Activision hit the video game lottery when it released Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It was an updated version of its award winning WWII series with new weapons, a revamped multiplayer, a thrilling campaign, and great visuals. The game was an instant masterpiece and cemented the franchise for anticipated sequels. We now get the next installment, CoD: World at War, which takes us back to WWII again. Has Activision allowed history to repeat itself with another great title, or are we taking a huge step backward?

The second you play any version of World at War, you will see the footprint of CoD 4 stamped all over it and this is not a bad thing. The game looks just as good, if not better, and the game play is almost identical. There are some subtle differences here and there but nothing to make you feel like the game was somehow incomplete. Furthermore, this is the best WWII game I have ever played. Ever. If you can get by that, you are in for a crazy ride. Unfortunately, for a lot of gamers, that hurdle is not so easy to clear.

Call of Duty games have always had superb sound effects and this may be the best sounding. Games like this are why you buy surround sound for your gaming center. You will feel like you are in the middle of a battle, this is promise you. The voice acting is top notch. Kiefer Sutherland (Jack Bauer) and Gary Oldman (Lt. Gordon… no spoilers for those who have not seen TDK which still amazes me) lend their voices to the main protagonists, American and Russian respectively. Truly great stuff here. The dialogue is well written and the in between mission FMV’s make for a great experience.

The game play, like I said, is unchanged. The weapons though are much different. This is a fact that still bothers me despite how good the game is. All of the combat is right in your face, mainly because most of the weapons are so inaccurate over a distance. There are some new tweaks though that work well. You can sometimes carry heavy weapons like the MG42 and take it with you, remount, and lay down some awesome cover fire. You can now use the much-ballyhooed flame thrower in the campaign, but I have to admit it makes the game entirely too easy, especially on co-op. More on that in a second. The flame thrower has incredible range, unlimited ammo, and unparalleled damage. Furthermore, no one can shoot your gas tank so there is no reason not to use this as much as you can. Whether you feel like the game is boring with the heightened advantage is a personal choice.

The single player campaign is well paced but frantic at the same time. There is a lot going on-screen and the framerate rarely drops, if ever. You will die. A lot. But, there are plenty of checkpoints so you will rarely find yourself replaying through an extended section. The co-op is the best thing and the worst of this game. Playing campaign with 4 friends, especially online is awesome. By far the best thing the Call of Duty series has done with campaign. You will need to revive your friends, because they will go down, and this makes it feel like a real war experience. There is no cover system like Gears of War, so you will need to lay cover fire and throw smoke, flank, you name it. The enemy AI can be borderline retarded sometimes, i.e. shooting at no one when you are right behind them, but I’ll chalk that up to the frenzy of war. Now, for the bad. YOU CANNOT SAVE CO-OP. Nope, you can’t. I made the huge mistake of playing through the first 9 levels with my brother on co-op, then quit to do something else. When we went back, we had to play the first stage. You can only mission select AFTER you have beaten it on single player. This blows. So one of us is had to beat the game on single, and only after that, mission select. You will have to play through the co-op in one sitting to beat it. Such an oversight and I am praying they patch this.

The multiplayer is taken right from CoD4. Its the same thing basically, but expanded a little. There are now 65 levels to reach, vehicle perks, 10 create a class, and some more perks and weapons to unlock. The weapon perks are not as great due to the fact it’s 1940’s tech. It is akin to attaching binoculars to your M1 Garand. You can zoom, but only so much. There are death cards littered about the campaign which serve like skulls from Halo 3 for private matches only. There is a Nazi Zombie mode which is like Horde from Gears of War 2 and you must survive and hold off endless, well, Nazi Zombies.

Call of Duty: World at War is an awesome game that has taken almost every lead from its successful predecessor and that is a great idea. The game has a gritty campaign, a fun yet very flawed co-op, and addicting multiplayer. A totally complete package. But, and it pains me to say this, the game is a WWII mod of Call of Duty 4. This is the WWII shooter we all deserve and is an amazing recreation of that time period. In a perfect world, we would have gotten this 2 years ago. Having to go from present day and then back in time is a tease. Call of Duty: World at War is so good that you will forget that fact while in the campaign, but once you play the multiplayer, you are reminded of its much better older brother.

Overall: 9 out of 10

Click here to see what our scores mean