Call of Duty: World at War
Platforms: Xbox 360, PS3, PC, Wii, DS
Price: $35-$60

Game developer Treyarch let roughly 20,000 lucky gamers try out the online multiplayer aspect of their new shooter, Call of Duty: World at War (WAW), before the game’s November 11th release. I happened to be one of them. As an indirect sequel to last year’s monumental success Call of Duty 4 (COD4), which was not created by fan-favorite developer Infinity Ward, WAW had a lot to live up to.

The best compliment I can give WAW is that it’s basically an incredible COD4 mode. It takes the innovation that COD4 brought to the table and makes some helpful changes with extra dressings. This means new vehicles, more “perks,” and more weapons; namely, more of the stuff you loved. Hey, when people want more cupcakes, you don’t give them donuts. You give them more cupcakes with new frosting and different-colored sprinkles. No complaints here.

Sadly, WAW takes players back to a familiar time frame known as World War II. This is where the game shoots itself in the foot. COD4 became a phenomenon because it ditched WWII altogether, yet WAW decided to take a step back. The weapons don’t feel unique in any way since you’ve seen them in almost every WWII shooter game since the PlayStation. Their learning curve is much steeper than previous versions as well, so be prepared for bit of inevitable frustration.

In conclusion, I was satisfied with WAW but nothing had me thinking, “I’d rather be playing this instead of COD4.” Hopefully, the game’s single-player mode, which includes four-player online co-op and a bonus zombie Nazi survival mode (I kid you not), will warrant a purchase. To my fellow hardcore CODers: you’ll either stick with WAW just because it’s something new, or come crawling back to the COD4 that once loved you. That is, if it hasn’t found a new boyfriend already.