Why Was Call of Duty: World At War SO AWESOME?!

(Playing an old record.) (Gunshots – Explosions) My COD! That intro gives me chills every time I see it. Call of Duty: World at War was the last game in this huge franchise based in the 1940s, until… that other game came out. I don't remember what it was, although I heard it was shit. World at War dates back to a time when the COD series wasn't a mass production made just to print money, when it had soul. It is fondly remembered by fans for being the last World War II COD game and for replicating the same things that made Modern Warfare's multiplayer great and implementing them into the World War II setting.

Aside from its gritty, unapologetic depiction of World War II and the addictive Nazi Zombies gameplay, World at War is arguably the most important game in the series aside from COD 4, which I think we can all agree is a masterpiece that changed the FPS genre. in more ways than we can count. The reaction to the Infinite Warfare trailer was a plea for the old BOOTS ON THE GROUND combat to return to the series, and it did... But it was always disconcerting to think how a franchise that was created to honor veterans of the past and His

call

to

duty

could start from this: “I'm McCullin.

Two rules. Rule one: you are of no use to me dead. Rule Two: What difference does it make? They'll probably all end up dead anyway…” To this: (The train crashes and explodes into 8 billion pieces with 5 times the number of explosions in a Transformers movie.) From this: “He wants mercy!” "You deserve no mercy!" "What mercy you had for our people!" "Time to Die." "Wait wait! He can help us! "Help us?! He can DIE for us! To this: "I am an IR-15 model infiltration reconnaissance unit." Was it the publishers' demands? The lack of vision and originality? Did COD get corrupted over time?

Whatever the reason, COD WWII was a huge disappointment to me and many other long-time fans. Going back to its roots, going so far overboard after milking the futuristic style of warfare and failing in the eyes of the series' hardcore fan base and veterans, was reason enough to take a trip back in time. World War II COD game. Was it really as good as we remembered? Do we all judge COD WWII through rose-colored glasses of the past? Or was there something valuable in the COD formula, something worth looking into the past hidden in World at War? Whatever may be found in this game, it's time for us to return to find out what, if anything, it was.

So let's link up the mainframe, get those damn PTs out, and raise the Russian flag right on this. There's a bit of a misconception that Call of Duty was always a multiplayer-first type of series. Since the campaign is a superficial and added necessity that is only used to promote the game and show off. But it wasn't always like this, in fact it was quite the opposite. In my opinion, the franchise began as a tribute dedicated to the veterans who sacrificed their lives for the preservation of freedom. At least, that's what the credits say. But the games also served as a vessel for destructive fun, responsive controls, and fast-paced gameplay.

So COD was something that could interest you in the story, teach you something about it, and at the same time be just a fun game. War quotes when you die, man... that shit was deep. But my point is that Call of Duty was initially a campaign-driven game, and multiplayer was an afterthought. This has all changed, of course, but keep that in mind. Many people wonder why we compare World at War so much to COD WWII. Some think it is unnecessary to look at the past with such fervor. But I say it's important to understand where we come from.

I say, look to the past to be able to act in the present and build a better future. Damn, that's what history class is all about, that's what World War II is all about! So you can expect a little history in this video. And hopefully we'll get to see what the franchise has done in the past, what made it so popular in the first place. Because sometimes we lose track of what got us to where we are, and we lose ourselves... Anyway, I said World at War has an unapologetic campaign, what do I mean by that?

Well, he doesn't give a damn about your feelings, he doesn't give a damn if you're offended by Nazis or swastikas or mass killings or any other shit like that. The game says: "Fuck your feelings!" "You are gay!" All he wants is to portray World War II without restrictions. I'm going to share with you an immensely important and relevant quote, and I want you to remember this shit as we talk about the story and the campaign. This comes from Tim O'Brien's book, The Things They Carried, a novel you may have had to read in high school. So here it is: “A true war story is never moral.

It does not instruct or encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human conduct, nor prevent men from doing the things they have always done. If a story seems like a moral, don't believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel elevated, or if you feel that a little righteousness has been rescued from the greater waste, then you have been the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no righteousness. There is no virtue. Therefore, as a first general rule, a true war story can be told by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil.” This simply means that when you write, film or perform a war story, you should have NO reservations about what you are telling.

If you tell a war story, you need to have the damn guts to portray it without concerns about morality and virtue and what is right and, oh, how will this affect children? No, fuck all that! And this is what World at War does, it doesn't give a damn. Now, obviously this quote doesn't apply to ALL war stories, fiction or not, and you could argue that I'm not using it in the right context, but my point is to use this quote because it highlights what feels most authentic and what feels more. Hollywood. The game is very different from other COD games because the tone is much more serious.

Playfulness and comic relief are abandoned in favor of driving home a dark and disturbing atmosphere. This is in stark contrast to the positive, optimistic, and “confident” campaign of World War II, which portrayed the United States as one of the greatest heroes that ever lived. COD WWII deliberately avoided the controversy inherent and integral to World War II, it didn't have the guts to portray a horrible war story. He had no absolute, uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil. Simply put, this is a traditional Call of Duty, but it's not as archaic as the old World War II games.

This is the era of COD where they were in the damn zone, man. That's when the series was great, before it became infested with the scopeless tryhard 360 MLG 7 year olds who joined during Modern Warfare 2. The early days were what I

call

the era of humble, inspired beginnings. Then the next era was the tough guy, confident, cool because he's not trying to be cool, rising to fame and power. And in later years it has become the era of soulless manufactured garbage. Anyway, back to the campaign. It begins with this fantastic scene that uses real footage from World War II and shapes it with elegant editing.

It shows you the horrors of war and updates you on where we are. Production levels increase and men prepare for battle. You almost forget that you are playing right now. This is a brilliant way to remind us what was happening at the time, set the stage, and create a unique visual style for the cutscenes in each level. And, above all, the introduction excites you very much. “Members of the Senate of the House of Representatives. Yesterday, December 7, 1941, a date that will remain in infamy, the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The campaign oscillates between two fronts and two perspectives. You play as Private Miller, an American soldier fighting the Japanese in the Pacific theater, and then you play Dimitri Petrenko, a Russian soldier fighting the Nazis on the Eastern Front. You start out as a prisoner of war and you, your fellow American, are tortured and have your throat cut. Jesus Maria, that's brutal! So you get a gun and take out those DIRTY JAPANESE! YES, SHOOT THEM IN THE... oh, sorry... was that offensive? Well, who cares? It's World War II. Fuck your feelings! So I talked about this before in my COD WWII review and I want to switch gears and discuss the gameplay in single player mode.

World at War has the annoying invisible walls like every other COD game, but here's the BIG difference: what separates good level design from bad level design, no matter how linear, is player freedom. I only occasionally ran into a barrier that I thought I could get through, and there were moments of frustration here and there, but I never felt like my way of moving was restricted. And that's a big lesson that modern FPS games need to learn. You may have established paths and linearity, but keep your invisible walls and barriers to an absolute minimum. Give me multiple ways to move.

It creates levels that FEEL wide, open, and free, and I think World at War does a good, if not perfect, job of that. One thing that caught my attention, because it's been about 7 years since I played this campaign, is the lack of Quick Time Events. I had completely forgotten what it's like to have full control in a COD game, aside from a few scripted moments. World at War doesn't waste your time or slow down the game with this nonsense. But what really surprised me were the unique scenarios and encounters throughout the levels. For example, when fighting the Japanese, it would have become very boring if you had simply done each mission by shooting the guys behind cover.

But they use the time location and battle tactics of the time to create interesting gameplay. Not only do the Japanese shoot at you from behind cover, but the Banzai charge your ass! “BANZAAIIIIII!” Kamikaze their planes, play dead, set traps and then ambush. They use guerrilla tactics that make them unique and surprise the player at all times. They have ghillie suits to hide in the grass and jump out to surprise you, they shoot at you from the tops of trees and emerge from hidden holes in the ground. It's just...it's just amazing! In a series where gameplay can be monotonous, straightforward, and often downright boring, these twists and turns along the way really liven things up!

Every time it seems like a mission is about to get boring, it ends. So they are all the right length. On the other hand, as a Russian, when you fight the Germans, the gameplay is pretty tight, but they put more emphasis on the story, characters, and motivations of the Red Army. Basically, we have two halves of the campaign, one that focuses on more unique gameplay and the other that illuminates the horrors of the war aspects. Which makes it a good mix, mmm, it's like rum and coke. COD games usually have some type of tank, turret sections and flying missions etc.

But now here's another example, you have this level where you're flying around shooting at planes, those damn PT boats and all that. At first glance it seems quite simple and streamlined, but again they take this opportunity to create interesting gameplay. You're not just sitting in a turret for 20 minutes, you move back and forth across the ship in different turrets. So you're seeing different things! You start in the air, but then you are forced to land in the water. In addition to this, you now have to shoot planes from the sky and rescue other soldiers who are trying to swim to safety.

So instead of it being a boring turret-on-rails section, Treyarch added elements that differentiate this type of game from the more basic iteration of it. There's more going on than just shootings. “Get those fucking PT boats out!” One last example: They take this scenario of shooting a guy and turn it into an experience that teaches you to be patient and wait for the right moment. A lesson you'll need for the rest of this mission. They use this setup of being a survivor among the massacred Russians at Stalingrad, and they use it to teach you about stealth and sniping.

You even have the chance to assassinate a high-profile German officer. "Hahaha!" That's a sniper mission done right. This is Call of Duty: World at War gameplay in a nutshell, it's exactly what you'd expect from a COD game with all kinds of cliché levels, but at the same time, it totally surprises you. Whether it's the story or the unique mechanics and tricks, World at War is a blast to play. And with all the COD games out there, how many years have passed, that's saying a lot! Oh yeah, and the filming feels great too. Something about these weaponsold and that it's harder to reach your goals than usual, it just feels good.

It's like it's World War II and the guns are shit, but it's good shit. It's some tough, tough shit. Robust shit, I never thought I'd say those two words together... but anyway! Quick note: I don't really like seeing hit markers in single-player campaigns. "OH! OHHHHH!" The reason is that I want to be immersed in whatever I'm doing. Now, if I see a little marker in the middle of the screen telling me I killed someone, that takes me out of the game. Without hit markers, you become. a much more thorough player, you play more carefully because you never know when an enemy could still be alive in a last battle or if you didn't make enough holes to finish him off, and the hit markers take away from the game that exciting feeling, the tension, immersion and fear in a small but noticeable way.

The single player soundtrack is REALLY good And let me tell you, I don't remember or listen to Call of Duty soundtracks outside of the game often, but this one stuck out to me. recorded. You've got really bleak, unnerving songs that slow things down and give you chills... Ohhh, I've got chills, boi! Then you've got cool guitar riffs that give it a bombastic feel when you're running around shooting. people. The music enhances the campaign and gameplay in all the right ways. The difficulty is pretty good and mostly fair, but people have asked me for tips on how to beat it on Veteran.

The trick is... don't play with Veterans. NADE SPAM 4 DAYZZ But anyway, back to the story. On the American side, things are quite simple. The characters and dialogue could have been written better, more unique. You don't really feel attached to Roebuck or... that other guy, but I look at it and I see the American side as more of a ship to dive into the Pacific Theater and for gaming reasons, so it's acceptable. The Russian side of things, damn it, is brutal. The game really dives into the Russian perspective, how they view the war and the Germans. And Viktor Reznov is simply a beast.

This side is about pushing towards the Heart of the Reich, FOR MOTHER RUSSIA! You're just a soldier left to die in the middle of Stalingrad, but you cheat death and bond with Reznov. “Demetri Petrenko! I saw this man cheat death... Over and over again during the siege of Stalingrad. As long as HE lives, the heart of this army cannot be broken. He makes us all proud. The overall plot and story is simplistic, it gets the job done, but most importantly it serves as a way for players to imagine and experience the war themselves and think about the decisions the soldiers had to make back then.

Following the line of that quote from Tim O'Brien, World At War does not romanticize these enormous conflicts. The game doesn't care as much about whether you support the Americans or not. Its only goal is to represent these battles in the most solid and brutal way possible. He has BALLS! When you wake up among piles of dead and see the Germans shooting the survivors, you think: "Holy shit, that's fucked!" When you're crawling through the jungle and one of your fellow soldiers gets hung up in the air and explodes, “Wow! That's fucked up! And these moments are scattered throughout the campaign.

From the Russian perspective, you start out with the goal of simply surviving, but as time goes by, Reznov and the other Russians become increasingly bloodthirsty, ruthless, and there is infighting. Some soldiers wonder if it is really worth it to be as ruthless as the Germans. And Rezno believes it's the right thing to do. “Dimitri? Take down those rats... Once again, you cheat death. Our tanks are ready to crush this line and… CHERNOV! "I don't hear gunshots." "It doesn't make sense, Sergeant... They're already bleeding to death." "Then maybe our friend will help them bleed faster." You, as a player, understand that you must end the Nazi regime, but that does not excuse what the Russians are doing to achieve it.

Killing surrendering men in cold blood, setting them on fire, man, it's... it's just... a mess, man! The observant player will notice that these moments are shown more and more as he ventures deeper into the heart of Germany. And they are not always in front of you, my advice is to take your time and look around, you might see something interesting. So the story has a certain weight, a sense of how war changes people... Reznov is proof of that. “Which one do you think will get us home? Write about this war or fight in it? No one will ever read this.

If you lack the stomach to kill for your country… at least show me that you are willing to die for it.” “Dimitri! Someone should read this…” A few years ago I took several fiction writing classes and one thing we learned is that violence, blood, sex, drugs, all that taboo and controversial material must have a purpose for the story. If it's there simply for free reasons, then it doesn't add anything. World at War doesn't fall into this "violence for violence's sake" hole. When you shoot a guy's legs and see him writhe in pain, it gives you chills.

That's war, it's fucked! The level of gore and violence is perfectly in line with the dark atmosphere of World at War and really enhances the experience; disturbs the player. The ending is epic as hell! You, just a soldier of the Red Army, one among millions... You rise above death, destruction and slaughter. And you are the one who carries the Russian flag on top of the Reichstag. Being able to play and experience what is depicted in this famous photograph is such a chilling experience that it leaves a mark on you. That's something you'll never forget to do in a video game.

And at the end of it all, after the dark, depressing, depraved experience you just went through. World at War reminds you what this was all about. Look, COD WWII made the mistake of showing this message at the beginning, when it's much more powerful at the end. And as you watch the credits roll, you reflect on what you just went through, the fun you've had, and the atrocities you've seen. You put down the controller and are glad it's finished…. (Heavy breathing) Bro, the first time I saw this and was transported to an abandoned house, I basically shit my pants.

And I don't feel any less manly saying that, shit. My. Pants. Revealing a whole new mode after completing the campaign is just...wow! "Surprise, son of a bitch." Bright! And they are Nazi zombies, simply bravo. Bravo. But how does the mode hold up after all this time? Well, very good! To be honest, Nacht Der Untoten is pretty dated compared to the other Zombies maps, but when this came out, EVERYONE wanted to see how far they could go. And it wasn't just because of the high score, but because it was fun. World at War's zombies were the talk of the town, and the map was a great entry point for what would become a staple of many COD games in the future.

Honestly, the vast majority of my time in World at War was on Zombies, I grew to like level 20 in multiplayer, but if Zombies followed my progress? It would have been like 5th Prestige or something like that. And here's another point: I basically only played Der Reise and Nacht Der Untoten. The fact that I could spend so much time playing just two maps with a single game mode with a single objective shows how addictive and fun it is, no matter when or who you play with. Repairing barricades, getting power-ups, evading zombies, hitting the mystery box while zombies are closing in around you, it's the most exciting zombie defense at its finest.

Now I thought about getting the other two DLCs to play on the other zombie maps, but damn! Activision still charges $10 for that! DUDE, that's what I paid for them like 8 years ago! Just make them, for free! Come on! And one thing to mention is that Zombies was incredibly great due in large part to its characters. Which were funny, well-written, and just plain silly. It's my intense love for these old zombie modes and maps that makes the COD WWII version so disgusting in my mouth. Because the newer game removes that option to repair barricades, fortify your position, and hold out until the end.

It forces you to run and do stupid things, but that's never what makes zombies good. What makes it fun is the simplistic pleasure. When you know you can use a self-revive or activate a nuke because you paid real money for loot boxes, you eliminate every ounce of intensity this mode has to offer. The zombies didn't try to scare you by giving you scares at every fucking turn. It was terrifying because you were resisting. You didn't know when you were going to die. Nazi Zombies, at its core, is about surviving as long as you can, in any way you can.

And all that excessive, useless shit, all those extra mechanics and 77 quests like it's fucking Skyrim, it's unnecessary. It doesn't need to be so structured and linear. It's funny to think how much Nazi Zombies has influenced the franchise since World at War. Heck, it has a treasure trove of lore and stories to tell! It was like an experimental mode that could have been a one-off gimmick if people didn't like it, but it became a core part of the Call of Duty experience. On the multiplayer side, I confess that I didn't really play it much in the past, which I 100% regret not having because the player population is so low that you can basically only find Team Deathmatch games.

But I was able to host some custom game nights and play all kinds of modes on all maps. Now COD games always have that thing that's super powerful and people hate it. That one thing is the Mp40… and the bets that bounce back. But other than that, the game is quite balanced and fun. Shotguns and snipers are a little harder to use correctly, hit detection seems a little off, but maybe it's the lack of strong aiming assist. Class customization is fantastic! You have so many options. It doesn't look overwhelming, but there's enough here to mix, match, and experiment with a ton of different settings.

Where World at War really shines is in its maps. You have a practically perfect variety in terms of design, size, layout and visual aesthetics. Dome is one of my favorites because he is basically Nuketown before Nuketown. Then you have Cliffside, which is a perfect map for long-range encounters. We played all kinds of crazy and stupid games, like free only for all shotguns, only snipers without zoom, and it was a blast because the game is simplistic at its core. There's no unnecessarily complicated customization, ridiculous kill streaks, or absurd mechanics, it's simply the greatness of Call of Duty.

I talked a lot about map design in my WWII review and I'd like to go into more detail on that. Look, I gave that game a lot of flack for only having 3-lane maps, and the truth is that most FPS maps are 3-lane or a variation of that. But here's what you need to remember, the most important thing new Call of Duty games MUST understand. There is a difference between having a 3 lane map and a map that forces you to navigate those 3 lanes. what do I want to say with that? Well, I'm sure World at War has many maps where the action takes place along 3 paths or lanes.

However, you have many options for getting around. Vertically, side to side, under... There are so many directions to take that you don't feel confined to 3 lanes. Now here's an example, the map, Makin. Make bacon. Sure it has 3 general paths down, although you have this area under the docks and you can run through it. Then we have Dome, a very small map, but one that offers players many options. It has elevation, a little bit of low terrain, and no matter where you are, you can always cut down the middle. And it's something difficult to explain and show you, but it's something you feel.

And that's the important thing, I felt like I had freedom no matter what map I was on, no matter how big or small it was. World at War takes the best of COD 4 and adds it here to not only build on the COD 4 formula, but also put a unique spin on the World War II era of gaming. One last thing to mention about those three eras of COD games I talked about. The franchise was at its best, it had the most positive reception in this era and I think I know why. Because Call of Duty offered both the new and the old to fans of the series.

You had Modern Warfare, a more modern version of Call of Duty, and you had World at War. Then Modern Warfare 2, then there was Black Ops, set during the Vietnam War. Do you see the pattern? At this point in COD's life, although they created a new game every year, there was something for everyone. If you weren't into more modern games, you had World at War for that old-school charm and Black Ops 1 as a good middle ground. A new vision of the Vietnam War. But if you tired of the World War II setting, you had Modern Warfare 1 and 2, which told unique stories and used weaponry from a more current and relatable era.

And I think this new – old – new – old style is the reason why the COD community got angrier and angrier with each newgame, because they were getting tired of the modern futuristic era. World at War's multiplayer is fantastic on its own terms, and it also holds the secret to Call of Duty's consistent success year after year in the palm of its hand. Rhythm is the lesson here, variety. And understand that COD fans want to experience what the series has to offer in at least two different time periods. All in all, Call of Duty World at War is one of the best COD games out there.

It's really fun in all game modes, which isn't something that can be said for the rest of the series. The campaign and story have no reservations and have the guts to depict World War II in the most brutal and honest way possible. While the overall story and characters, aside from Reznov, could have been written better and in a way that we care about, I see that that wasn't Treyarch's goal with this game. He's not as character driven. They wanted you to think about this war, they wanted to show you what it was like. Nazi Zombies grew out of this game, so much story, fun and creativity that has blessed the COD series for many years.

Having the last really good WWII multiplayer in the series, and the way it took the best elements of COD 4 and replicated them, made it a multiplayer that almost every fan could enjoy! And that's why Call of Duty World at War was SO AWESOME! But what did you think? When was the last time you played the World at War campaign? Do you plan to go through this soon? Let me know your thoughts and opinions in the comments below! Now let's see what some of my backers thought about Call of Duty: World at War. Android Elite says: My mom loves CoD campaigns, but she specifically had a lot of fun with World at War.

Some memorable moments include: --The look of bewilderment on his face when he first shot a bolt-action rifle and realized he had to remove the bolt for each shot. --Shout: "TREES!!!" when a group of camouflaged Japanese soldiers emerged and attacked... (jokingly) complaining that they are always given the most dangerous tasks while everyone else is left behind and generally just loving Reznov, in part because she played Black Ops first and enjoyed seeing its origin. Danger Wasp says: Cod WaW is an incredible and refreshing take on the World War II genre from Activision after their last World War II game: COD III.

WaW is able to utilize the Modern Warfare ID technology engine to perfection and tell a raw, graphic story with memorable characters long before COD took the highest rollercoaster seen in the latest Modern Warfare Games and even in COD WWII. That fun even carried over to multiplayer with the various classes and World War II in COD 4 kill streak system. Lastly, let's not forget the classic mode where it all started: Nazi Zombies. pure carnage and fun in its simplest forms before it evolved into the more complex, story-driven mode that grew in Black Ops and beyond. Grizzly Gamer says: I think Word at War was actually the first game in the series that encapsulated the series as a variety. multiplayer shooter.

Between the multiplayer mode and the fantastic zombies mode with an equally brilliant campaign, it gave you the most bang for your buck at the time and, in my opinion, still holds up well today. Helljumper says: Call of Duty World at War has been my favorite Call of Duty game since I first played it. A lot of people just see it as a lazy clone of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, but I firmly believe that World at War has better weapons, killstreaks, game modes, map design, and Nazi Zombies was basically the icing on the cake. an already delicious cake.

Not to mention, it actually managed to have one of the best campaigns in the entire series, if not the best. Jfreak says: World at War is one of the few post-Moden Warfare CoDs that respectfully handled the tone of the war. There were no cartoonish evil villains, just soldiers in a war. And the RZI guy says: After the success of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, World at War took a big risk by returning to World War II, but it paid off. Treyarch took what Cod4 did well and applied it to WaW with its killstreaks and custom classes, but also introduced Nazi Zombies, which has now become synonymous with Call of Duty and a staple of the series.

On top of that, it gave us a well-told story, respectful of World War II, and wasn't afraid to show the Nazi symbol unlike most games today. So thank you to all my patrons who gave feedback. If you want to have that opportunity, feel free to support me on patreon! That's all I have for today. This is The Act Man signing off. PEACE!