It was about this time last year we were all getting our hands dirty with the Call of Duty Modern Warfare Beta, which nice old Infinity Ward decided to release exclusively to the loyal Xbox 360 owners. Well, as Call of Duty 4 was only starting to get boring for some, Call of Duty 5 was announced, and we were going back in time! Weirdly, it surprised us... not because it was World War II (although it did) but that it was announced so soon after the fourth. This was because the project had been passed on to Infinity Ward's partner in crime, Treyarch.
Now that we actually have our hands on the Beta, most Call of Duty fans were probably very curious to see what Treyarch had done with Infinity Ward's proprietary engine and well established multiplayer turn over, because although Call of Duty 3 was relatively decent, it didn't quite have the same impact as the cinematic single player experience and "skirmishy" multiplayer of Modern Combat.
After playing Call of Duty: World at War extensively I can make quite a fair judgement upon its multiplayer, as I doubt the changes to the Beta game will be significant enough to become an overhaul. One thing to point out is that if you did not like the new style of Call of Duty's multiplayer from Modern Warfare - as I know there are a few - you probably won't like World at War. I hear a simultaneous sigh of relief from many previous Call of Duty players.
Yes, Call of Duty: World at War plays like Modern warfare, pretty much looks like Modern Warfare and acts like Modern Warfare. It's like a donkey suddenly transforming to become a stallion, two different animals, and they look different (at least in size), but they're pretty much the same as well... okay, not the best of metaphors. But what I feel Treyarch have tried to do here is build upon what was already a well established foundation, and it really does show.
First things first, the menu and lobby system is the same, you will start in a party lobby and you'll have the choice to choose a match and create a class on the left, on choosing a game it will search and automatically and pair you up, it's quick, systematic and there's no reason for changing it. Creating a class is the same to, at least the same type of menu system and weapon types... just more of them. And you'll be unlocking them as you go along, and yes... you can get the flamethrower in multiplayer, and yes... it is awesome. But not only are there more weapons though, but you can add more adaptations and add-ons, so not just the bog standard weapon sights, but you can give heavy weapons bipods for increased steadiness. More perks are included, and some of these perks are for tank controls, such as making the turret turn faster and slowing down overheat. There really is much more of a variety of what you can do to your class, making each one you create pretty much unique, and also making it less likely for expecting that martyrdom drop, how unfortunate.
It may seem a bit odd having vehicles in a skirmish like setup similar to Modern Warfare, but somehow it works. If you had played Call of Duty 3 there were tanks in certain multiplayer modes and they move and fire the exact same way in World at War, with a few minor additions. Armour ratings, meaning different parts of your tank will become damaged so it isn't completely on the first shot fired anymore, but they're not overpowered either, as there are many ways of taking them out and they can be avoided very easily too. It's almost as if Treyarch have taken Modern Warfare, extended it and brought back the elements they loved from Call of Duty 3.
As groups of players typically stay in their own tight-knit squad and search for games together, it can sometimes - previously at least - be easy to lose track of one another during battle. Now, with World at War it is much easier to recognise your party members regardless of the match you end up joining. This is indicated in the players gamertag above their character, simply put the colour of the text is different and helps your "buddies" stand out in multiplayer to each other. This is especially useful, as previously many players would just wander around aimlessly if joining a larger game with just a couple of friends, now it is easier to instantly identify your squad online as you can employ the tactics you have grown accustomed to as a personal team.
The maps included in the Beta are all different from one another, some you'll be playing as the Japanese and the Americans and others as the Russians and Germans, as it fits to the theme of the campaign. Some maps are enclosed and urban like, and others are open and jungle themed - e.g. the pacific theater. They do take after their Modern Warfare counterparts, all are pretty much confined but are more than large enough for the types of games you'll be playing, so no Battlefield to be thought on... more like the proportional play pen, but that's alright, as it's meant to be played that way.
You better look forward to doing a lot of running though - thankfully the maps are small - as one of the new features are killing dogs. As crazy as this sounds, one of the support abilities when killing seven enemies in a row is to send out a pack of killer dogs which either distract or kill the enemy, and this is the equivalent of a Hind in Modern Combat, I know which one I'd choose. What is also strange though is that artillery barrages are five kills, in theory you'd think this would be swapped round, but in practice, the dogs are more useful. It also brings about some good laughs, never seems to get boring watching your enemies run for their lives and then see three dogs chase after them. It's like some lethal Benny hill show, and then when the dog catches them it becomes some violent Benny hill show. That was one element I was surprised but secretly satisfied to see in this game, the gore... and it isn't just a bit of blood either, legs will fly off and so will arms, a gruesome thought. But this does add to the grittiness of the style, and hopefully to the darkness of the great campaign they're holding from us.
There were some minor annoyances and balance issues with World at War though, some of the weapons were underpowered or overpowered. The amount of people I have killed with the flamethrower, I even stopped using it at one point as I'd thought I'd receive some complaints. I think it was the MP44 which I picked up in one map, the damage was a little too low for my liking and sometimes that artillery strike seems like it goes on forever, but other than some picky weapon values the Beta is a fairly solid play through.
So, in a nutshell, Call of Duty: World at War is shaping up to be a really promising sequel and a real worthy purchase, the multiplayer has its original Call of Duty charm and it hasn't strayed too far from Infinity Ward's Modern Combat, but has instead added a layer of minor features, missing details and a World War II setting. That doesn't say Treyarch have fully redeemed themselves though, as the real issue from Treyarch's Call of Duty 3 wasn't its multiplayer but its quite underwhelming and "glitchy" campaign, but if it's anything like the experience from Modern Warfare, it's impossible to go a miss.
Preview By: Lee Burton
|
|
