Word at War (a review of sorts)

So, this last week Steam had a sale for Call of Duty 5 - World at War. It was on for $25 down from $50. Usually a year-old game retails for $40, sometimes as low as $30, but this would not stand at all. Now, those greedy slimeballs at Activision retailed the latest installment of the CoD franchise at $60. Hence the not-so-low price, considering how old the game is. But I digress. I've played all the other CoD games (except for #3, which didn't come to PC), and the reviews looksed positive, so I jumped on it. All 6GB downloaded in less than three hours. Steam ROCKS.

Considering how AWESOME Call of Duty 4 was, and that I had quite enjoyed installments 1 and 2, you'd figure I'd jump on CoD5 in a heartbeat. But instead I didn't. You see, this is one of those 'milk the cash-cow franchise' sequels that Activision seems so fond of. Instead of leaving the franchise to Infinity Ward, who started it, they're shopping out every other sequel to Treyarch, so that there can be a new release every year. Call of Duty 3, Treyarch's first time at bat, wasn't too special. To be honest, it haven't tried it as it only saw console releases. But the reviews were lukewarm, and the general consensus is that it didn't live up to IW's standard. So the price for 5 is (temporarily) low, the reviews seem slightly more positive... So why not?

The very first thing that struck me... Is that this game was made to be a blockbuster. The feel and presentation just scream it. "Hey, look at me! I'm being made for a holiday release, to bridge the market gap inbetween a INCREDIBLE GAME (CoD4) and its sequel! I am so awesome and cool!" It just... Doesn't work. It's trying to hard - it isn't a creation for the sake of making something new or unique, it's sole purpose is to bridge a gap in the market and pickup sales.

The first and foremost aspect that hammered this home was the mission briefings. They're presented in this slick techo-esque manner, like some of those neat typography videos you see on YouTube. Lots of moving elements, and a continually panning camera.

And next, there was the music. Gah. This stuck out like a sore thumb - lots of that generic heavy metal/rock guitar and drums crap. You know, that head-banging stuff that has absolutely no emotion or intelligent composition. It just screams "OH YEAH, THIS IS SOOO COOL!"

Did I mention that Call of Duty 5 - World at War is set in World War 2? Neither of these things feel right at all. Yes, they're appealing to your average 18 year-old gamer, who thinks that Halo is the most fantastic game evar. They take solemn and dramatic events in history and turn it into a popcorn flick. It's feels like they took something like The Dark Knight or Battlestar Galactica and watered it down into a chick flick. Include shallow writing, stereotypical and overused characters, and paper-thin story... This game is entirely devoid of purpose.

When you held the bridge during Operation Pegasus or stormed the shattered remains of the Reichstag or made the landing at Stalingrad in Call of Duty 1, it was truly emotional stuff. Fighting along side your comrades against brutal odds, the thick orchestral score swells so that it's louder than anything else in the game... It was so moving. And World at War... Is not. At all. I had a really difficult time getting into it. More than once I just wanted to get the game over with so that I could say I got my $25 out of it. This game, to me, has zero artistic merit. Maybe it's as simple as I'm just not their targeted demographic, but... This was some completely unsatisfying. It was such a letdown. Perhaps WWII is such a close and personal topic that I can't stand to see it not taken seriously, with some form of artistic integrity or honest purpose.

Thematic issues aside, the motion capture was used too sparingly, as you seldom saw any characters do anything aside from the standard movement and shooting animations. The AI wasn't too fantastic either - on several occasions there was a US and Japanese solider literally standing two feet apart and firing on other troops. Their behaviours really felt shallow. Like playing with a bunch of bots. Oh, and this one also suffered from leave-it-to-the-player-to-progress-the-battle syndrome, like past Call of Duties. If you don't cross that invisible line, no one else moves up and soldiers just keep spawning. And the map/level design was VERY linear. Yes, all the CoD games have been, but this one obviously so.

It was interesting, however, that Treyarch ended the game with the Soviet storming of the Reichstag for the game's finale. Why is that interesting? Because the exact same thing was done by Infinity Ward for Call of Duty 1. Mind you, this time around it was substantially more visually impressive. But what else do you expect, considering that the first game is now six year old? Still, it was a pretty good moment.

And, just like Call of Duty 4, there was on obligatory gunship mission. But this one stuck out even more - in CoD4 this bit was tied directly to part of the story. In World at War... Not at all. It had nothing to do with the character you had been playing aside from the fact that it occurred in the same theatre of war. It stuck out like a sore thumb: "It was so popular in CoD4, we need to do it too!" But, actually, the sequence was quite wall done. Here you're a gunner in a Catalina, and assault a convoy before rescuing sailors out of the water. The best part is when you had to change gun stations, and you'd run through the fuselage from station to station. It was pretty immersible. But, once again, it obviously was copying from the bomber mission in Call of Duty: United Offensive. It did some things better, and some things worse. I prefer the UO mission - the way it ended really took my breath away. I gotta dig up those disks and give it another go. One of my favourite moments in gaming.

But, really, it wasn't all bad. The fire effects sure were pretty. And even though the main multiplayer is another direct copy from CoD4, the zombie mode is pretty good. It was implemented fairly well, I could see myself spending more time on it.

At this point, I want to lambast Treyarch for making such a horrible creation, but... I get the feeling that they did the best they could. They were obviously contracted to make a game that was very similar to CoD4 (and it sure shows), on a rather quick due date to land before Infinity Ward's next installment. I recognize that the studio did the best they could, but what they created... Just wasn't theirs. It feels too much like a game that has to meet the following x requirements.

No, I'm going to go right ahead and blame Activision for this one. Anything to make a buck, right guys? Screw creativity or integrity or quality, as long as it sells well(and I'm sure it did), that's all that matters. You stole the franchise out from underneath IW, and then started polluting the brand and shopping around to make filler for your holiday release schedule. Shame on you. I think Treyarch is capable of making something good, but they need to have the opportunity to take things in their own direction. Activision... Screw you.



I wish I could say that I'd start boycotting all Call of Duty games (if not all Activision releases), but Modern Warefare was such a fantastic game that I cannot be denied the sequel. Which puts me in a rough spot. Maybe I'll download the extended demo and then cut a cheque directly for Infinity Ward. They're the ones worth supporting.
-Cril

Head or tails, heads or tails, heads or tails (heads or tails)
Are you dumb enough to break the mold
or smart enough to fail?
Oh happy trails happy trails oh happy trails
Can't beat a little bit of envy in your sails.

Singing that's all right
Yeah that's all right
Oh that's all right

It's a disaster
It's an incredible mess
But it's all we've got now
Yeah it's all we got
Howling with laughter, panic, alarm, and distress
But it's all we've got now
Yeah it's all we got

Ok Go - It's a Disaster