Treyarch's Call of Duty: World at War was criticized out of the gate for attempting to cash in on the success of Call of Duty 4 while stubbornly returning the series to the overdone World War II era. And while the game's co-operative experience and story campaign may be worth playing through, spending a night in the PC version's multiplayer beta has revealed that the title is unlikely to win over fans of the excellent online action of its predecessor.
On paper and even at first blush, the multiplayer of Call of Duty: World at War is almost a play-by-play remake of COD4. The familiar inclusion of ranks and perks are immediately evident, as you begin earning experience through kills and other on-field actions to unlock more weapons and better abilities. The inclusion of kill streak-based rewards is also familiar, though the UAV, airstrike, and helicopter have been replaced with spy planes, artillery, and attack dogs. The action is fast and furious, melee attacks are ruthlessly efficient, and the basic feeling of COD4 is intact at a low level.
However, it's only upon really playing the title that one realizes the changes that have been made are not for the better. At first, the weirdness crept on slowly. Hearing Keifer Sutherland's voice every few seconds for every bit of narration in-game (his voice indicates all the enemy actions, when a streak ability is used, and so on) quickly became unsettling. Likewise, some of the other additions seemed a little weird: strangely-buggy dogs can be used to attack enemies, for example, and must be dispatched with a few quick bullets—providing they don't get stuck under some of the levels' complicated geometry.
Where the game really feels off, though, is in some of the more significant additions. Vehicles now play a small role in the game—not quite to the extent of Call of Duty 3, at least from what I've played so far, but they do come into play. Each player now has a fourth vehicle perk which privileges sitting in a certain part of the jeeps or tanks (say, faster turret turning). Of course, given the infantry-focused action of the previous game and its subsequent tight balance, the vehicles in World at War feel somewhat out of place.
First of all, the beta maps aren't exactly huge. But, more importantly, the increased amount of melee combat that goes on results in some strange situations. Because the majority of the weapons in the game are pretty inaccurate (as they should be in a World War II game), melee is more important and more brutal than it was in COD4. In the games that I've played, it's not rare to see full on melee wars break out in certain confined parts of the generally more intricate maps. And to have the little melee skirmishes going on while vehicles are driving around winds up being a bit frustrating rather than exciting, as taking them out in the cramped and intricate levels is difficult and more often than not results in a suicide—which it turns out isn't quite painless.
This was the first of the game's adversarial multiplayer that I'd gotten to play, and sad to say I walked away a little disappointed. While in terms of interface and on-paper design Treyarch didn't do much to Infinity Ward's excellent formula, and the basics are all well-represented, in play and in some of the newly-revealed details it's clear that they just haven't captured the magic of Call of Duty 4. That may change as I dig deeper into the beta, but from early impressions it seems that not even Keifer could save America this time.
reader comments