World at War for Windows

I got Call of Duty: World at War free with my purchase of an EVGA 9800 GTX+ video card, and was pretty excited to get back into online FPS gaming. I was also hoping for a pretty thrilling single-player, but after the first few levels I decided to skip it because it really didn't retain my attention enough. But after months of multiplayer, I finally decided to play the game through anyway.


*** Premise ***
Call of Duty: World at War is a first-person, World War II shooter, for those unfamiliar with the genre. Players will go through the game's campaign, following the story through different locations while shooting enemies with an array of weapons. The controls are common to most FPS games - success comes from skill and know-how.

Players don't have a typical health bar. Instead, you are allowed to take a certain amount of damage before your life ends. But before that point happens, you can duck behind cover and regenerate health. I do like how this concept eliminates the need to constantly look for health packs, which detracts from an immersive battlefield sense. It also does away with the frustration of getting killed by a single shot, when you're at low life, and forcing you to start from the last save-/checkpoint. At the same time, it's also a strange idea if you sit and think about how many bullets total your character has taken without dying.

There are multiple checkpoints in each level, so if you die you're not going to be set back so far when you restart. It's all automatic, so you don't have to worry about making multiple saves in case something around the corner is really nasty. Most of the checkpoints take place in a small lull, so it's not like you start again in the thick of explosions or hails of bullets.


*** Single Player ***
I really had to force myself to play the single-player campaign. I've played Medal of Honor games and other Call of Duty games, and CoD: WaW just seems like another highly-scripted WWII first-person-shooter. If you haven't played as many WWII FPS games before, then it's probably going to feel pretty awesome to run through the campaign and feel like a hero. It was interesting to play levels as a U.S. Marine in the Pacific and as a Russian soldier on the Eastern front. While it was a change from other WWII FPS games I've played, CoD: WaW felt like it missed that core sense of urgency compared to previously-released WWII games that campaign the first half of the war where the Axis have the upper hand. I guess it's sort of like a no-win situation for me, since that sense of epic courage gets traded away for a new war perspective. Except for the last level, which was pretty wicked.

Each level felt pretty jam-packed with action, and CoD: WaW thrusts you along at a brisk pace to keep the blood going. You never really get breaks (but you can pause) and I guess the game was designed to give that cinema-type feel. The action chains endless hordes of enemies with predetermined checkpoints to progress you along. The chatter is lively since you have partners or squadmates in the missions, so you feel like a part of an assault instead of simply a lone commando. The game handles the squadmates for you. I think that you're supposed to feel close to them, but the intense action makes it so you miss when they actually die off to be replaced by someone else. Either way, the game didn't feel designed to really make you care (read ahead and you'll find out why you'd wish you were a lone commando). There are named ones that stay with you and integrate themselves into the missions a little bit; they only die if you kill them (or when the story says so), but that just restarts your mission from the last saved checkpoint.

One of the gripes I have is that the combat realism is lacking. Headshots on the enemies work fine. Shots from sniper rifles against any body part work fine. Shots from bolt-action rifles usually work fine, but sometimes it takes two hits to take an enemy down, even if they are chest shots. Issues arise from using machine guns (light or heavy) and rifles, where it takes more than two shots to the chest to kill an enemy (with a weapon I know is supposed to put them down). It's understandable if I am firing at a target long-range, but it's frustrating when mid-range or short-range combat requires multiple rounds to stop a target. It's dumb when using machine guns, even though they have a large clip that facilitates bullet-spraying, but it's just dumber when I'm ducked behind cover and fire two rifle rounds each into four mid-range targets, only to have three of them still standing (after a brief hit-animation) and firing back as if nothing happened! My shots are precise and well-placed, and one would think that two rifle shots to the chest would drop an enemy proper. I might as well have fired eight rounds into a tree and reloaded my clip, because that's exactly what it felt like in terms of being effective as demonstrated by the opponent response. Neck shots don't count as head shots either - they count as body shots, so it's also pretty sad to see an enemy AI get shot in the neck and shrug off the hit. This doesn't happen all the time, but it seriously happens often enough to the point of annoyance.

I'm sure I have been spoiled, because immediately after installing the game I dove straight into online multiplayer (on choice servers) for 100+ hours of play. It was just the way I wanted: Only one to two well-placed shots required to stop opponents intelligent enough to employ tactics and quickly respond to threats (or two to four shots depending on weapon and attachment choice).

Some of the levels in CoD: WaW are indeed pretty fun. I think that my favorite was where you man multiple plane turrets to take out PT boats and zeroes. But overall, each level is pretty much the same (which can get boring fast) thing but in a different location: advance and shoot. But unlike some other games, there is only one path you can take so you don't get any options or creativity when it comes to the objectives.

Artificial Intelligence
A part of what made the CoD:WaW single-player campaign so tiresome was the enemy spawning and terrible AI. The game uses a checkpoint system that requires you to advance past a certain [physical] point and/or meet simple objectives before the script will continue. In a few missions, you'll have to survive a certain amount of time (undetermined) or shoot certain enemies instead. Either way, there will be a steady and endless supply of enemies to shoot at until you pass the checkpoint to advance the next stage of action and story. The rate of spawning is more like a steady trickle and less like a wave of reinforcements. It felt ridiculous to shoot down three enemies and advance forward to the next cover only to find out that three identical replacements popped up, one-by-one, in exactly the same positions to shoot at you. It's more like a whack-a-mole game than some dynamic battlefield.. so you can literally stay in one spot and shoot down thousands (pending ammo) of enemies all by yourself and not win the war.

The enemy AI is weak and halfway unresponsive. They'll rarely run from grenades and they'll oftentimes just stand and shoot at you even when being shot at. They don't duck, run for cover, or even try to flank or use tactics. They are unaffected by my attempts to lay down cover fire, and any semblance of finding cover is just random or scripted. I've watched targets step in and out of line-of-sight and I wasn't even shooting at them (neither was anyone else, see next paragraph). There were so many times that I shot a standing enemy [once] in the chest only to see the little "ugh.. I'm hit" animation before shrugging it off and resuming fire as if never shot, requiring 2+ more shots to kill. Other times the enemy will just stand or sit there and not shoot at all (shell-shocked?). They kill you because they're persistent, plentiful, don't die, have unlimited ammo, and are grenade-happy.

Your "teammates" aren't terribly bright either. I've had friendly AI push me out of cover and I end up getting shot. I've also had friendly AI block me in so I couldn't escape grenades (they also didn't run from the grenades). Their aim blows, and you can't even trust them to shoot their own foot let alone any of the enemies. I've sat behind a rock, surveying the battlefield (on multiple levels) just to see how many kills my "team" would get. Not much. And anything that did die would simply be replaced by it's doppelganger after eight seconds or so. The squadmate AI doesn't even watch your back or pay attention, and they'll let enemies run into the midst of the group and shoot you dead. I don't mean enemies that charge to melee you to death; I mean enemies that run through the front lines to stand in the middle and start popping off pistol shots.. and no one blinks an eye. And of course you, the human player, is the one that gets targeted.

The higher difficulty settings only make the game stupid hard because the enemies do more damage and are more accurate. It does make you feel more fragile, which increases the realism, but the game doesn't many any other adjustments. It doesn't make your squad smarter, perform better, and you get little reward for applying any greater skill (which can get undermined by your near-useless "teammates") except for ducking out of fire since you take more damage.


*** Multiplayer ***
I really enjoy the multiplayer aspect, but it's also because I know exactly what I want. I play only on hardcore servers, where bullets and aiming count; it only takes 1-2 good shots to kill someone, 2-4 depending. The "regular" servers use the same damage mechanics that the single-player game uses, where it can take 15 submachine gun rounds to kill someone. And of the hardcore servers, I choose only the tactical ones. Tactical servers have rules where players must move in a crouched form, crawl form, or standing form with sights up. Running is only allowed to escape direct fire, and blind-fire/blind-grenades are prohibited. Sure it limits the servers that I actually play on, but I get far more enjoyment from not having to play with people running and jumping around with nothing but machineguns. You'll find that tactical hardcore servers have a larger variety of weapons and perks being used, and it takes far more skill to be good on these servers too.

Multiplayer (especially on hardcore tactical servers) is where one really hones FPS skills, since human opponents offer FAR more a challenge than computer AI. At the same time, you can build a camaraderie with people you play with often, and players will typically flank and cover each other too. Game modes like capture-the-flag and search-and-destroy offer a change from the typical team-deathmatch games. The maps have been created and balanced really well.

I do like the perk system. For those unfamiliar with it, the perk system opens up new weapons and abilities to give to your character as you level up. Experience comes from multiplayer combat, regardless the type. Typically the best weapons come at later levels, but from my experience any weapon can be used effectively (some are just a bit better or easier than others). You're able to create multiple combat profiles that you can switch to while playing (switch happens after respawning). There are challenges that become available as you rank up, and these, many of which are creative, will give added experience boosts upon completion. Some may say that it takes too long to level up, but I've found that you level faster when you play better. Once a player hits level 65, they can trade in all of their weapons and accomplishments and level up again with prestige. The perk is that levels of prestige will allow additional combat profiles so you can fine-tune your selection of weapons and perks on the fly, based on the level and opposition.

Zombie Mode!
One of the perks of beating the single-player campaign is that it unlocks the Nazi Zombie co-op mode. It's no Left 4 Dead, but it's pretty fun nonetheless. There are three maps (so far) and up to four players can play at a time. There isn't much story that goes along with it, but there are little snippets of information here or there in the maps. The players will defend themselves against wave after wave of zombies, with each next wave spawning more zombies than the last. There is an element of attack-defense as the players shoot down zombies while keeping windows and access-points boarded up. Each time a player shoots an enemy or repairs an access-point (two-by-fours fly up and mend the barricades), they gain some points. The points are used as a currency to purchase weapons, ammo, and perks (I think these were just recently introduced?). There are weapons on the walls, but the best ones come from the glowing boxes (it's a strange concept until you play and know what I mean). Fallen players can be revived by teammates, but there is only a small window of opportunity before they die. Once a player dies, it's up to the remaining survivors to last through the rest of the round before respawning at the beginning of the next round.

There are cheats that can be used, so it's typical to find games where the ammo is unlimited. Some people like it, others don't because half the fun is the challenge of survival. I don't mind the challenge of limited ammo (especially there are powerups that drop which can replenish everyone's ammo stock), but I have found that it quickly gets to the point where zombies are too fast, tough, and many to be able to last. I think the highest I've gone (with unlimited ammo) is level 49, and I'm uncertain if there is any end besides death. Either way it's a little surprise addition to the game as a whole, and is fun as a time-waster to kill mindless zombies. You'll get amped the longer you last. It's all about points and who gets the most at the end.


*** Graphics & Sound ***
The levels are designed to look like you can go anywhere even though they really confine and guide you from point A to B (linear). But between those points, a lot of gritty detail went into the game's looks, feel, and environments. The jungles are thick and lush. The cities have that dusty, crumbly, immediately-abandoned feel like when civilians have evacuated before mortar fire reigns destruction. You'll encounter: debris, bricks, equipment, fortified positions, vehicles, concrete, blown-out armor (tanks) and so much more as you navigate your way to succeed objectives. Buildings will have furniture, tapestries, paintings, cookware, and other miscellaneous leftovers indicating the area was previously inhabited. In-game explosions will kick up dust and shake items around, and other times scripted scenes will have bigger and more extravagant destruction happen around you in a very convincing manner.

The graphics are really sharp, especially with the lighting and shadows. All of the flares, smoke, and fire effects (burning embers falling from the sky!) are really top-notch, and the water, rain, and mist effects realistically add to the mood and experience. The game takes care to mind physics, so shooting at enemies in front of a concrete wall will show the puffs of smoke coming from the bullets passing through it's target to hit the wall. Even though the blood and gore is plentiful, it's done tastefully and is not over-the-top.. well.. at least it mimics realism found in movies like Saving Private Ryan. But the game is rated Mature, so it works out fine.

The cut scenes between levels were an interesting mix of real war footage and game design. It plays while the level loads and adds a bit more to the [already somewhat lacking] story as you wait.

The sounds are pretty accurate and it's great to crank up the volume. Two things really set the sounds of CoD:WaW apart from others: Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) voice-acting, and ambient or background noises. For those familiar with (and like) the television series 24, Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer is the epitome of a true American hero. It was great to run through American marine levels, listening to him bark out support and orders. Weapon fire was good, though some of the weapons could have used more oomph. The ambient noise sells the environment. It's all about the distant (or sometimes nearby) explosions, gunfire, hum of battle, or even the little details of creaking wood or footsteps over dirt, gravel, and plants. But overall I really enjoyed the voice acting and sounds. Jack Bauer is just the favorite and fits so well.


*** Bugs & Updates ***
I think that the game has hung up while loading a handful of times, where it required a system reset to correct. Other than that, I haven't had any other issues while playing the game. No glitching, no crashes, and no freezing while playing. I get great frame rates, even in multiplayer with 50+ people going at it.

The game developer has provided multiple patches that have also included new multiplayer maps. Since February, when I started playing, 6 new multiplayer maps have been introduced (3 in two patches each). Maybe some people say it's slow going in terms of patch release, but there are no complaints from me. The new map releases keep the game fresh and varied for multiplayer. I haven't had any issues with the Punk-Buster anti-hack/cheat system either. Zonealarm green-lights it so everything works fine.


*** Summary ***
I played the [thankfully-short] single-player campaign through only once, and it will be the last. Despite the good parts, in the end, each level is just far too repetitive to ever make me want to do it all over again. I think that the graphic detail, level design, and sound design are amazing, but they aren't enough to counter the terrible enemy spawning and AI. The replay value and story-telling of the single-player mode come out pretty bland. Call of Duty: World at War attempts to bring something fresh to the WWII FPS genre but falls a little short. It does a great job at being immersive and showing the spirit of the Pacific and Eastern Front campaigns, but it doesn't quite engage the player enough. The multiplayer is a blast, and there are enough servers out there to offer something for anyone interested in WWII FPS combat.