As the eldest child I never had to worry about unrealistic expectations, because there was no precedent. My parents had absolutely no experience raising a kid. So obviously they made some mistakes, but overall I’d like to think they did a good job. However, when my sister came along, she did have to deal with my shadow. The same basic situation is true for video game sequels, specifically those that follow critically acclaimed holiday blockbusters like Call of Duty 4. It’s made doubly worse when you’re the newer developer on the scene and are tasked with revamping a franchise created by another studio. Given Treyarch’s lackluster first-entry into the series in Call of Duty 3, fans were hopeful lightning wouldn’t strike twice, and that they would be able to change their reputation by learning from their mistakes. Unfortunately, lightning did in fact strike twice, and in the process it set the game on fire.

As someone who has followed the Call of Duty franchise since day one, I waited on baited breath to find out where Call of Duty would go after its successes in the arena of Modern Combat. Call of Duty 4 revamped a franchise that felt like it was about to recede permanently into the bargain bins (Medal of Honor, anyone?). Unfortunately, Call of Duty: World at War doesn’t share this sense of soldiering into the unknown, but that isn’t completely a bad thing. While the game’s setting may return to the past, the mechanics of the title continue from where they left off one year ago.

Call of Duty: World at War focuses on the often overlooked Pacific Theater and Eastern Front from World War II. It’s a nice departure from the ordinary, but it’s still World War II, so it’s hard to not feel like we have seen it before -- especially the bombed out cities from the Russian segment of the campaign. Being a Call of Duty game, the title follows the same basic formula: players take the role of a young soldier; this soldier is then put through hell in the form of hundreds of enemies and a chaotic blood soaked battlefield. In essence that is the plot boiled down to one sentence.

While the story behind the game is beyond simplistic, Call of Duty: World at War manages to present this in a manner that will keep you from skipping the cutscenes. The title has an amazing voice in the form or artistically rendered designs and historic footage; however, it has nothing to say. In a sense it’s like paying Sean Connery to read the phone book. Sure, it’s interesting for a while and the delivery is awesome, but after the 500th Anderson I’m not going to keep paying attention. The titles enlists two “A” list voice actors in the form of Kiefer Sutherland and Gary Oldman, and while both do a serviceable job it seems like a waste to pay so much for people who say so little.