Call of Duty: World at War beta impressions
- October 16, 2008 10:33 AM PST
- Email this!
GamePro senior editor Sid Shuman lists what works -- and what doesn't -- in the beta version of Call of Duty: World at War.
I've spent much of the last four days deeply engrossed in the beta version of Call of Duty: World at War. After some 16 hours of play time (!), I've listed down my observations about the game. In a nutshell, I like what I see. But that doesn't mean I think the beta is perfect -- read on for my full impressions.
What I like (so far):
Overall similarities to COD4. If you played (and loved) Call of Duty 4, then it's time to start thinking about signing up for Call of Duty: World at War. It has the same RPG-like Perks, a similar gameplay style, and an identical control scheme. In the trenches, the biggest difference with World at War is a more hectic, aggressive pace: compared to COD4's ninja sniper duels, World at War thrusts you into the thick of frontlines combat.
Ferocious firepower. World at War leverages it WWII arsenal to maximum effect: for 70 year-old relics, these guns feel good. The vintage guns differ from their modernized counterparts in Call of Duty 4, however, as they generally pack a bigger punch and a slower firing rate. The result makes World at War feel more vicious and brutal than the more nuanced, tactical feel of COD 4. Some players will prefer the slightly more precise feel of COD4, but it's hard to argue with World at War's blitzkrieg approach.
Tanks don't dominate. Drivable tanks have been introduced to the game's new War mode, but developer Treyarch wisely keeps them from dominating the action. The primary cannon turns very slowly and packs a sluggish firing rate, giving enemy infantry ample opportunities to scurry past. Similarly, the machinegun turret overheats quickly and leaves it operator completely exposed to incoming fire. Tanks are also vulnerable to the new "sticky grenades" and bazookas, meaning that tank operators will have to struggle to stay in control. That doesn't mean that tanks are underpowered -- far from it, in fact. But it means that tanks are used more for delaying or routing the enemy rather than dominating them. This is called "smart game design."
New 'War' mode is the star. In Call of Duty 4, my favorite two modes were Team Deathmatch and Domination. In World at War, it's easily the new War mode. Like Domination, the goal in War is to capture and hold a particular flag. Once you've captured that flag, the goal shifts to the next flag in the sequence until you've captured them all. The result is battles that shift organically all over the map, and don't cluster around one or two hot spots. And because you're only competing for one flag at a time, every player knows exactly where to go and what to do. In my 16-plus hours of playing the World at War beta, probably 90 percent of my time was spent in War. Once I learned its nuances, there was no going back.
Dazzling graphics and environments. Even if you don't care for World at War's frenetic pace, it's hard to argue with the graphics. The extra year of development since Call of Duty 4 has given way to significant graphical enhancements, such as ragdoll physics for enemy deaths, more vibrant dynamic lighting, and slick-looking distortion effects from the Tabun nerve gas grenades. Map design is another strong point in World at War: my favorite is Makin, a shadowy beach in the South Pacific. On Makin, the new dynamic water effects look particularly impressive, with grenade explosions and artillery strikes sending huge waves through the undulating surf.
Kiefer Sutherland rules. Hearing Jack Bauer himself barking out team commands is surprisingly satisfying. Kiefer Sutherland gives a throat-ripping vocal performance as the leader of the Marine Raiders, belting out classic lines such as "We kicked ass!" and "Our artillery will shake 'em up!" You'll hear him on the Makin and Castle levels in the beta.
Killer dogs! It's true -- you can sic attack dogs on your enemies by scoring seven consecutive kills. The effect is similar to Call of Duty 4's helicopter attack, as your roving dog packs distract the enemy team and pick off weakened stragglers. Dogs will sniff out hiding enemies, jump through windows to attack, and generally thin out the enemy ranks.
More gore. World at War is more violent game than its predecessor, with explosions tearing off limbs and mortar strikes reducing combatants to bloody puddles of goo. The more brutal presentation reminded me of the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan, but I never found the violence to be overwhelming or numbing -- it's reserved for truly spectacular moments.
It's fun, fun, fun. Despite having a few minor complaints with the game, which you'll read about below, I'm hugely enjoying my time with the World at War beta. With some careful tweaking and polish, this game is within striking distance of the legendary Call of Duty 4. From what I've seen and played, World at War is easily Treyarch's best game.
The gorier presentation isn't just for shock value -- it helps ground you in the brutality of the world's biggest modern war.
What needs work:
Pray and spray? Because World at War's weapons feel more powerful than those in Call of Duty 4, there's a temptation to simply "pray and spray" -- fire blindly and hope you score a fatal kill. By selecting the Stopping Power and Deep Penetration Perks, I was able to rack up kills with ease: I'd fire from the hip and drill straight through walls, wiping out multiple enemies in the process. This tactic often earned me a top spot on the final game scoreboard. Though the "pray and spray" tactic isn't a game-killing imbalance, I'd say that World at War could use a few gameplay tweaks -- lessening hip-fire accuracy, for one -- to ensure that the final game keeps the tight tactical feel that COD4 is known for.
SMGs currently dominate. This is a tricky problem due to idiosyncrasies with the World War II-era weapons. Because modern assault rifle technology was in its infancy during WWII, submachine guns such as the MP40 and Tommy gun take a more central focus in World at War. At the moment, SMGs are the most effective weapons in the beta: they inflict big damage, hold more ammunition per clip (particularly after adding the drum magazine upgrades), and boast rapid-fire capabilities. This means that other interesting weapons, such as the semi-automatic rifles and clip-fed machineguns, are being somewhat ignored by players in the beta. Of course, the final version of the game will add dozens of high-level weapons across all categories, so we may see SMGs fade into a less dominant position.
12-player cap...for now. The beta version of Call of Duty: World at War is capping matches at 12 players. I'd rather see a cap of 18 players, as in Call of Duty 4's Warfare mode. We'll have to wait and see if Treyarch boosts that player cap in a later stage of the beta or in the final version.
SMGs are utterly devastating in the World at War beta; I hope they're toned down in the final version.
All in all, I think Treyarch is going to surprise some people with this game. It's highly polished, hugely addictive, and (so far) a great successor to Call of Duty 4. Not everyone will agree with me, though. What do you think of the Call of Duty: World at War beta?
Below, watch two new videos captured from the beta.
New videos from the Call of Duty: World at War beta
More Top GamePro Stories
Comments [34]
-
- Jump To Page:
- [ 1 ]
- 2
- 3
- 3
- 4
-
- Oct 15 2008 at 04:51:07:PM PST
-
It reallyis a very fun game, it's just that COD4 is such a great game I don't see myself leaving it for this.
- Vote:
- Down
- Up
- -1
- report user
World at War is actually amazing. It is very similar to 4. The perks are almost all identical with a few changes. I think Sid hit the nail on the head in what he likes about it. Also, there are way more attachments in this one. Unfortunately there are not as many weapons, as in what they show in slots that are not unlockable.
- Vote:
- Down
- Up
- +2
- report user
Looks ok.whether this is better than COD4 is yet to be seen.personally I'm fed up with the whole WWII shooter theme.They should explore the future since they've already done the past and present.
- Vote:
- Down
- Up
- -4
- report user
it looks like COD4 in lots of ways and it looks really fun i hope it gets better so i can get a solid online game for ps3
- Vote:
- Down
- Up
- +0
- report user
"SMGs currently dominate. This is a tricky problem due to idiosyncrasies with the World War II-era weapons. Because modern assault rifle technology was in its infancy during WWII, submachine guns such as the MP40 and Tommy gun take a more central focus in World at War. At the moment, SMGs are the most effective weapons in the beta: they inflict big damage, hold more ammunition per clip (particularly after adding the drum magazine upgrades), and boast rapid-fire capabilities. This means that other interesting weapons, such as the semi-automatic rifles and clip-fed machineguns, are being somewhat ignored by players in the beta. Of course, the final version of the game will add dozens of high-level weapons across all categories, so we may see SMGs fade into a less dominant position."
This is pretty much a problem with every WWII shooter ever made and the biggest reason why I'm not too interested in this game. You -could- increase the power of different weapons but it would cheapen the game and make it feel less authentic. Gonna rent it but I have my doubts.
- Vote:
- Down
- Up
- -1
- report user
ill rent it if its better than cod4 ill buy it if nt im getting resistance 2
- Vote:
- Down
- Up
- +0
- report user
Sweet videos. It sounds/looks amazing, just as I'd hope :) I wish I could play the beta. It looks like it plays just as amazing as 4 does. Can't wait.
- Vote:
- Down
- Up
- +0
- report user
