Dr Game's Second Opinion - Call of Duty World at War
November 13th 2008 00:37
Let me start off by saying that World at War is a good game.
Even though it goes back to a war that has had at least 100 games made on it, World at War does feel different to these games. In this battle you're taking on the Japanese just after they bombed the hell out of Pearl Harbour.
The Japanese aren't your typical enemy. They rarely take cover instead preferring to charge at you and stab with their bayonets, they often play dead, launch a blinding flare and then proceed to spray you with bullets from their machine guns and they pop out of grass patches and trees like Whack-a-Moles without warning.
Like all the Call of Duty games this ride is action packed. There's not a level in the game that doesn't feature a dozen explosions. You're practically going from one gunfight to another.
The best feature is that you don't have to go into battle alone. A friend can fight along side you on Xbox Live or System Link. You can even earn points here before jumping to the online matches.
This is where fans might get disappointed. World at War plays almost identical to Modern Warfare online. Sure, there are a few new game modes, a few new perks and everything is a bit bigger and badder but side-by-side you can't really tell the difference between the two games except for the era they are based in.
DIAGNOSIS
It's not the end of the world that the online multiplayer is identical, it's just disappointing it doesn't bring anything new to the table. Here's hoping Infinity Ward do for the next instalment.
8 out of 10
| 45 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
