You can choose to kill them, or let your troops burn them with molotov's. Take for instance a moment where you come across a subway entrance where a squad of Germans are cornered. He shows no mercy and doesn't think a single Axis life should be spared. In Reznov's case, it makes him merciless with a capital M. Reznov views the Axis as an evil that must be squashed, no matter how many lives are lost.Ĭall of Duty: World at War's story isn't groundbreaking, but it explores the psychology of war and what it does to the human mind. When the Axis tries invading Russia, they stir up the hornet's nest that is the Russian army, which includes on Victor Reznov. The Russian campaign is a tale of revenge. It's not as overarching as the Russian campaign, and while I like Roebuck, he doesn't match the mighty Victor Reznov. My only issue is the Pacific campaign feels more episodic compared to the Russian campaign. Treyarch knows how to write likable characters, and then kill them when the player least expects it. The writing does a good job at getting you invested in these characters. You want to see them succeed despite the odds they're faced with. His squad is relying on him to get anything done, and the environment is a hot, humid jungle where making progress is harder than it should be. This adds tension to the in-game action knowing the enemy could pop up at any moment and try to skewer them.Īfter their CO is killed, Roebucks finds himself in an uncomfortable position. The Japanese use tactics like banzai charges, surprise ambushes, and camouflage to catch Roebuck and his squad off guard. The Pacific levels show the Americans fighting an uphill battle with an enemy that's smarter than they expected. That's the best way to describe the game, relentless. The Russians and Americans are as relentless as the Japanese and Germans are. Previous World War II shooters and even ones that came after World at War tend to treat the conflict as an action spectacle where America is the hero, and the Axis is the villain. In war, there is no black and white, only a grey area where violence is the only means to an end. The game is dark, gloomy, and shows us how World War II was a brutal fight where both the good guys and bad guys didn't hold back. Reunited with Reznov, the two participate in a large-scale operation to liberate Berlin from Axis control, a mission that takes several lives, but also leads to the fall of the Axis in Europe.įrom the opening title screen, World at War strikes a chord different from previous World War II games, Call of Duty or otherwise. Three years pass, and the Russians successfully push the Germans back into their homeland. Reznov has been hunting General Heinrich Amsel and with Petrenko's help, he succeeds in his goal of killing the Axis general. The Russian campaign follows Petrenko, who narrowly cheats death and finds an ally in the form of Sergeant Victor Reznov. Roebuck guides his men through Peleliu and Okinawa, where they storm Shuri Castle, a fortified position filled with Japanese soldiers and mortar crews. During a raid on Peleliu Island, their commanding officer is killed, and Roebuck becomes squad leader. Miller's squad includes Corporal Roebuck and Private Polonsky. Miller and the men in his unit are taking part in an island-hopping campaign with the intent of freeing the Japanese's grasp on the Pacific. One is a marine fighting in the Pacific, the other is a soldier in the Russian army. World at War follows Private Joseph Miller and Private Dimitri Petrenko. Rather than have players storm the digital beaches of Normandy for the umpteenth time, World at War explores the United States' efforts in the Pacific and the Russians' fight in Europe. Treyarch, who had previously developed Call of Duty 3 and the underrated Call of Duty 2: Big Red One, would give World War II its swan song with Call of Duty: World at War. ![]() Although people assumed this meant the end of World War II shooters, this wasn't quite the case. With its globetrotting campaign and addictive multiplayer, Modern Warfare gave military shooters a shot in the arm, and the game was a worldwide phenomenon. With Modern Warfare, it reinvented the franchise and revitalized people's interest in military shooters. Up until then, it was a World War II series that gave Medal of Honor a run for its money. I've played most of the games and enjoyed them, but at the same time, I realize there are far better options when it comes to first-person shooters.Īlthough new Call of Duty games are as inevitable as death and taxes, back in 2007, the series charted a new course with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Personally, I like Call of Duty, but I don't love it. You either dig its explosive action, or you think its a big, fat cow Activision has proudly milked since its inception in 2003. Call of Duty is a series you either love or despise.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |