Call of Duty: World At War revisits World War II, showcasing two unique campaigns. One follows a U.S. soldier as he battles Japanese forces in the South Pacific, while the other casts you as a Russian warrior pushing Nazis out of Berlin.
World at War's graphics attempt to bring out the genuine, raw horror of World War II, from German soldiers shooting helpless adversaries to a Japanese sergeant slicing a POW's throat. Although it's grainier than the higher-quality PS3 and 360 versions, the visuals are a step up from other first-person shooters for the system (including Call of Duty 3). The stages boast thoughtful design, from a whittled-out Japanese village to the havoc-filled streets of Berlin.
World At War also delivers a rich audio presentation, with deafening explosions, authentic gunfire (when the M1 Garand goes off, it sounds just like the real thing) and plenty of blood-curdling screams. The voice acting is also impressive, although some performances are better than others. Kiefer Sutherland (24) does well as Sergeant Roebuck, but Gary Oldman (The Dark Knight, The Fifth Element) steals the show as the grizzled Russian sniper Sgt. Reznov.
This leads us to one of the game's problems, a lack of emotional attachment to the soldiers. The only character we felt a slight connection to was Sgt. Reznov, as he helps lead his countrymen in battle against the invading Germans.
When it comes to combat, there's no shortage of excitement. One minute, you fend off vicious dogs with a knife, and the next, you tear apart enemy boats from an aerial gunship. There are several new additions as well, including one of our favorite weapons, the flamethrower; we love torching trees to kill snipers. The addition of vehicles is a nice touch, although maneuvering a tank isn't as easy as it should be. Gameplay with the Wii remote and Nunchuk is greatly improved this time around, and there's satisfaction in swinging your arm to execute a quick knife attack. However, the blurry visuals sometimes make it hard to see targets clearly.
World At War also brings online multiplayer to the Wii, and for the most part it's great. The Perks system (uncluding the new Death Cards) returns and gives you advantages (and on occasion, disadvantages) against opponents, and a ranking system lets you level up with each win. Up to eight players can get in on the action, and the game runs smoothly once you get everything set up. However, Co-Op Campaign and Zombie Mode are nowhere to be found.
In the end, Call of Duty: World At War is a step up in the series, giving Wii owners a non-stop thrill ride both by themselves and with others. In comparison to other versions, however, it simply can't keep up.
Reader Comments (3)
I agree with you completely orezinfinite8. 7 is just not a fair score. This is the best FPS on the wii. They should be reviewing this game based on how well it stacks up to other FPS on the wii. They shouldn't compare it the other versions. Considering the wiis limitations, this game turned out great.
oops typo. If you guys are gonna justify lowering the score because of the *graphics.. Than that's just pathetic.
I respect that you guys have the right to your own opinion, gamedaily.. But I seriously think you guys are being biast towards the 360 and PS3 versions. Just reading the title of your review article, "Inferior graphics wound but don't cripple World at War for Wii. " made me really disappointed in your review already. Seriously what the hell did you guys expect? This IS the Wii we are talking about! While this is definitely one of the best looking Wii games so far(props to Treyarch for implementing the CoD 4 engine in this game)... Of course it doesn't have 360/PS3 graphics--so it should never be even compared to them to begin with since the Wii clearly does not have the horsepower to begin with. so if you guys are actually gonna justify a part of this game's score being lowered because of the score.. Than that's just pathetic. Also.. While I completely understand you lowered the score mostly due the game not having enough content as its 360/PS3/PC brethren..This should be quite expected due to the Wii's hardware limitations. HUGE props to Treyarch for making a memorable campaign and a fleshed out online ranking mode for the Wii version. You guys have definitely made a break through already.. I look forward to your future games! Anyway finally.. I didn't expect this game to have higher ratings then the 360/PS3/PC versions.. But I think you guys didn't spend nearly enough time with the wii version, and just slapped on the review giving it a lower rating--due to hardware limitations.. And not judging the game by "Wii Standards." P.S. I don't recall the Wii version having "death cards" either.