Call of Duty 5: World at War
Platforms: Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PC, Wii, DS, PS2

Normally, we’d start a review of a game like this with an explanation of the story – but today we’re not going to. There are two reasons for that.

Firstly, this is World War II (again) and if you need the plot of that explained to you then you’d probably be better off using your time to learn something useful like how to tie your shoelaces. There’s really no excuse for not knowing the basic structure of World War II – especially at this time of year.

All you really need to know is that the game switches you between an American Marine fighting in the Pacific theatre against the Japanese and a Russian soldier who survives Stalingrad and follows the push into Berlin at the end of the war.

The second reason we’re not going to focus on the plot is that it’s much more interesting to think and critique the level of maturity the plot is handled with, mainly because there are several points where World at War seems to go out of its way to be controversial.

Here’s the weird thing about war games like the Call of Duty series – they set out to make some of the most damning and awful moments in all of human history into an interactive artform that people will actually pay to be part of. Viewed on that level it’s actually quite sick, which is why the games don’t generally get published unless they are handled in a mature way.

In brief; there is a line that these games don’t cross as a matter of taste and politic – especially when they are released on Veterans Day.

Think back. Previous war games, especially those in the Call of Duty series have managed to provide an experience which is suitably gritty, bleak and at least semi-honourable to the sacrifices made by those who fought in the wars – but they never step over “The Line”. There are no concentration camps or Hiroshima bombings because these aren’t really appropriate scenes to put in a game. Basically though games can do Rambo, they can’t do Platoon just yet.

Call of Duty 5 however seeks to cross “The Line” immediately. The game opens up with in-game cutscenes of ever-loyal, American all-star types getting their throats slit and eyes burned out by the consistently demonised Japanese forces and it doesn’t stop there. In the needlessly flashy and fast-moving video cutscenes that punctuate the missions, the game displays real video footage of war time atrocities – smouldering bodies hanging from streetlights, mass graves and executions.

And, as human beings if not critics, we’d be at fault if we didn’t question the worth of these images in this context.

There’s an argument to say that art (if we’re judging games as that in even the lightest regard) should be provocative by nature and while we do think that’s true, there should at least be a reason for being that way. World at War doesn’t have that reason.

These images might be OK if the actual structure of the game in some way made them a relevant or important part of the design. If there was a reason for these images and if the game was trying to say something then we’d understand. But this isn’t Saving Private Ryan and there’s not even a basic lesson to take away from World at War other than ‘Don’t jump on grenades, ok?

It’s an odd way to start a review on, but I think it’s the right one. Despite whatever pleasures the gameplay may hold there’s a definite consensus that World at War is a needlessly gratuitous and gory game and, given the subject matter and actual footage used, that just isn’t as ignorable as it might be with other games. These are real people the game is dealing with after all and, even if it wasn’t the intention of the developers, they come close to demonising the Japanese in a way they never would with the German army.

Gameplay:

Detaching ourselves from the argument about what is and what isn’t acceptable in a game like this (and while this is probably acceptable, it isn’t very appropriate or particularly well done), the gameplay in Call of Duty 5: World at War is exactly what you’d expect from a COD game.

Depending on your outlook that’s either going to be a good or a bad thing, obviously.

You move forwards with your unit, sniping and grenading and pushing forwards slowly to advance the line and so on. The interface, from the compass to the grenade indicator, is as accessible as always and the combat is just as fluid. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that the action itself, especially since it is grounded in World War II, feels very much well-trod and done before. It isn’t bad, but it is getting a bit familiar and that modern gloss that worked so well for Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare would have done wonders here too.

There have been a few alterations admittedly, such as the ability to actually blow limbs off enemies with a well placed trench gun shot. The major update though is the addition of a flame thrower which, although used in the war for clearing bunkers only, can be carried most anywhere.

Unfortunately though, the flame thrower is a bit of a let down. We’d have thought that the main question any developer would ask when putting a flame thrower in the game would have been ‘Can we make the fire look good?’, but that doesn’t seem to have occurred to Treyarch as COD5′s flame sprayer falls well below the bar set by Far Cry 2.

Graphics aside, the flame thrower is still fraught with issues. Not only is it hugely overpowered and prone to insta-killing enemies before they can actually catch fire, but it actually has infinite ammo. You can probably here our dry, tired eyes rolling in their sockets.

Multiplayer:

Then we get to the multiplayer which, depending on who you listen to is either consistently the best bit of the Call of Duty series, or the worst thing. There is no middle ground.

There are actually (and refreshingly) two faces to the multiplayer in Call of Duty 5: World at War though and Treyarch has been extra-super-nice to gamers by including a co-op mode as well as a versus game.

The standard multiplayer is basically a revamp of the multiplayer in Call of Duty 4 and we’re saying that up front because it really is the best way to describe it. The only things that have changed are the weapons and a few of the perks.

This similarity isn’t a bad thing though and, unlike the singleplayer, the multiplayer still feels fresh and interesting. The levels are cannily designed with plenty of back-passages and high-up sniper points, while the actual levels themselves vary tremendously with everything from ruined asylums to Cliffside Buddhist temples being sacrilegiously represented.

There are definitely a few issues, such as there being no option to turn on friendly fire and the confusing fact that by collecting “Death Cards” in the singleplayer segment you can unlock cheats in the co-op campaign but not the singleplayer, but it doesn’t matter too much. The co-op campaign spans across all thirteen of the singleplayer levels and is eminently playable despite a few totally inexplicable framerate drops.

The whole semi-tactical formula of the Call of Duty series is something that lends itself perfectly to a co-op campaign, especially when the players can communicate and work to use smoke grenades and bazookas in tandem. Treyarch hasn’t messed that up at all.

Finally and on top of that, there’s also a final co-op mode that becomes unlockable after the game has been completed. You probably know the one we’re talking about – the one with waves of zombie Nazis.

Conclusions:

We’ve no doubt that World of War will sell very well and impress a lot of people. This is a game that’ll appeal to teenage fanboys a lot too – that’s what the quote-unquote adult material is there for, right? That’s why there’s a zombie Nazi mode too.

World of War isn’t going to hold our attention enough to get a second playthrough, despite how much we enjoyed playing with the co-op modes. The simple fact of the matter is that there are better games this year, some of which also have zombies.

While World at War doesn’t fail in any specific way, it just fails to become the rousing success that its predecessor was. It’s definitely a playable game if you find you have the stomach for more World War II, but it doesn’t quite rise above that level of mediocrity.
Gameplay: 6
Features: 4
Graphics: 7
Replayability: 3

Overall: 5/10

What do our scores mean?