STUDIO: Activision
RELEASE DATE: November 11, 2008
CONSOLE: PS3
ALSO AVAILABLE ON: XBox 360, PC
DEVELOPER: Treyarch
GENRE: First-Person Shooter
PLAYERS: 4
ESRB RATING: M (Mature)

The Call of Duty franchise has become one of the most respected of the '00s. In particular, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare won several awards from video game journalists and magazines, hailing it as the 2007 Game of the Year. When it was announced that the 2008 incarnation, Call of Duty: World at War, would return the series to WWII instead of the modern conflict employed in the last successful outing, fans were surprised. Would it be a step back? Would World at War feel more like Call of Duty 3 than Call of Duty 4? Yes and no. The development in environment and multiplayer design are still there, making World at War a must-own, but it also certainly doesn't represent the leap forward that turned Modern Warfare into such a seminal title in all of gaming.

World at War moves the battle of Call of Duty to the Pacific and European battlefields in the final years of WWII. Through two plotlines, the single-player campaign takes you through missions involving an American named Miller as he faces thousands of Japanese soldiers and a Russian named Petrenko as he faces countless Germans. (The American missions feature voice work by Kiefer Sutherland and the Russian ones features Gary Oldman. Both feature some of the best sound design you'll ever hear in a video game.) In some of the most detailed environments and backgrounds you will see this year, the single-player (or co-op player, either online or local) must use both strategy and an insane amount of ammunition to save his fellow soldiers. Almost every element of World at War requires more than just running in guns blazing, whether it's choosing how to flank your enemy, what cover to take, or what weapon to pick up and which to leave on the ground. What separates the COD franchise from most war games is that it doesn't feel like pure might will win the day. You can't just run in screaming or try to find the biggest gun. You need to use strategy.

At the same time, the use of that strategy in this edition isn't as rich or detailed as I hoped it would be. World at War starts to get repetitive somewhat quickly. The graphics in the environments, characters, and detail are absolutely amazing, but they're employed in what are a relatively predictable series of missions. I know COD is not Metal Gear Solid, but I longed for more stealth or cover-based missions. There's a sniper level with Petrenko that's fantastic (even if it doesn't feel completely fresh), and I wanted more of that and less soldiers screaming "BANZAI!" Too much of World at War feels like overkill. After you gun down wave upon wave of Japanese soldiers, it starts to lose its meaning or urgency.

I know what you're saying - that's when you go to multi-player. Most fans of the COD franchise will tell you that the single-player mission is just an afterthought. It's all about the multi-player. Call of Duty has been revolutionary when it comes to online experience, and World at War will not let down the fans who know and love the franchise for it. The back of the case even emphasizes the "addictive Call of Duty multiplayer action" and it truly, truly is addictive. Whether it's the co-op action or trying to kill your online friends, World at War truly excels in this arena. The co-op style is clever in that it both offers points for kills, creating competition, but also rewards assists and reviving your injured compatriots, creating cooperation. The popular modes from Modern Warfare are all here, including Headquarters, team deathmatch, search and destroy, and more. There are also new modes like capture-the-flag and a conquest mode called "War.” (It's not just a card game any more.) The online play also utilizes the "weapon unlocking" system that fans loved in Modern Warfare. Consistent play will unlock perks and weapons like recon planes and even the ability to unleash dogs on your enemy. Nice.

How do you judge World at War? It depends on what you're looking for. Graphics and gameplay are unassailable in this title, but it feels like, at best, a lateral move from Modern Warfare in nearly every way. In some regards, the repetition of the single-player campaign feels like a step back. But are we holding World at War to too high a standard? Is it too much to expect every installment to be better than the last? Is it enough to simply be better than most games out there?