In 'World at War', it goes back to the Second World War. But this time it is not the task to liberate Europe from the Nazis, the focus is now on the Pacific battles of Americans against the Japanese. Full allowed the Third Reich but not missing, which is why there is a concurrent storyline in which the player takes on the skin of the Russians Dimitri Petrenko to march with the Red Army at Stalingrad made to Berlin.
Technically, there are at 'World at War' hardly anything to complain about. It makes use of the IW engine of 'Call of Duty 4' and therefore looks as good as its predecessor. But here also lies the problem: the game looks * exactly * like 'Call of Duty 4' - apparently the graphic was best to nuances (like the fire effects, seems to be particularly proud of the Treyarch, after all, there is in every mission at least a flamethrower / -panzer what, refined due to the high fuel consumption, not quite corresponds to the historical reality), an obvious improvement does not exist. While the engine is clearly still up to date, but achieved no longer just the same "Oho!" - Effect as a year ago. After all, for 'Call of Duty' typical mass slaughter without tearing, stuttering or (coarser) Grafikfehler be placed on the screen, which is why I do not see the lack of progress so closely, however, it would have been nice, at least elsewhere any form of development to find ...
Innovation One looks in vain unfortunately. 'World at War' plays exactly like its predecessors: it still resists to endless waves respawnender opponents until you have broken through to its use destination. The missions of numerous script events are broken up as usual. "Same as usual" is also true in substance and structure of missions: blow up fuel storage in the air, off the Sniper target individuals off enemy tanks. In between, one squatting in an American 'Black cat' bombers sunk Japanese supply ships and fends off a kamikaze attack. Of course, the obligatory tank drive may (here in the Seelow Heights on the part of the Russians) are not missing. The game ends - once again - on the roof of the Reichstag, where the Soviet flag was raised - it's just absolutely nothing new here. The best thing about 'Call of Duty 4' was at that time that the famous' CoD' gameplay indeed took that scenario, however, was fresh and (in the series) delightfully fresh and new. I like the Second World War as a venue and therefore would also further 10 'Call of Duty' parts play in this setting, but can understand that some resent the decline.
The AI was compared with their predecessors almost deteriorated. Tactical approach as cover or flanking looking? None. As before storming opponents in suicide-style hitting the player, and is at a maximum in terms of mass is a threat. The fellow AI is even worse and appears in virtually every 'Call of Duty' offshoot to become progressively worse. In 'World at War' serve your colleagues less than assistance, but rather as a decoration for the Poor box to the "I'm just a cog in the war machine" -Massegefühl preserve (which anyway greatly suffer, that the war is quasi win single-handedly). You take nothing - really nothing - which is why it does not surprise me that the enemy fire is always to focus on the single human participants and let the friendly AI generally are left, which often leads to strange scenarios (example: at Banzai attacks storm the Japanese sometimes by a group of heavily armed Americans to reach me - which they usually succeed because it is nobody ...). After all, they throw back grenades - sometimes. Oh yes - grenades ...
The enemy AI seems to have a fetish for shells: in any other game I was allowed to experience a so far such inflationary use of grenades. If a 3-4 small explosive device thrown at the same time in front (no rarity!), There is almost no escape, which can be frustrating, especially in the 'Veteran'-difficulty. However, the increased screen death at least prolong the much too short single-player campaign that should have even less gebübte players finished on the medium difficulty in 4-6 hours. This fact is for me as a first: I've never been a WW II shooter gambled that I had so quickly. Even the also rather short 'Call of Duty 3' kept me longer in the bar - disappointing ...
The heart of 'Call of Duty', however, has always been his multiplayer mode. This was extended by a cooperative playable campaign in either online up to 4 players or 2 can participate in a console via splitscreen. Unfortunately, the latter fills the two halves of the picture is not completely out, which is why the index, if one does not have a correspondingly large TV, something suffers. Since me the multiplayer (apart from the new co-op mode) not interested (and, regardless of the game has never been interested in 'Call of Duty'), I have just alluded to it briefly - he is little more than a WW II version of 'Modern Warfare'. So if after the online modes of Part 4 was hooked, will not be disappointed.
German players should give in 'World at War' special care: was in 'Call of Duty' so far 'only' the Nazi symbolism censored, was much more of scissors victim, which is related to the increased level of violence title the latest offshoot. Treyarch itself emphasized in the run, 'World of War' should not simply the last war years in fast motion (which, incidentally, were already versoftet historically unakkurat), but above all the cruel sides of the conflict, including prisoners executions and torture show. Before the first moral high screams that such scenes would have no place in a video game, he might wonder: how can be illuminated, the cruelty of the greatest conflict in human history, when good 2/3 of it is either missing or has been defused? In Germany, of "glorification of violence" is mentioned repeatedly. Even in the German Criminal Code, there is a corresponding section (§ 131), which is "obvious" glorification of violence a criminal offense. I would be interested what the glorification of violence is actually. Is it the cruel representation of war, where combatants in susceptible hits lose limbs, be torn apart by grenades and anti-tank projectiles and 10 seconds walk around screaming when she lights before they fall to the ground and succumb to their injuries? Or is it the clinically clean, "sterile" representation in which degenerated the opponent targets in uniform that it as precisely as possible "wegzumachen" applies, as in the German version of 'World at War' of the case? Again and again indignant "experts", the consumption gewalthältiger videogames would blunt because identification with the victims is not possible. Who can be a target against empathic?
'Call of Duty: World at War' Treyarch was secret weapon to counter Infinity Ward's attack and things around the war for the 'Call of Duty' franchise, unfortunately it turns out to be duds. The good approaches are there - the atmosphere is very dense and the high game speed is the short campaign definitely not be bored. Unfortunately, the developers made use too often and too obvious in the successful predecessor. Better well stolen than badly reinvented, they say - nice, but an expanded 'Call of Duty 4' Mod is not worth a full price, what also the amusing and motivating co-op can not change anything. The censorship of the German version you do the rest. That's why I put myself close genre fans to play before buying once sample. Because of censorship and because German customers a complete game mode - "Nazi Zombies" - which is not handelungsrelevant, but just four very much fun, is withheld, 2 stars for the German, 4 for the international version.
