Because World at War is the same engine as Call of Duty 4, it’s not surprising to see that the graphics remain largely the same quality. As a whole there’s no drastic improvement, which isn’t too bad, seeing as Modern Warfare looked spectacular. There aren’t as many of those “Wow” moments the previous game gave us, but at least it keeps up with it. The most significant change visually is the gore. The past title was a tad more minimalistic, while World at War tends to embrace that oh so red liquid fear. Bodies become littered with the red badge of courage as lead pummels through their skin, and it adds a nice touch.

Unfortunately, the game does have its share of bugs. For example, from time to time you’ll find your feet trapped in an invisible stockade of bad code. This happened to me on multiple occasions over the course of the campaign, which resulted in my partner and I cooking our own grenades in order to be freed by the grasp of death itself.

Despite the issues, though, series fanatics will likely view the game as a success. While the single player may be too basic for those without access to online multiplayer, the multiplayer should be strong enough to keep players attention a few months down the road. The title feels like it’s a tad undercooked, because if it had been given a few more months in the oven we could be looking at a true Call of Duty successor. Instead, it’s more like Call of Duty 4.5: World at War. If you’re a huge fan of the franchise, it’s still worth a purchase. If you’re strapped for cash, though, you’re better off sticking with Modern Warfare and waiting until this one shows up in a bargain bin.