The hard part about finishing a lot of similar things rapidly (in this case, Call of Duty games) is that you start running out of things to talk about. What separates World at War from the other games? Well, I mean the graphics get better every time and the game always plays a bit smoother. How about the campaign? It's a little more focused than the last time Treyarch made a Call of Duty game- you switch off between just two characters rather than 5 or so. Here you play a Russian in Germany, and an American fighting in the Pacific. There was plenty here that I've already done several times before but three missions of two different types stand out- an excellent mission that finds you running back and forth between different sections of a plane, shooting whatever exists in the small area you can see and eventually landing in the water to rescue some survivors of a plane crash; and two missions that feature a flamethrower. I think the mark of a good war game is if you can get a good sense of the brutality of war, and any time I wielded a flamethrower in World at War, I felt it. Burning people alive, listening to the screams- damn! That's hardcore. I realize the flamethrower is a long-standing go-to weapon in video game history, but to me it's never felt quite like this. So that's what I take away from World at War- a decent but unmemorable game that did offer up a few moments of intrigue.August 29, 2011
Call of Duty: World at War
The hard part about finishing a lot of similar things rapidly (in this case, Call of Duty games) is that you start running out of things to talk about. What separates World at War from the other games? Well, I mean the graphics get better every time and the game always plays a bit smoother. How about the campaign? It's a little more focused than the last time Treyarch made a Call of Duty game- you switch off between just two characters rather than 5 or so. Here you play a Russian in Germany, and an American fighting in the Pacific. There was plenty here that I've already done several times before but three missions of two different types stand out- an excellent mission that finds you running back and forth between different sections of a plane, shooting whatever exists in the small area you can see and eventually landing in the water to rescue some survivors of a plane crash; and two missions that feature a flamethrower. I think the mark of a good war game is if you can get a good sense of the brutality of war, and any time I wielded a flamethrower in World at War, I felt it. Burning people alive, listening to the screams- damn! That's hardcore. I realize the flamethrower is a long-standing go-to weapon in video game history, but to me it's never felt quite like this. So that's what I take away from World at War- a decent but unmemorable game that did offer up a few moments of intrigue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There weren't a lot of levels in that game that stood out to me, but I remember the three you're speaking of and I remember enjoying them too. But I think my two favorite levels involved the Russian guy. The first one in which you play as him, where you have to feign dead while Germans slaughter your wounded comrades, and then crawl over to a discarded sniper rifle and pick off the Germans (and the dogs!) felt really horrific and tense. And then in that final mission when it's time to raise the flag over the Reichstag, and your loony commander is just screaming with glee about killing every last German, man, that was an unforgettable level for me.
ReplyDelete