LCD, or those content enough with their CRT HD Monitors). It's an interesting showcase for some nifty new effects (floating bodies look pretty slick), but altogether nothing spectacular. The water, despite being better looking than previous renditions, is still as flat and calm as ever, an oddity on a map supposedly located on or around the Pacific. For all the potential it has, as explained earlier, the map suffers from a lack of direction. It's primary focus is the lateral movement across the beach, and only half way through your first match do you notice that there's a hidden inland thicket on the far end of the map, which does little to entertain, and a great deal for campers and stalemate standoffs.
The final level is a traditional Japanese castle. It's a large level, though I feel (and this is something I rarely feel) that it could have been better condensed to meet the needs of a typical Team-Deathmatch oriented shooter. I have yet to play it on Capture the Flag, or Search and Destroy, so I can't comment on how it plays with either of those, but it doesn't seem to be played the way the designers intended.
Apart from the handful of new maps, new perks, and slight discrepancies in control, the game really does play much like Call of Duty 4 in normal playlists. However, about a week into the Beta, they bumped the level cap, and introduced Hardcore playlists into the mix.
If there's a redeeming quality about World at War, it's found in the few hardcore modes made available. Weapons are better balanced, due to a (most of the time) one-shot one-kill damage system. The HUD is far less cluttered (a primary complaint about the CoD series in general), and it's in general, a cleaner-cut, more enjoyable experience altogether. When I take a look at the campaign mode next month, that'll definitely be the only mode I'll be participating in.
Controls
Because World at War is running on the Call of Duty 4 engine, the controls have basically remained untouched from the last ieteration. Your down-the-sight aim speed has decreased significantly, as has your stride-length when you're in down-the-sight mode. Hit detection can be rather wonky, similar to how the Barret Light Fifty was in four. Instead of going into great detail, I'll just be upfront. Don't use bolt-actions unless you're in hardcore mode. It's not worth it.
Graphics
World at War is, unsurprisingly, a mixed bag.
The Good Good bad or otherwise, the game has brand new maps. One of the greatest setbacks to the Call of Duty 4 Multiplayer experience was the lack of developer support for new maps. With a fanbase as rabid as they had, it was a shame we didn't see more post-release support, and this should bring a breath of fresh air into those who hop on over to five.
Solid environment and weapon modeling, well applied depth-of-field and improved ragdoll/animation integration, and a few nifty filters all give the game a truly cinematic look.
The framerate is just as solid as previous Call of Duty games.
The Bad The positives are offset by the mediocre weapon/hand textures, and clunky animation. The color palette will be subjective to taste of course, however levels don't have the "realistic" look found in four. As stated in my preview, it's very much a Treyarch game, and it shows. I've decided to list this under cons, because realistically speaking, Call of Duty fans still want to feel familiar with the style of environment, even if the locales are different.
Faces are less detailed, as are character models in general. Explosions aren't as lackluster as some, but are certainly nowhere near fantastic. While generally speaking, the modeling and MOA for the firearms are of higher quality than previous Call of Duty's, it's obscured by the distractingly average textures.
Most games would only require a few more months in the oven, but after their second attempt in the same series, I'm beginning to think it's about talent. Adjusting for advances in engine and technology, Call of Duty: World at War isn't anywhere near on par with the advances that were made when Treyarch developed 3.
Sound
Firearm and explosive noises have all been re-recorded, and they sound better than ever. Creative license has been taken with some weapons, primarily in how they sound with a flash-hider and suppressor, but I have no real complaints in that regard. If there was music present in World at War, it certainly didn't stand out. Any tunes that were present would have been overridden by the ridiculous voice acting.
The vocal talent.... well... let's just say it hasn't grown on me. As much as I like 24, nobody sounds as intense as the Americans in World at War, all the time, even Keifer Sutherland. Also, cultural stereotypes run abound. The Japanese spend a good majority of their quips talking about honor, the German have Hitler proselytizing , and the Americans...
"Out-fucking-standing! We kicked ass!"
The lack of cultural nuance is disappointing. It's 2008, and the tired old 1999 Medal of Honor stereotypes just aren't going to cut it if you're going to make an interesting and engaging environment to play in.
Conclusion On occasion, a game will come around that equals far more than the sum of it's parts. The majority of it's flaws and setbacks can be overlooked because of some higher redeeming quality.
Sadly, this game is not one of those titles. The entire experience can be summed up in one word.
"Average."
The game is average. Totally unspectacular. Nothing too bad, but nothing too good. Very little truly stands out, and that's what kept me from finishing this review. It's what's kept the review short. It's what kept me from playing this more than the other titles in my library, and ultimately, I believe it is what will keep the hardcore Call of Duty fanbase from jumping ship. Had this game been released during the summer game drought, it would have been received better reception from the fans, but it just doesn't have enough going for it as of right now.
The game was developed as a console shooter, in the World War II genre. Now, if there was any flooded market in the software industry, that requires a title to stand out of the crowd to succeed, it's this one, and they just haven't brought enough to the table to warrant a purchase.
If you'd like another relatively-fresh multiplayer fix for a few months, you're still crossing your fingers with the campaign, you have spare money lying around, and don't have to chose between this, and anything else launching this Christmas season (So... If you're Nitro). I'd suggest a purchase. For everybody else? Play a demo, then rent it, or just skip it alltogether.
This is two for two Treyarch. Better luck next time.