I am not a fan of writing troll articles, ones designed specifically to get hits or provoke a reaction that just  generates attention for the page be it positive or otherwise. I would also like to think that any argument that I would put forward  in favour or against a particular title is a balanced and considered one, and not just a collection of sweeping statements which have been half-baked in the hurry to meet a deadline. Please bear all of this in mind when you read the next sentence and it may make the rest of the article more palatable. Ready? Here we go

Call of Duty World at War is, in my opinion, the best of all the Call of Duty games.

Now that’s sunk in and those who are upset by this argument have stopped reading, allow me to qualify this statement. World at War was the follow-up title to the hugely successful and globally acclaimed Modern Warfare, and many saw heading back to World War 2 as a regressive step for the franchise. I disagree with these sentiments, as the reason that I loved Call of Duty in the first place was because of the wartime settings and story lines. Don’t get me wrong, I was as blown away by Modern Warfare as everybody else was, but I was more than happy to see a return to its spiritual home. Played out across two story lines, you are thrown into the action as Private Miller, and American soldier in the Eastern Pacific theatre and Private Petrenko, a Russian on the Eastern Front storming towards Berlin.

Alongside the classic yet original plot, you have a variety of new features making their debut in this title. Whilst nothing new to the FPS genre, this was the first time the flamethrower has made an appearance in a Call of Duty title and cooking people with it was just as satisfying as picking off an enemy holding one in the distance and watching them and anyone around them erupt into flames. It really added an extra dimension to the game play and how you chose your strategy, and the smoke grenade -hand grenade – flamethrower combo dug me out of many difficult situations. Secondly, this was the first time that dogs barked their way hatefully into the franchise, and particularly in the early stages of the Russian campaign they prove a tense and surprisingly difficult addition to the game.

You then have the new game types. Most people will remember this title as the one where the Nazi Zombies first graced our screens; a game type which has proved more and more popular with each subsequent title where it’s been included. A challenging and refreshingly different approach, many actually preferred this game mode to the online multiplayer and single player campaign. The mechanics of starting out with only a pistol in a boarded up house, having to collect points to get new and more powerful weapons before opening up new areas to progress into really added tension to the game. I was certainly not the only one who would happily spend hours trying to fend off the ever encroaching hordes.

Speaking of new game modes, another addition this time around was the option to complete the single player campaign as a co-op mission, which for me added a completely new dimension to the game as my wife, long time fan of shooting Nazi’s but not much of a gamer was able to join in, as opposed to sitting on the sofa shouting “Him! Shoot him in the face!” For hose of us who find Call of Duty’s multiplayer experience a little too fourteen year old Americany to enjoy, a co-op campaign to play through brought a new perspective to the game.

Many of you will disagree with my assertions in favour of this title, possibly thinking ‘it’s the war, so what? We’ve all been there, done that and got bored of it already’. This is a reasonable point, however for me I found World at War different to all previous WWII titles that I’ve played, and reason behind it is that this time you actually win. A recurring theme for games such as Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Brothers in Arms etc is that they have no conclusive ending, thus demonstrating the ultimate futility of war;there are no winners. World at War is different, and culminates in one of the most epic finales to a game that I can remember. Along with Sergeant Reznov (expertly voiced by Gary Oldman; a character who made a welcome return to the franchise in Black Ops a couple fo years later), you join the Red Army as they storm the Reichstag in Berlin. Fighting your way through artillery stations, vast open halls and up towards the roof, culminating in hanging the Russian flag in Berlin, one of the most iconic images of the war (interesting fact: the famous photo was actually staged as the original showed the Russian soldier wearing several watches looted from dead Germans). This conclusion is truly impressive to both play through and behold, acting as a fitting monument to the end of the WWII era of the Call of Duty franchise.

Many will suggest that they don’t really care about the single player campaign in a Call of Duty title as it’s all about the multiplayer. I tend to agree, and this is part of the reason that I don’t play Call of Duty anymore (another argument for another day). I would however argue that World at War was he last time that Call of Duty came up with a campaign that was worthy of your time and effort (perhaps MW2, but let’s be honest it was very much secondary to the multiplayer), and this is probably the reason that I remember it so fondly. As a single player offline experience, for me it’s the most enjoyable campaign to play through right up until Bioshock Infinite. As much as I love Battlefield 3 (and I really o), I still haven’t completed the single player mode as the multiplayer holds a much greater appeal, whereas World at War I have played through dozens of time and probably will do dozens more.

© 2013 – 2014, zero1gaming.com. All rights reserved. On republishing this article your must provide a link to this original post