Back when the Day of Defeat mod was the bees knees in the Half-Life community I remember there was a big deal made out of the gun balance. It's expected that a WWII game is going to attract gamers with an eye for history as well as people who 'just want to shoot bitches'. When it was discovered that although the German and American side had different weapon models most of the guns were in fact exactly the same statistically, people were pissed. If the guns were the same, what's the difference between the sides? I'm not sure whether the guns were changed or not, or if they were updated in the Source mod, but that event sticks in my memory.

Now, as I watch the gameplay trailer for Call of Duty: World at War, I'm wondering what those disgruntled gamers would think. I myself was a bit confused when I saw the Japanese toting a Thompson submachine gun. While it may have made sense for Call of Duty 4 to have weapons that weren't dependant on your side in the conflict, it just doesn't seem to make sense in the WWII setting.

It would be interesting to see a poll on the subject and to see what sort of gamers the game will attract. I'm quite aware that there is probably a majority that would call me nitpicky and love the idea of shared weapons. But at the risk of sounding like a senior citizen -- what is happening to my beloved first person shooters? Most shooters have already rid themselves of fire modes (single, burst, automatic), and now they're not bothering to differentiate the teams through gameplay mechanics.

Nobody will be complaining about the stopping power and semi-automatic capabilty of the M1 Garand, and the frightening versatility of the MP44 won't be quite as frightening when both teams can grab it from the get go.

That's what gave these games flavour -- when my clan would lose the coin toss and take the American side on an open bocage map in Call of Duty 2 we would have to use trench clearing tactics and cunning to get around the superior German bolt-action rifles. The few snipers on our team were a godsend, and it was thrilling to flank a team of riflemen with submachineguns. It might have been imbalanced, but my God it was fun to have to make up for it with skill, wit and teamwork.

Is it a concession in balancing, like when Blizzard gave both the Alliance and Horde access to paladins and shamans, or do gamers not want these kind of polarizing choices anymore?

Or is it more telling that games like Call of Duty: World at War aren't even available on the PC, and I'm just not the 'target audience'?