The campaign is short, being about 5-6 hours long. But, can Call of Duty: World At War keep the fire burning?įirst off, let's talk about the single player campaign (which is also playable with 3 other players over Xbox Live/PSN).
CALL OF DUTY WORLD WAR 2 XBOX ONE FULL
Read full reviewĬall of Duty: World at War-Better than Modern Warfare?Įver since Call of Duty 4:Modern Warfare, the Call of Duty Series have been known by many to be the best War game out there. EA, also, take note, get your act together and clean up the MOH franchise with your next release, go back to what made Frontline and European Assault, even Rising Sun (at least it had decent online play) Classics, with HD graphics and solid online/multiplayer and Medal of Honor will be restored in its Honor. I think even Goldeney on the N64 had the feature. I believe MOH has allowed you peek since at least Frontline (Best WWII Shooter of all time, too bad it lacked multiplayer). I mean you can't even duck behind cover and peek out, you have to actually move (slowly) into the open and back in a shootout. The graphics are good, but the gameplay and controls are second rate compared to MOH. WAW just feels like Modern Warfare with a WWII patch. Yes EA has declined in their quality with the Medal of Honor series, but there has yet to be a sucessful challenger overall. World at War (Call of Duty 5) Medal of Honor is Better! Hopefully Activision will move away from World War II, and make a Call of Duty game based on some of the other wars in history, like the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, the Korean War, Vietnam, or the Gulf Wars. The Nazi Zombies bonus game found at the end of the campaign is also an effective way to add some variety to the standard World War II shooting gameplay, although its best played with others. Like Treyarch's other Call of Duty game, the soundtrack is good, although the game itself is just a few paces behind Infinity Ward's releases. Some of the levels were also quite challenging on Veteran, particularly Burn E'm Out and The Heart of the Reich, forcing me to adopt new tactics that weren't necessary for lower difficulties.
The addition of the flame-thrower, along with the ability to set palm trees ablaze using it, also added spice to the run-and-gun gameplay. I was also pleased to find that you get to play as a Soviet soldier in both the Soviet Union and Germany, which was one of my favorite series of missions in Call of Duty 2 it was nice to finally play a role in one of the final battles of the war, which was the taking of the Reichstag, since in all of the other games you only seem to pave the way to a later victory. Even though it is niether surprising nor exciting that Activision opted to go back to the second world war, they decided to do something different this time: that is, you play as an American soldier in the Pacific front against the Imperial Japanese. The gore level has also been increased as well, making the game more realistic and gritty, such as arms, legs, and heads being blown off. Naturally, Treyarch decided to go with that style after the success of Modern Warfare and the sub-par results from Call of Duty 3. Running on the Call of Duty 4 engine, World at War is essentially a World War II version of the Modern Warfare series not only is it identical graphically, the cut-scenes preceding every mission is done in the same style, beginning with an overview of the globe, and eventually zooming in to the character that you'll be playing as. Note that this is a review of the single player campaign, as I don't have Xbox-Live Gold.