Call of Duty: World at War

New game, old engine
Modern Warfare was better.
Cut scenes, for the win.

I’m a sucker for World War II. Whether it’s the storming of the beaches in Normandy, the dogfights in the Pacific theater or the desert armor maneuvering in Northern Africa, I can’t get me enough of some WWII love. So it goes without saying that I loved the first 3 Call of Duty games: I got to storm beaches and fight my through the Battle of the Bulge, all without having to travel back in time and dodge all that pesky shrapnel.

But then COD4: Modern Warfare came out. And things haven’t quite been the same since. It was a refreshing twist to a tired genre. New weapons, new story lines (as much as I love WWII, it always ends the same: the Nazis, Italians, and Japanese lose) and new gameplay bits, like calling in air strikes made the game a must have for any first person shooter fan. The multiplayer was just as fun.

And now here’s COD5: World at War. It has the same engine, so it should be just as fun, right? Yes, and no. The engine’s awesome, so the core game play is solid. But no matter how many weapons you get to play with or tanks you get to drive, it still feels like Modern Warfare dressed up as a WWII soldier for Halloween.

What really stood out to me, however, were the cut scenes between missions. They’re simply beautiful, mixing a contemporary feel with a familiar propoganda poster design, and weaving in authentic war footage from the appropriate fronts. I’ve seen a lot of WWII footage, and was pleasantly surprised to see some new clips in World at War.

Play it? Sure. Buy it? I wouldn’t.