With Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare holding its own against the likes of multiplayer juggernaut Halo 3 since it was released almost a year ago, the question on everyone's mind is, undoubtedly, "How does Call of Duty: World at War stack up in comparison?"
Like many of you, I had my doubts about World at War from the start, but for good reason. Infinity Ward has proven itself time and time again; no one's arguing that. Treyarch, on the other hand, has developed a reputation, and let's just say it's not a very good one.
[Editor's note: For whatever reason, Grim's preview disappeared from the site at some point in the day. Anyway, here it is again for all to enjoy. Sorry for the inconvenience.]
Let me start by saying I've invested literally hundreds of hours in Call of Duty 4's multiplayer and participated in the beta for that title as well. To this day, I have a vivid memory of the first time I booted it up, and can still remember how fresh and inspired the gameplay felt initially.
Perhaps, though, I have logged a few too many hours into CoD4, as my first two hours with the World at War beta left me feeling incredibly jaded. For the most part, the game feels almost exactly like CoD4 in terms of just about everything, from the perks to the HUD and even to the way your character handles.
While that may sound negative to some, it's really not. Why would Treyarch want to risk screwing up Infinity Ward's tried-and-true formula? I'm not sure, but then again I haven't the slightest idea why the company decided to travel back to World War II in the first place.
If someone like me, whose first Call of Duty title was Modern Warfare and who has a general hate towards WWI and WWII videogames, can actually find enjoyment in World at War, then I guess Treyarch's done some good for the franchise after all.
One such example of this is the revamped Domination, which is now appropriately titled "War." Other modes from the beta include your standard Team Deathmatch, Free-for-All, and Capture the Flag, but War is by far my favorite of the bunch.
Rather than having multiple points for your team to capture from the start like in Call of Duty 4's Domination, War has you all going after one initial control point. Once that point is captured, it vanishes from the map and another point pops up in a different location. This goes on until one team has all of the capture points or the timer runs out; in my experience, the latter happens much more frequently.
That might not sound like much in writing, but believe me when I say that it's quite tense and will surely get your adrenaline going, provided the two teams are comparable in skill level. This is especially true of the map Roundhouse, which is easily the best level from a design perspective.
Roundhouse is a large circular map covered with debris from a war-torn European train depot. Unlike the two other beta maps, Castle and Makin, it has drivable tanks, which is something CoD4 is missing entirely. My main issue with those other maps is that they don't flow as nicely and appear to be somewhat thrown together.
The only other major change between World at War and Modern Warfare that you should know about (besides the weapons, which are from WWII. There. That's it) is the new set of kill streak bonuses.
Kill 3 enemy soldiers in a row, and you'll receive radar support; 5 in a row will net you an artillery strike, which causes your enemies to become incredibly disoriented and lasts considerably longer than it ought to; annihilate 7 soldiers in a row, and you get to unleash a pack of rabid attack dogs.
Sure, you can take down one or two dogs by yourself, but can you fend them off while simultaneously being shot at by your enemy? I know I can't. Personally, the sound the dogs emit right before dying is unbelievably satisfying, but that's just me.
Seeing as how me being excited by dogs dying is just as good of a note to leave on as any, I will summarize my answer to the question in the title by saying that Treyarch has exceeded my expectations, but another Call of Duty from Infinity Ward instead of World at War would've been greatly appreciated.
It'll be interesting to see how those guys handled the campaign mode, as it's got online co-op -- a feature that would've added much-needed replayability to CoD4's single-player experience. Similarly, I'm eager to see what else World at War offers in terms of multiplayer maps beyond the three from the beta.
Contest:
12:45 AM on 10.14.2008
| 
HOW MANY DOGS MUST DIE???
Reading that makes me cringe.
I double believe it though, so I guess it's Ok.
Yeah, you detonate them the same way too. All the weapon upgrades are pretty much there as well, silencer, red dot sight = aperture (glass lens thing with the crosshair drawn in the center), acog = scope, grenade launcher
also i still retain the same anamostity to that shit bag dev Treyarch. no one likes them anyway why couldn't they just go die, stupid filler company
I really hope that the campaign is awesome, the COD games have an excellent reputation for story telling, and that's what I've come to love about the series.
Also - That dog's mouth looks ridiculous! Why even try to render gums? Just leave it at teeth and be done with it!
Love the tanks, hate the dogs, love the Gewehr 43 although it feels way overpowered. I think I'll play the beta a bit before deciding on buying this one at launch...
treyarch can suck my dick I dont need a cod 4 clone...
ive got cod4.
That said though, it really feels more like a mod than anything else. Like the old Desert Combat modification for Battlefield, only done in reverse. Which isn't exactly a bad thing, but likewise it's not something I'd pay for.
/sarcasm
That and I'm apparently pretty rusty at FPS multiplayer games.
And then those damn Artillery strikes which last way to long. I like the dogs though, that is a really good addition.
ya, some kind of 'remote tnt'
also: it is much more violent than cod4, a grenade blow away 'my' legs, like LT Dan from 'Forrest Gump' ?!
I still hold out hope for a WW1 shooter or a napolionic fps. Now that would be different.
The grenade throw takes longer and they seem to fly a little heavey compared to the last game. you really have to aim to the sky to get them to go any distance.
i heard that there's a new perk which resets grenade timers when you throw them back, so if you found yourself getting killed by grenades too much then it sounds like that perk is for you.
Treyarch can't win with you guys. There damned if they do damned if they don't. I would bet your assed that if Infinity Ward released these same level and upgrades that Treyarch included in World at War you guys would be praising them.
Please stop with all the blind hate. It remindes me of when I started modeling on 3DMax in college. The only reason why I hated using other software was because I learned on 3DMAX and was confortable. There is a lesson to be learned here. Be thankful that we have another COD to play this winter.
if it is, this could make the multiplayer much more fun, with how addicted i was to cod4, im looking forward to this
Leveling was super fast...kinda too fast...I maxed out at level 11 in like an hour and a half. The gameplay is pretty much just like COD4 which is good...except there are dogs instead of helicopters and they are really really annoying and hard to kill! Graphics are really good too...and frame rate is like butter! :) Their version of "War" is a lil strange...instead of being able to control any control point...there is only 1 control point in play at a time...I guess just in case it's a small game maybe, but it's good. Level design wise, I agree with you Grim...the Roundhouse level is defiantly the best. The other two don't really have the best flow to them. All in all it was a pretty good first experience, but no COD4!
Call it a throw back from the EPIC disappointment of CoD3 [post CoD2 - which i adored] i think the tried and tested 'one amazing game, one crap game' formula works for me. Balls to this COD. I'll just gear myself up for the next infinity outing.