Every other year now Treyarch makes another Call of Duty. This year they rolled out World At War, taking the series back to World War II.

World At War has many similarities to Modern Warfare since both games are running on the same engine. World At War may not have the strongest story, but it definitely delivers some intense cinematic moments.

Ok, let’s get this out of the way. World At War is a World War II game. The majority of the gaming community is sick and tired of WWII. Video games have covered just about every interesting perspective and the idea is just burnt out by now. With World At War you’ll still get a bunch of dry history thrown at you, but you’re not playing the same scenes you have in past WWII shooters. WaW puts you into some really interesting perspectives and somehow manages to keep WWII just interesting enough to make this a good game.

Liked:

Cinematic: There are a lot of moments where you feel like you’re in a movie. There are plenty of intense moments where you’re not sure if you’ll make it. Definitely had my hands sweating a few times.

Brutal: If you played Modern Warfare you’ll know it wasn’t very brutal. World At War fixes that by having limbs blow off. It’s extremely satisfying having grenades blow off arms and legs–it was gorgeous. Also, burning soldiers out of tall palm trees is wonderful.

Co-op: Being able to go through the story with your friends offline or online is a welcomed addition of the Call of Duty franchise. This is no doubt the best way to go through World At War.

Different Viewpoints: Granted we’ve all seen a lot of same historic WWII scenes in games. In World At War you’ll play as the Americans fighting the Japanese. As with Modern Warfare, you’ll switch between another country. Alternatively you’ll play as the Russians fighting the Germans – which is the side I found to be the most interesting. As the Americans you’ll get ambushed by Japanese soldiers a whole bunch from underground and in trees, they’re literally everywhere. As the Russians you’ll be running through burning and broken down houses while fending off Nazi’s. It becomes very compelling.

Multiplayer: The multiplayer is still as strong as it was in Modern Warfare. Some of the modes return as well as some new ones. You’ll still gain experience, ranks, eventually reach prestige mode, and unlock new weapons and perks. Nazi Zombie mode is cool.

Disliked:

Grenades Are Everywhere: No matter which difficulty level you’re on, grenades will always be a threat. On normal grenades will deal a massive amount of damage, and in some cases kill you instantly. Later in the game grenades are being tossed like candy at a parade.

Back In WWII: I can’t count how many World War II games there are. While most of them are pretty bad and bland, World At War makes an effort to make it interesting. While it’s somewhat successful, we’ve seen and heard most of what World War II has to offer in video game form by now.

Ugly: Though World At War is running on the same engine as Modern Warfare, the graphics do seem to look a little worse. A lot of the textures are kind of blurry and rough. Not a whole lot of detail can be found in the environments. The guns you use never look very impressive and some of them look quite similar.

Some Maps Are Too Big: The multiplayer maps directed towords larger parties seem too big. I found myself running around a lot with nobody to find for minutes.

Want a second opinion? Other Critic Scores:

TestFreaks: 9.1/10
MetaCritic: 8.4/10
GameRankings: 8.6/10