Call of Duty: World at War

War games on console are not renowned for their dedication to innovation. Whether you're talking about Call of Duty, Medal of Honor or the Brothers in Arms games, each series tends to establish a blueprint and stick to it. We're not complaining though when evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, games like Call of Duty 4 (on console) offer some of the greatest gaming thrills available.

Call of Duty on mobile takes the proverbial biscuit, though. We've been reviewing these games on mobile for two and a half years and, now that the latest instalment – World at War – has hit handsets, we can only conclude that in those two-and-a-half years and four games, little has really changed. It's one thing not trying to rock the boat, but this feels plain lazy.

Call of Duty: World at War is a top-down shooter where you control a single soldier, running between cover points while shooting up some bad guys. The interface is casual-focused as well, enabling you to play with either one or two hands. Using both makes it possible to move and shoot at the same time but, because of the constant use of cover, you can finish the game with just the one mitt.

You automatically aim-in on enemies, so the key to success is more about managing how long you stay out of cover rather than sniper-like accuracy. Your soldier can't take that much battering, but your health regenerates while you're safe.

You'll generally have a few squad members around you, too. Although not particularly smart, they'll help you take out a few enemies.

As is the rule with squad-based war games, though, it's mostly up to you. You're equipped with a rifle as standard, along with three grenades that you'll need to be under cover to use properly. Hitting the '#' key brings up an aiming reticule that you can move around the screen. Press the key again and your soldier will throw a grenade to that point.

They're effective because enemies don't have the wits about them to chuck grenades back. But the same is true of your troops and you'll often be watching helplessly as one of them is blown to puree, probably prodding it with their rifle seconds before, assuming it to be some sort of fossilised pineapple.

There are nine missions, some of which also see you wielding a flamethrower in order to toast some trees (and enemy soldiers along the way, naturally). The missions are largely of a vanilla variety, seeing you ambling along a linear path populated with sand bag cover points and accompanying enemies.

A few spice things up slightly, charging you with blowing up buildings and aeroplanes using explosive charges. This may be slightly less dynamic than it sounds, mind, as it consists of making your way to a checkpoint and pressing '5' to set a charge. The rest sorts itself out.

The interface and missions aren't the elements that show up the engine's age the most, though – the visuals are in fact the blandest part of the game. Warfare may be bleak, but the repeated simple textures and barren environments of Call of duty: World at War add rust to the gameplay's nuts and bolts, which by comparison are ageing slightly better.

If you look back at our Call of Duty mobile reviews, you'll see that the first game in the series, Call of Duty 2, won a coveted Silver Award. The years and competing titles have taken their toll, though, with scores falling with each CoD instalment.

World at War doesn't suffer from quite the auto-aim issues of Call of Duty 4, but it really is time for a bit of a spring clean for the franchise. It's casual and the interface still holds up, but it's also unimaginitive and displays an unwillingness to evolve. And that's worrying because, unlike in real war, there's a real danger of being left behind.