The day that the Second World War ended, I imagine people were desperately hoping that they wouldn't have to relive it again. I've heard old people saying that they didn't want anything like that for their children and their children's children and so on. So, what has the gaming industry done? They've tried their absolute dear-hardest to make the most realistic World War 2 experience possible. Well, that backfired on them when ever gamers got sick of World War 2. There was a joyous outbreak of pure ecstasy when even the Call of Duty series acknowledged this fact. The fourth in the series, Modern Warfare, was a runaway smash hit. There was an entire year without any truly major World War 2 releases (don't say Brothers in Arms, that's an obvious minor release). But then came Treyarch. They released Call of Duty: World at War, which is by far the greatest World War 2 game ever to be made.

It uses an enhanced version of the Call of Duty 4 engine, so the gameplay is pretty much exactly the same, but only at its core. In the end, the World War 2 weapons change up the tactics enough that it's obviously not the same but you still get this weird feeling of déjà vu. But that's hardly a problem because it's still sheer awesome. There are differences and additions, which are what really make the game.

It's also change of pace. There's no Normandy, North Africa, Battle of the Bulge, or Stalingrad here. Instead there's Berlin from the Russian perspective, which is, believe me, way more intense than the American one I think we saw previous WW2 games. I was wrong earlier, though, there is Stalingrad but only briefly and it's not the same young-privates-on-a-boat-getting-a-speech-from-an-older-Russian-dude-and-when-you-land-you-don't-get-a-gun-just-ammo-so-you-join-forces-with-a-superior-comrade-who-leads-you-away-from-the-mass-attacks-and-you-become-a-hero. It's much darker and much more intense. But the American perspective is even better. You aren't fighting Nazis, you're fighting the Japanese. Now, I've always argued pro the nuking of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, which I know is controversial. World at War totally reaffirmed we believe that that bombing was necessary. Why?

Because the Japanese are brutal. They don't give up and they'll fight for every inch of land they have. When you've think you've killed one, he'll use his last second of life to drop a grenade or he'll pull out his pistol and take as many as he can with him. They'll use your dead against you. In particular scene, you and your mates come across a crashed US plane. When your buddy checks for survivors, he finds explosives and half of your men die in the ensuing ambush. Just crossing a plain is hard enough too. They'll pop out of spider holes and jump out of the grass shouting "Banzai!" You'll be charged with bayonets and cut down if you don't act fast enough. There's even one scene where they fake surrender, only to kill once you've gotten close enough. They don't stop until every last one of them is dead.

It not only puts perspective on the war: it makes excellent gameplay. You're fighting an enemy that you respect, unlike the Nazis in previous games, which were so laughably generic. Believe me when I say that you won't be laughing at the Japanese.

To add perspective about the war, the cutscenes have a very unique and stylish flair to them. Jack Bauer- I mean, Sergeant Roebuck and the bad guy from Air Force One narrate them. You see real images from the war and then statistics are given to you, which really add realistic depth. Treyarch must have realized that they'd need solid actors for these cutscenes, so they got the best: Kiefer Sutherland and Gary Oldman. If you've ever watched 24, you know you want to be next to Jack-fricking-Bauer when the shooting starts.

World at War makes one big mistake: instead of making itself out to be the best World War 2 shooter ever made, it decided to what I would call outright plagiarism of Call of Duty 4. There was not one interview or developed commentary where the words "Call of Duty 4" did not come out of their mouths. Yes, it has to be similar to past games in the franchise for very good reason but there is a limit. In fact, WaW pushes this line so hard that some have even called it a really good mod for CoD4. Even the box art is pretty much the exact same thing as Call of Duty 4's, except blue and in World War 2. And then they tried way too hard to translate that uber-realistic brutality to World War 2, going so far as to put electronic rock music in it. I admit, it sounds really cool but it just doesn't fit. And, admittedly, it does add to the brutality of it all, but I must say the composer is awful if he can't get the emotion known as "brutal" out of an orchestra.

Treyarch seems to forget that Call of Duty 4 wasn't successful because it was like Call of Duty 4. It was successful because it was an original leap from other Call of Duty's. I can't shake the feeling that if World at War had tried to make itself feel really original, which it does have some great, original pieces, it would have sold much better and critics, like me, would give it perfect 10s. I can just picture them saying "Introducing World at War! A new, fresh take on World War 2" and then it would be loved. But I simply can't ignore that Treyarch is pretty obviously using the sleaziest tricks they can find just to turn a buck.

But with that out of the way, I definitely recommend Call of Duty: World at War. I'm giving it five stars because there's really nothing wrong with it. The only thing setting it back is Call of Duty 4. World War 2 is not over yet and I get the feeling that we'll be hearing from it a lot more. Sorry World War 2 vets… I only wish you guys could have played the video games instead of making it happen for the rest of us. But remember, even without all these games, we can never forget your sacrifice.