Military Video Games, computer games, games, gaming - Army Times

Report to ‘duty’

Just in time for the holidays comes the World War II video game we’ve all been waiting for. Here’s why:

• Flamethrowers.

• War dogs.

• More and better weapons.

• A Nazi-zombie-killing minigame.

If those are not enough, you can forget the sorrow, sap and soaring choruses that bog down other WWII titles. “Call of Duty: World at War” shuns such extra nonsense and gets right to the lead-slinging.

Better still, “World at War” carries over all the basic qualities that made its predecessor, “Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare,” the reigning emperor of first-person shooters: Moving and shooting are seamless; the controls are immediately familiar; and the more you play online, the more weapons and skills you can unlock. And speaking of zombies, when you beat the campaign mode in “World at War,” you can access a special Nazi-zombie-killing minigame.

In online play, you can still get enemies on your radar after three straight kills, only this time you’re getting the data from a “recon plane” instead of an unmanned aerial vehicle. Five kills buys you artillery rather than an airstrike. The seven-kill bonus is a whole new thing: dogs. You can follow your Dobermans and watch them rip out the bad guys’ throats or finish off the enemies yourself while they’re distracted. Plus, if you’re being attacked by the other guys’ dogs, it’s possible to take them out with a little practice. I like the dog-as-weapon better than the attack helicopter in “Modern Warfare,” which was much tougher to defend against.

Tanks are another upgrade in “World at War,” although they’re kind of an afterthought. This year’s “Battlefield: Bad Company” integrated vehicles more seamlessly into its multiplayer.

Then, of course, there’s the flamethrower. Short-ranged, dangerous and inefficient, the flamethrower is the coolest weapon in “World at War.” You get hold of the fire breather early in the single-player campaign, although it’d be nicer if you didn’t have to reach the highest experience level to unlock it for online play.

One important note: Death by flamethrower; getting mauled by dogs — these are just as gruesome as they sound in “World at War,” which departs from “Modern Warfare” by having much more gore and gristle. It sounds strange to fault a war video game for being too violent, but “World at War” gets close. In the single-player mode, guys bleed all over the place, scream when they get hit and crawl after their severed limbs; something to consider if you’re thinking about getting this game for a child for the holidays.

The visuals in “World at War” are about on par with “Modern Warfare” — still good, but changed little with the new installment. Also unchanged is the broad availability of sweet guns, which makes for fun play but could irk sticklers for historical accuracy. (As a Soviet soldier, you might carry an American submachine gun, for example.) You can still unlock special abilities the more you play, including the devastating post-mortem grenade drop; better endurance; and, in a new twist, the ability to revive fallen teammates.

One thing that didn’t seem to carry over from “Modern Warfare” was a better variety of multiplayer maps. All the “World at War” maps are post-apocalyptic, bombed-out war zones, but I liked how in “Modern Warfare” you could fight in Chinatown or on the deck of a cargo ship, for example, in addition to standard battlefields.

Some of the things carried over are kind of silly, as with a blinding “signal flare” that takes the place of the flash-bang grenades from “Modern Warfare.”

Silly details or not, “World at War” is a first-person shooter to be taken seriously. It’s indeed the World War II video game we’ve all been waiting for.

Game squad reviews

What games are keeping you holed up in your man cave?

COD adviser

The inspiration for the game's gritty grunt perspective.