Written by Paul Stuart

While not a FPS (first person shooter) aficionado by any means, I must convince abnormal salivation over the prospects of reviewing this title. (So much so, that I rented an HDTV just so I could do it justice while in the middle of a relocation.)

Why the uncharacteristic drool, you ask? There’s something peculiarly satisfying about reliving World War II battles in both solo and multiplayer modes. I can’t put my finger on it, but titles such as the recent Medal of Honor Heroes 2 and/or legendary ‘Wolfenstein 3D’ seem a great deal more satisfying than anything Master Chief could ever conjure up.

Although I took a pass at the first iteration of PS3 ‘Call of Duty’ – a game that went on to win several ‘Game of the Year’ awards – I would not make the same mistake twice over. Fool me twice…and I’m a gaming moron.

‘World at War’ goes a long way to reward this decision. It’s as polished an FPS that you’re going to find, bursting with stunning and diverse environments, a multitude of weapons options, and intelligent enemy AI. If it ‘aint broke, Treyarch logically concluded not to fix it.

While the single player campaign provides its fair share of entertainment, the value in ‘World at War’ clearly lies in its multiplayer mode.

Logistically and even with a questionable hotel Internet connection, ‘World at War’ was an online champ, empowering me to experience dozens of deathmatches and team battles with nary a hiccup.

Team battles quickly evolve into addiction. Each match features a randomly generated environment (capable of override via voting), intelligently [experience-based] configured teams (to ensure fairness), and rotating country assignment (complete with B-movie accents and tag lines). Toss in the option to select from and/or create customized player classes and every timed round is a unique experience.

A few hours in, I was schooled in the benefit of both intelligent teammates and sound strategy to mission success. Kamikaze style might favor more open environs, but guerilla tactics become essential in mountain topography. Related, running recklessly into battle sans teammates results in near-automatic death. You’ll want to attack in formations, assist in kills, and avoid unnecessary deaths. If done successfully, all combine to produce more experience points. Experience increases rank, available weapons and game modes.

Importantly and counter to ‘Team Fortress 2’ – an excellent multiplayer shooter in its own right – ‘World at War’ keeps things fair for noobs in not rewarding memorization of environments nor exploitation of certain soldier types. When I used my noggin’ in battle, I fared pretty well across all five types. Throw in the ability to commandeer tanks and aerial strikes, and it’s never dull online.

On the flipside – and despite all of its merits – ‘World at War’ does, however, lack the character of its WWII counterparts. Independent of it’s massive playability, I couldn’t help but long for the personality of its Last Great War counterparts. While ‘World of War’ certainly provides a terrific experience, my gaming heart never truly went pitter-patter.

To elaborate and more often than not, ‘World at War’ morphed into patterned, quick kills versus a unique first person shooter experience. Bioshock this certainly is not.

Still, there’s little not to like about ‘Call of Duty: World at War.’ For deathmatch and/or team battle junkies, consider this money well spent. Solo players, however, might want to look elsewhere.

CONCLUSION: B plus