Call of Duty: World at War

Treyarch

images c/o MobyGames

Those first few years of Call of Duty felt so innocent, didn’t they? Tales of derring-do, of bravery, nobility and patriotism in the face of the enemy. How cute. It feels almost quaint, in a way, especially nowadays, as our world descends into authoritarianism and the trauma of COVID-19 lingers after us like a bad dream we can’t shake. Something has irrevocably changed between then and now; it feels like we can’t tell stories like that anymore. They don’t feel right. They don’t feel true.

Call of Duty: World At War is a story about hate.

When World At War first was announced, it was hot on the heels of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare; after the failure of 2006’s Call of Duty 3, and Medal of Honor: Airborne’s failure to make much of a splash, it was nearly unanimous among gamers that World War II was played out, and World At War felt like a misstep. People were hungry for more modern combat. But, you know, this is Call of Duty, and people bought World At War after all, and what they got was, in some ways similar to previous games, but in other ways, the ways that matter, it couldn’t be more different.

Ways that it’s the same: it’s still split into two campaigns (there were going to be three, but the third was scrapped) with multiple, non-intersecting perspectives. In a way it’s still leaning on the series’ re-enactment-over-narrative roots, and thusly still a little light on characterization: Reznov is driven by revenge, Roebuck just wants to get his men home, et cetera. It doesn’t really improve much on the Call of Duty 4 formula. All in all, a pretty typical late-00s Call of Duty game, at least in terms of how it feels.

Ways that it’s different… if you thought Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was cynical and jaded, World At War is one of the most mean-spirited games I’ve ever had the pleasure of playing. I don’t mean this in terms of unfair difficulty (we won’t talk about the final minutes of the Reichstag battle) but in how it presents itself.

Call of Duty: World At War’s two campaigns are from opposite ends of the world, but they’re telling similar stories. The war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was notoriously bloody, a bitter racial and ideological war for the future of Europe. And the Pacific Theater was two vast empires, maddened by mutual hatred, crashing into each other; it was made worse by Imperial Japan’s discipline of brutality on every level, from the mistreatment of civilians, prisoners, and their own men, to fighting to the death for a patch of lifeless rock; so fierce was their will to fight to the last man that it seemed to make more sense to the Allies to just nuke them. Twice.

Throughout the course of the game, brutal conduct seems to be the rule. The Nazis give no quarter; the Japanese ask for none. Several times, you’re given the option to be cruel: to help Soviet troops at risk of giving away your position; to finish off dying German soldiers; to choose between shooting them (quick and easy) or burning them alive with molotovs when they surrender. Your choices affect nothing, but how one of the characters sees you. Do you care? Meanwhile, the Pacific theater is all about fire: you’re given a flamethrower in several levels, and you’ll be able to use it to burn the enemy out of their bunkers, out of their spider holes, out of their mortar pits, torching them as they fall to the ground screaming and writhing. This does not stop them from constant banzai charges, from ambushing you in the fields and the trees and the tunnels, from pretending to surrender only to produce a grenade, intending to take you with them.

Between the game’s stark violence — which includes brand new gore effects, heretofore unseen in Call of Duty (a holdover from Medal of Honor’s attempt to be “family-friendly”) — its deeply desaturated visuals, the almost horror movie vibe of the loading videos, and the thumping electronic soundtrack so unlike the typical orchestral you’d expect from games like this, it’s a monument to a deep cynicism about the nature and conduct of World War II. Rather than a step backwards for the series, it instead looks at the conflict that spawned it and asks, “what, you thought World War II was supposed to be fun!?”

World At War is unique for the series. While it serves as a prequel to the Black Ops sub-series, it’s at a level of filthy, mean-spirited cynicism matched only by the first Black Ops game (itself feeling like a jaded 1970s political thriller on horse crank.) It’s not my favorite of the franchise’s WWII entries (there’s no substitute for the original, as quaint and cuddly as it may be compared to this) but it’s certainly one that dares to be at least a little honest about what Big Two was really like.

The final cutscene is footage of General Douglas MacArthur’s speech at the formal surrender of Japan, intercut with footage of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. And then, a note:

60 million lives were lost as a result of World War II. It was the most destructive and deadly conflict in human history.

What else is there to say?

 

-june❤

Part of a series on Call of Duty 

Call of Duty	United Offensive	Call of Duty 2
Call of Duty 3
Finest Hour	2: Big Red One	Roads to Victory
4: Modern Warfare	Modern Warfare 2	Modern Warfare 3
Modern Warfare DS	Modern Warfare Mobilized	Modern Warfare 3: Defiance
Modern Warfare 2019	Modern Warfare II	Modern Warfare III
Warzone
World At War	WaW: Final Fronts	World At War DS
Black Ops	Black Ops DS	Black Ops: Declassified
Black Ops II	Black Ops III	Black Ops IIII
Black Ops: Cold War	Black Ops 6	Black Ops 7
Ghosts	Advanced Warfare	Infinite Warfare
WWII	Vanguard	???
Zombies