Call of Duty: World at War

By Dan Whitehead Published 21 October, 2008

Embedded report from the multiplayer beta.

Remember when Call of Duty 4 managed to topple the mighty Halo 3 from the online gaming throne? This may yet prove to be a pivotal moment in the evolution of the venerable wartime shooter, or so it would seem from the first glimpse of Call of Duty 5's multiplayer component. It's familiar, you see. Very familiar.

Obviously, you'd hope that a Call of Duty game would feel like a Call of Duty game, yet it's hard to quell an initial flicker of disappointment when you realise that, in almost every area, this is identical to Modern Warfare's multiplayer with the exact same perks and weapon modifications retitled and repurposed for a World War II environment. Is this inherently a bad thing? Arguably not, particularly for the millions of players who loved Modern Warfare's fast and visceral online matches. It does rather leave World at War looking like a mod and map pack for the previous game though, rather than a distinct sequel in its own right.

What do the lucky beta participants get to play with then? Five play modes, first and foremost, ranging from a standard free-for-all Deathmatch, two Team Deathmatch variations, Capture the Flag and War, which is Domination by any other name. These modes are played out across three maps, drawn from the game's dual focus on the US war in the Pacific and the Russian push against the advancing German forces. Roundhouse is a sprawling, ruined train yard, full of mangled carriages for cover and with sniper-friendly raised walkways at the centre. This is also the only map in the beta trial to feature the entertaining tanks. Control is a little sticky but this may just be realism, since 1940s armoured vehicles weren't known for their nimble turning circle.

There's a machine gun turret on top of the tanks, so another player can hop aboard while the driver controls the main turret. I soon found that sniping these over-confident gunners as they trundled around was a very satisfying experience. Taking down a tank seems to require at least three or four explosive hits from a bazooka or satchel charges, certainly not impossible with some smart teamwork and shared resources, but a real challenge in a free-for-all deathmatch. Roundhouse also currently features a pretty nasty bug, which allows players to sink through the floor of the level and take other players down from their impervious vantage point beyond the borders of the map. I got sniped a few times in this fashion, the bug revealed by the post-death kill camera which shows where your assassin struck from. Still, it's a beta.

'Call of Duty: World at War' Screenshot 1

A sweary 14-year-old boy, yesterday.

The other maps are Castle, set in a Japanese fortress with lots of open courtyards, close-quarters interiors and several sniper towers, and then there's Makin, a rural fishing village which forms a low, meandering rat-run. All the maps are generously proportioned, with action hot-spots that never quite turn into problematic choke-points. None of them is particularly inspiring or exciting though, with Castle being my current favourite purely for the variety on offer.

There seems to be some trouble balancing the maps for the different modes of play, however. The capture points in War, in particular, don't make much strategic sense. There's no obvious tactical reason to capture them and they're often difficult to defend as a result. One of the capture points in Makin, perhaps the weakest map anyway, is just tucked away in the corner. It's hard to imagine why an army would need to hold this otherwise pointless patch of land, since it offers no obvious benefits in battle. Rather than holding elevated positions, or assaulting a strategically useful building fortified by enemy troops, you're often left with the feeling that the capture points were picked at random on maps designed for more general deathmatch play.

In fact, balance is the key issue with a lot of the features. The weapon-set can often be counter-intuitive, with bolt-action rifles proving less accurate and powerful as you'd imagine, while the old-fashioned machine-guns are far more precise than you'd expect. On one memorable occasion, I sniped an enemy in the back with a rifle from a distant high window, only for them to turn around and kill me instantly with a few shots from a machine-gun. Given the firearms of the time, and the distance involved, it should have been an impossible shot - yet there it was. The post-death camera view reveals a lot of these "WTF?" moments, not all of which can be adequately explained by your own lack of skill or bad luck.

And then there are the perks. It's here that Call of Duty 5 seems to be most tied to the Modern Warfare template, changing names and graphics but retaining the same functions, sometimes with distracting results. Some of the weapon modifications tend to strain the period mood, for example, with silencers on machine-guns and reflex sights that are close enough to laser targeting to provoke a confused reaction the first time you use them. Realism should always make room for entertainment, but it feels symptomatic of a sequel where it's easier to rename an inappropriate feature rather than come up with a more suitable alternative.

The kill-streak perks are broadly the same, apart from one major and controversial change. Three kills in a row still earns you a recon plane flyover, so enemy targets are highlighted on the map and radar. Five kills now gets you an artillery barrage rather than an airstrike, though the way the shells seem inexorably drawn to soldiers is a bit strange - particularly when you're the one being blown to bits by a magic homing shell. Finally, there's the seven-kill streak, which now gives you a pack of attack dogs rather than Modern Warfare's gunship helicopter support.

The dogs are already proving to be a divisive addition, and it's certainly true that they need some balancing before they can be considered anything more than a recurring irritation. Seeking out enemy troops, these rather poorly animated canines don't show up on the radar and can maul a player to death almost instantly. You can already hear resigned groans over the headset whenever the incessant barking begins. They're not terribly hard to deal with, but they're not much fun either. The bloodthirsty pooches do have some value, making it hard for campers to ply their sneaky trade, but when such measures end up annoying those who are playing fair, it seems an awkward trade-off. Dog kills also seem to count towards the next kill streak, which means many experienced players can spam the dogs almost as much as other players spam grenades.

Other than that controversial switch, all of the abilities and buffs from Call of Duty 4 remain. Yes, that means Juggernaut is back, as is Martyrdom. There's a Level 11 cap in the beta, but you can see the full list of abilities and there are few surprises to be found. I'm still on the fence regarding the perks. I think they're very useful, but also tend to throw the game off-kilter and can make it hard to find balanced teams. There's also little question that they can alienate new players, forcing them to claw their way up through those first few (admittedly easy) ranks against grossly overpowering foes. More than their mere existence, it's the fact that they don't seem to have been changed or tweaked, beyond some cosmetic swaps, that gives me pause. There's undeniable potential in the perks system, and there are many who love it, but few would argue that it wouldn't benefit from some refinement. Simply transplanting the whole lot into a sequel seems rather unambitious, if not downright lazy.

'Call of Duty: World at War' Screenshot 2

You can't get one of these in the beta, I don't think, but then you can't easily find screenshots of it either, so all's fair.

Provided you enjoyed Modern Warfare's bombastic multiplayer, there's little here that will disappoint. It's essentially the exact same game, in a World War II skin. This means that many of the persistent complaints remain unaddressed - bamboo huts can shrug off explosions with nary a splinter out of place, while the online mechanics remain a touch clunky compared to the competition. There's still no indication as to which player is the host of a match, and there's no host migration. When the mystery host drops out, the game ends.

With only a few weeks before the finished game hits the shelves, it's doubtful that the outcome of this beta will impact the disc in the box. However, if Treyarch can fix some of the balancing issues with a timely patch, World at War should at least hold Modern Warfare's trajectory, even if taken in isolation it does little to dispel fears that Infinity Ward innovates and Treyarch fills in afterwards.

Call of Duty: World at War is due out for Xbox 360, PS3, PC, Wii, PS2 and DS on 14th November.

Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (68) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Widge #1 3 years ago

    Just a brief skim through but nice to see the map structure questioned. I thought the COD4 map setups were a bit suspect and forgettable at best.

  • YoshiIsland #2 3 years ago

    1st Comment!!! Plays the same as COD4 which is no bad thing....

  • bodypopper #3 3 years ago

    The spawn points really do need some work as it's no fun respawning and dying instantly, compounded even more by the constant dog and artillery attackes.

  • Kuma #4 3 years ago

    If you like COD4 (and you should if you are a FPS playing gamer with any taste) you will like this. The only down side is that this was not on my, already enormous, must buy list before i played it and now it is . .

  • mingster #5 3 years ago

    Anyone got spare keyz .. will trade for sexual favourz..

  • polaris70 #6 3 years ago

    This game is not for me, it got old very fast (4 hours before I switched it off and haven't returned), not surprising as I've been playing COD4 for the past year, and this is exactly the same. I can see how some people will love it though, being so similar to the last game.

  • afghan_jones #7 3 years ago

    Its a shit mod.

    Nothing more.

  • syphaa #8 3 years ago

    Think this sums it up really.
    I was really dissapointed, absolutely zero innovation in this title.

    It genuinly is COD4 reskinned. A mod community could do the same job.
    The only thing that I will possibly buy this title for is the co-op, I am hoping that holds up well and is much fun! :)

  • Eighthours #9 3 years ago

    World at War should at least hold Modern Warfare's trajectory, even if taken in isolation it does little to dispel fears that Infinity Ward innovates and Treyarch fills in afterwards.

    That sums it up well, Dan. There's nothing "wrong" with the beta as such, but it was disappointing for me to see how little had changed, considering it's a different developer - particularly when you consider the vast difference between the multis of COD2 and COD3.

    "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," I suppose.

  • Fab4 #10 3 years ago

    Its a reskin of CoD4 for sure...right down to the crappy networking code. It will still select crappy hosts for you, even when using the local matchmaking option. It still has shitty hit detection...that will be those "WTF!?" moments. It still has no in-game host migration, so you are at the behest of little Timmy and his "Mommy, they keep killing me!" strops. And it still has the "You would like to play Team Deathmatch, but I, the game, will now put you in a Hardcore SnD match" bug.

    If you are going to reuse a previous game, at least have the effing decency to improve it a little bit.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 11:54

  • penhalion #11 3 years ago

    On a much brighter note. That sweary 14 year old may soon be a thing of the past as Microsoft have patented realtime audio filtering software that is specifically designed to remove swearing and offensive words at the sever end.

    So now you'll just get

    "Mother BEEEEP ShBEEP NigBEEEPPP" or better yet THEY will get a message saying their account has just been banned for breaking the terms of use!

  • Sir_TimAlot #12 3 years ago

    Due to my personal interest of the setting and era i already prefer this to COD4, Agree with bodypopper regarding the problems with spawning and the dogs can be irratating but i still think they are no better or worse than attack chopper, best addition so far is fixing points awarded for assists as i seem to be the assist master, very interested to see how they address issues from beta and how final experience turns out and much like COD4 i expect to do a few runs through the prestige mode. woohoo

  • DrDamn #13 3 years ago

    The biggest issues were the dogs and the rifle / machine gun distance imbalance. It's a no buy from me unless these are addressed. Combined together they get worse too - if you have a rifle and there is a dog attack you are generally screwed. The dogs take a ridiculous number of shots to kill with a rifle such that a reload is required if there are more than one and that means death.

  • awb83 #14 3 years ago

    I'm not getting this. I must have spent a total of about 1 hour on this, didn't impress me at all. The weapons not being fairly balanced, the spwaning and don't get me started on the dogs thing.

    Treyarch are also making the new James Bond game which is also using the COD4 engine, well after playing this beta it has put me right off buying the new Bond game.

    Sorry Treyarch, it's a thumbs down from me.

  • bioreit #15 3 years ago

    @ Dan

    "the old-fashioned machine-guns are far more precise than you'd expect" and

    "There's still no indication as to which player is the host of a match."

    1. The RPD in CoD4 is my weapon of choice, simply because I often use it to take out annoying snipers from a distance, in much the same way you described Dan. And then use it to clean out whole corridors of people.

    2. Guessing you could do what you do in CoD4, which is get straight into the game and press 'Back' to bring up the player list - the one with all four bars at the top of either of the team lists is the host - there's usually a brief second or two as all the clients join when everyone has four bars, then everyone bar the host has one bar. Once you've established that, feel free to change class.

    Clunky, but it works.

    I'm a bit disappointed at the lack of different perks, but those dogs do sound interesting! And I personally can't wait to see how the addition of vehicles affects things.

  • skullcommander #16 3 years ago

    Keep up Eurogamer. Level cap on the beta is at 24 now, as of yesterday.

  • Sir_TimAlot #17 3 years ago

    as of sunday?

  • dsmx #18 3 years ago

    The 2 perks that need getting rid of are juggernaut and martyrdom, juggernaut I hate that it lets you survive a sniper round to the head and martyrdom is the epitome of cheap.

  • dr_faulk #19 3 years ago

    "with bolt-action rifles proving less accurate and powerful as you'd imagine"

    That was my very first complaint....

    Also, the maps are too on-top of each other. They need more open spaces, like in CoD3, as well as jeeps and bikes. In fact, just go back and patch CoD3 to hell and make it work. That'd satisfy me to no end!
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 12:15

  • Darren #20 3 years ago

    "World at War should at least hold Modern Warfare's trajectory, even if taken in isolation it does little to dispel fears that Infinity Ward innovates and Treyarch fills in afterwards."

    And ain't that the truth! LOL

    I'm not bothered about World at War's online features at all but I am semi-interested in seeing how the campaign mode plays, especially as Call of Duty 3 was a bit of a mess, being somewhat generic and also very buggy! I'm keen to see how this fares review-wise because I'm not willing to pre-order what might be a second-rate Call of Duty from an, IMO, inferior developer otherwise. I've heard that Treyarch have spent more time on this game than Call of Duty 3 so hopefully it'll at least be less glitchy...

    Shame it's gone back to WWII though, Modern Warfare was a breath of fresh air for the series with modern weapons and more interesting settings.

  • Dizzy #21 3 years ago

    So none of my frustrations with COD4 have been fixed. Pity. They won't get me again this time.

  • antmusic97 #22 3 years ago

    Getting this game out as a sequel to COD4 was going to be an impossible job.

    Firstly nobody wants to buy it as it's developed by treyarch. Then its set in the WW era and no one wants it. Now the beta is out and it's almost exactly the same as cod4 in every way people are comlplaining about that too! If they would have changed any "fundemental" aspects of play the fans would kick off and i'm sure this game was being heavily watched by activision as it is a huge money maker for them and they want to keep the fan base.

    Ultimately the dogs are not a problem. They're designed to kill as many characters as possible. At least you can kill them alot easier than the dogs in cod4, and i'll tell you now, i'd rather have that than just slightly move into the open to be hit by a helicopter which you can't do a single thing about.

  • t8yman #23 3 years ago

    where are all the people who said "cod3 didnt suck, treyarch had to rush it...........they have had 2 years to dev this!"?

    I played for 2 hours twice, and havent been back since last thursday. the dogs are ridiculously over effective. the weapon balance is very poor. if a bolt action rifle needs 2 shots minimum to kill (certainly with juggernaut on) then you might as well not bother, cos the reload time counts you out of a sniff at a second shot. maps are ok, castle and roundhouse both being quite nice. makin is a bit boring.

  • krushing #24 3 years ago

    Haven't played this, but sounds strange that this'd been in dev for 2 years, yet it's a carbon copy of CoD4?

    Also re:
    I sniped an enemy in the back with a rifle from a distant high window, only for them to turn around and kill me instantly with a few shots from a machine-gun.

    This has something to do with how the network code works, but those "few shots" are often actually a long, sustained, spray-and-pray burst. It just doesn't show up in the killcam.

  • pinkpanzer #25 3 years ago

    @antmusic. you can do something about the helicopters. you can easily shoot them down with an rpg.it does tend to annoy the person who got the chopper though.

  • Fab4 #26 3 years ago

    CoD3 didnt suck, it was one of the most enjoyable multiplayers I have played. I hated CoD4, so that's why I am disappointed...its just a clone of CoD4, with all the shitty 'features' that it brought to the CoD franchise.

    Treyarch seem to have been strong-armed into making CoD4(v2.0) by Activision...and it just doesnt work in a WW2 setting. The aperture sights and silencers on period weapons, just to appease the RDS kiddies of CoD4, is a joke. The bolt-actions are only a one-shot kill when you get a headshot, and with Juggernaut, that's not even guaranteed. Yet, if you stick a scope on the very same rifle, it mysteriously becomes a one-shot kill again. Activision should just make a fucking sniper game and be done with it.

    As I said earlier, my main gripes are with the netcode. It hasnt been touched. Its the core component of a multiplayer shooter, and its been forgotten about, like some retarded cousin, in favour of the much 'prettier and popular' perks/kill streak rewards....whoop-dee-fucking-doo!!

    If you cant fucking trust the server in a client/server model, then dont fucking use one, and I'm afraid, putting the 'hosting' in the control of a typical 360 owner, is like putting Tokyo Metro in the hands of Li Hongzhi.

  • Hexobot #27 3 years ago

    The dogs didn't really bother me after I learned to knife them instead of shooting them. The WAR mode is not Domination by another name - they are subtlety different, but the difference has a big impact on gameplay ( At least it did in COD3 - where the multiplayer was seriously underrated ). The flags in WAR mode must be capped in order, in domination any flag can be capped at any time. WAR mode concentrates the fight and generates something like a frontline.

  • Aloominum_man #28 3 years ago

    The dogs are a complete joke - although I've found it's easier to knife them, than shoot them. See a dog approach (if you're lucky), runs backwards, swing knife early. I've killed 3 or 4 in a row like this, although it is possible to be overwhelmed on several sides at times. I can't help but feel that their inclusion is a kind of design-by-fan-committee, since I remember lots of speculation and rumour-mongering on the COD4 boards about packs of the dogs as a 10 or 15 kill streak reward.

    Not only do they piss pretty much everyone off and ruin the balance of the game, they look like shit too.

  • RedSparrows #29 3 years ago

    I loved CoD3 multi, it was brilliant fun.

  • bioreit #30 3 years ago

    @ pinkpanzer

    Or, indeed, open up with machine guns on the chopper. It's now at the stage whereby me and at least one of my clan mates always just let rip straight away - almost like Ghostbusters and proton packs, with the amount of bullets flying up in the sky. And it's always funny listening to people back in the lobby moan about how their choppers did absolutely sod all before getting brought down.

    Therefore, I can imagine the dogs being a bit more of an issue.

  • Jonnythelarge #31 3 years ago

    I agree with Boddypopper the spawn points seem to need a lot more work as you will often kill someone and they end up spawning directly behind you or you end up spawning right in the path of an artillery shell which can be very annoying.
    I don't agree with the article when regards to the hounds. I think this is a great feature and most lobbies that i have been in have all impersonated the barking of the hounds in anticipation of their own death which is a given as it sometimes is quite difficult to kill the dogs. RELEASE THE HOUNDS!!!! is often heard through out the lobby hilarious. COD WAW has been nothing but fun for me apart from Makin which is a real pain in the ass. A really unnerving and dark map as enemies can and will appear from anywhere. Fantastic beta bring on the full relase! Any chance of it being moved forward??? Please Treyarch!!!! :o)

  • rashes #32 3 years ago

    I'm enjoying this and I think it's sufficiently different to warrant a purchase.
    Maps are much more elaborate and do not have a very limited number of choke points.

    I'm finding the guns are different and all have small clips so force people to stick in squads a lot more.

    Also the dogs are great.. it's really funny watching you entire team huddled together in a hut trying to mount a defense from the dogs and the other team following them in to mop up.
    You can defend pretty well against them if you stick together and don't ignore them. Some people seem to want to keep playing and hope to ignore them.
    Dog kills do not start your streak again ... do they? People keep saying this but I don't think so.

    I will say i'm dissapointed they haven't fixed the migrating host issue and the hit detection is still a bit off alright. All in all though I thought the hands on was a overly negative.

  • coojam #33 3 years ago

    Personally I think the dogs are a lot better than the helicopter from COD4. If you stand in the sights of a chopper, you die. If you don't have a machine gun or RPG, you don't stand a chance of taking it out. It takes the whole team. Worse still, you get no points for taking it out.

    The dogs on the other hand, on an individual basis, you stand a chance of surviving and killing a few, AND you get points for killing them! What's all this whinging?

    And people complaining that this is just a reskin of COD4... not being funny guys, but do you not realise that COD4 was just a reskin of the previous games with a clever online levelling system?

  • systems #34 3 years ago

    I'd rather be chased by some dogs and get points for it than get mullered by a UAV + Gunship combo thanks.

    People will moan no matter what with CoD5. If it's like CoD4 they'll moan that it's like CoD4. If it's not like CoD4 they'll moan that it's not like CoD4. Personally, getting rid of these moaners makes the game more attractive to me so I'll see how it pans out after I've finished with L4D/LBP/Fable2.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 13:15

  • Fab4 #35 3 years ago

    CoD4 was not a reskin of any of the previous CoD games. It had a new engine; a new matchmaking system; a new perk system (rather than loadouts related to a specific gun/class). It removed the ability to play non-ranked public games and catered for people who couldnt aim to save their life.

  • bad09 #36 3 years ago

    I like COD5 (although I'm more wary of dogs in the street now!), day one purchase for me \o/

  • crazymonkey66 #37 3 years ago

    i don't see why anybody would bother playing this if they already have COD4. all this is a rehash of that admittedly awesome game, but now in the same tired old WW2 setting. its just a way for them to make money until COD5.

  • Darren #38 3 years ago

    OldRed - I thought Cod3 multiplayer was a lot better than IW's Cod2 effort also, I think they get an unfair amount of flack.

    Yes it was but that's because the 360 version of COD2 was released prematurely with an unfinished online mode that was as laggy as f*** until they patched it four or five months later. A really poor effort really but at least IW rightly focused on the campaign mode which was up to scratch. The PC version of COD2 was infinitely superior and supported more than 8 players online from day one. It was also a better online experience than COD3 IMO.

    COD4's was pretty decent from my brief play but I just don't have the time to devote to online gaming, not when there's half a dozen other single player games begging to be played.

  • Darkbeat #39 3 years ago

    When I was a kid we didn't pay full price for TC's

  • mashk #40 3 years ago

    It's not a bad game, it's just that COD 4 multiplayer wise, is just so much more superior in almost every department.

  • DUFFKING #41 3 years ago

    CoD 1 will remain the best online CoD for some time :D No pointless perk system, no stupid recharging health, doesn't play like Unreal Tournament...

  • TheLittlestHobo #42 3 years ago

    Looking at the beta this seems more like it should be an expansion pack for COD4. I was hoping for Treyarch to push things more, e.g. destructible terrain, more open levels etc. As it stands the single player campaign has gotta be something really special if its going to take my cash on release day, otherwise i'll wait for a post Christmas bargin.

    Added: I like the perk system and I never had any trouble competing. I got into COD4 online quite late, and still held my own against lv55 Prestige when I was at low levels. (am still only level 33)
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 14:41

  • mkreku #43 3 years ago

    I wonder how it feels like working at Treyarch? Everyone's always going "Oh no, CoD X is being done by Treyarch, I'll wait for CoD X+1 made by Infinity Ward instead".

  • ronuds #44 3 years ago

    I like it and think the weapons will make it a little tougher for people to pwn as easily as they once did. I find the dogs no more annoying than a chopper floating above your head for a half hour, because your teammates refuse to help shoot it down.

    My problems so far are with balance, hit detection and the horrible, horrible maps. These maps lend themselves to zero strategy and are only a huge clusterfeck of people running around in circles. The ONLY positive thing about that is there aren't many places for snipers to camp and pick people off w/o fear of reprisal. ;)

  • Harrihotpants #45 3 years ago

    Is there going to be a version of search and destroy in the game? This will mean no dogs if it plays as COD 4.

  • rashes #46 3 years ago

    search and destroy is already in the Beta

  • Tetsuo_Shima #47 3 years ago

    Overall I found the beta pretty enjoyable, but there're a lot of little quirks that put me off buying the full thing when it comes out.

    Firstly, yeah, the dugs. Not quite the gamebreaking arsebiscuit that a few folks have labelled it as, but usually it spells guaranteed death for everybody at least twice unless you're handy with the knife or you've got a machine gun. There's just something I don't like about rewarding a streak of kills with even more kills, it just goes to create an unassailable gap between the leaders and the cack-handers like myself.

    Concerning the maps, I read somebody earlier saying that castle and roundhouse were decent, but makin is a bit of a dirge. Well, I think it's the other way around - castle and roundhouse have a bit too much 'width' for my liking, which equates to few running battles and a whole lot of creeping about, paranoid that you're going to expose yourself. Makin, on the other hand, is a lot more condensed, with the wooden shacks and walls providing enough cover to make it interesting but the odd tower or elevated hut providing a height (thus, viewpoint) advantage worth scrapping over; that makes Makin my favourite of the three. Castle's lovely scenery and terraced-style layout makes for a half-decent second, but roundhouse doesn't appeal to me much (not least because of the 'underground' glitch). I'd like to see 'narrower' maps, which can provide more tangible moving fronts than the wide-open roundhouse.

    Gun-wise, I'm pretty pleased. I like the idea of being able to have the Springfield, Mosin Nagant etc. with or without scope, but their lack of power is crippling. On the whole, though, the weapon choice sees most combat niches filled. The only problem I have with it (one that bugged me in CoD4 as well) is that Marines can use Japanese and Russian weapons and vice-vice versa. I preferred it when each team only had their own weapons at their disposal, it lended more individuality to each side and it makes more sense that way (although, a Marine could ostensibly be using a captured MP40 or whatever, but I digress). Finally, that f***ing hideous 1-hit kill auto-aim knife is back again. Sooner they revert back to good 'ol bash the better.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 17:06

  • BlackKraken #48 3 years ago

    I did hate when id pull off good shots with a bolt action rifle, with the stopping power perk, and anything but a headshot STILL required 2 shots. The machineguns were way too accurate (and the bipods didnt seem to do anything :S).

    Just like cod4, everyone ends up using combinations of juggernaut/stopping power and steady aim/deep impact.
    And once its unlocked i bet bandolier/bouncing betties (claymores) will be the first perk.
    Also, shotgun with a grip and steady aim is an insanely accurate death-machine.

  • beastmaster #49 3 years ago

    It's a beta. Not the final product. I understand the final game ships with 24 multi-player maps. Let's not forget there's a single player game in there too.

    The devs are in a no win situation here. As they copy 4, they'll get slagged off for no original ideas. Do something different (dogs) and people go mad. I quite like them but do admit, if you unleash the hounds then you're more likely to win the game.

    I'll be getting it. Even if it's a re-skinned 4. Next up COD 6 - Rebellion vs Imperials! A 7 kill streak is awarded with a blast from the Death Star - and the destruction of the planet :-)

  • metalangel #50 3 years ago

    Poor Treyrarch. Fab4 is right, they have clearly been forced to just make what is essentially a crappy WW2 mod Call of Duty 4 rather than a genuine sequel to Call of Duty 3, which remains one of the best multiplayer FPS games on the 360. Yes, really. All you clots who only touch Infinity Ward's bathing suit area are missing out.

    This, unfortunately, is just a total disgrace. I have played this a lot to ensure it had a chance to grow on me.

    The weapon system is a joke - why do a historical FPS and then throw the history book out the window? Germans wielding American weapons face down Russians armed with Japanese weapons? Or rearrange the four nations for the next match. Why is the BAR a weedy (in all respects - rate of fire, power and sound) shadow of the one in CoD3.

    Hateful perks like Martyrdom (wow, even though I'm DEAD I still get a totally undeserved kill because you couldn't get away from my RIDICULOUS EXPLODING CORPSE fast enough!) and Juggernaut (WHY? Especially if it all but negates headshots which are the only way the bolt-action rifles are usable) return, along side things that should have been in CoD4 (like a medic class).

    The worst thing is the utterly ludicrous attack dogs. This will surely go down in history as one of the most idiotic additions to a game ever. It spoils it. The armies of the world DID NOT cart HUNDREDS OF F***ING DOGS AROUND WITH THEM, keeping them at the frontline so they could unleash them against their foes. You can't see them on the radar, they absorb far too many hits (one took an entire Thompson clip, another survived an Arisaka shot to the face) before dying, and they kill you instantly.

    I don't play a first person shooter to spend my time shooting AI controlled dogs. And I'm not buying Call of Duty: World of Woof-fare. Way to 'beta' (which is just a demo by another name to stir up hype) yourselves out of loads of sales by revealing in advance and for free how terrible your game is.

  • t8yman #51 3 years ago

    @metalangel

    +1 bigtime.

    lol @ world of woof fare.

  • bad09 #52 3 years ago

    Seriously guys, what's all the hate with the dogs?

    I squealed with joy the first time I realised what was happening after hearing barking! Besides a quick shot to the head and the dog goes away.

    / weeps for the heroic death of one of mans best friends :(

    Oh and metalangel

    "WW2 mod Call of Duty 4 rather than a genuine sequel to Call of Duty 3, which remains one of the best multiplayer FPS games on the 360."

    Dude come on! Sure it wasn't as bad as some like to think but it was dull and not as good, or exciting, as (fully patched) COD2. (can't speak for COD1 as I never played it!)


  • Shirow #53 3 years ago

    Why is it referred to as CoD5 in the article? I think it's pretty explicitly NOT CoD5 (something which Infinity Ward should be working on right now). I wonder if they will end up calling CoD5 CoD6 instead anyway because of this confusion...

  • Fab4 #54 3 years ago

    "Dude come on! Sure it wasn't as bad as some like to think but it was dull and not as good, or exciting, as (fully patched) COD2. (can't speak for COD1 as I never played it!) "

    Nothing dull about a 24 player, 1 hour long game of WAR on glorious maps, or a similar amount of players playing CTF with vehicles adding to tactical oportunities. You see, you could have 1 hour games in CoD3, because they recognized that in order to do so you have to remove the dependence on a single host. In that respect, CoD4, and its ugly sister, WaW, are a major step back.

  • PrivateFloyd #55 3 years ago

    i know its a beta but this is not for me unfortunately....

    quite glad really...LBP...fable 2...dead space....far cry 2.....socom confrontation....

    I think someone must have said it by now but something is REALLY bugging me;

    I remember a dev interview on COD5 with treyarch banging on about a 2yr build time on this game that started BEFORE COD4....am i being daft for wondering why this is like an expansion pack with a new skin?

  • clockworkzombie #56 3 years ago

    I am looking forward to this. I have not played a lot of the beta as my connection lags at every game.

    I like the dogs, in the first online beta game I played and the dogs started howling there was a delicious feeling of terror as you KNEW what was going to happen next. It was a pleasant surprise to machine gun the two that came at me so easily.

    I played a lot of CoD 4 multiplayer but the initial purpose for me is single player I love long singleplayer campaigns and I am hoping it will be longer than 4.

    I hope Treyarch do well from this, I am happy buying one CoD game per year and if it were only IW then it would be a two year gap. The CoD 3 multiplayer is good grab your disc and a couple of friends and have another go. The servers are not crowded and the lag is nonexistent it is very quick a good contrast with cod 4. and moreso the beta.


  • RedSparrows #57 3 years ago

    '
    Nothing dull about a 24 player, 1 hour long game of WAR on glorious maps, or a similar amount of players playing CTF with vehicles adding to tactical oportunities.'

    Oh hell yes. Eder Dam War, or that one with the ruins and the river. Aw. Poisson too. It was epic, a real push and pull with constant themes and personal vendettas running amidst artillery strikes and tanks, smoke grenades and painful pushes up to the next flag, explosions going off everywhere.

    And me with my rifle at the back. Pewpew!
    Edited by 1 at 22/10/08 @ 01:26

  • Meer #58 3 years ago

    "making it hard for campers to ply their sneaky trade, but when such measures end up annoying those who are playing fair"

    Congrats on spurring on a new generation of whiners by insinuating people who don't run and gun are cheating. Would have credited a journalist with a touch more intelligence.

  • IIIvirusIII #59 3 years ago

    Worst game release of 2008. The developer are lazy and have no imagination making this a very bad game with shit WW2 guns that arent balanced , any game that does'nt reward skill is going to be a epic fail, COD5 is that bad it makes COD3 look good lol

    overall i would give this game a bad 3/10.
    Edited by 1 at 22/10/08 @ 10:21

  • DanWhitehead #60 3 years ago

    Congrats on spurring on a new generation of whiners by insinuating people who don't run and gun are cheating. Would have credited a journalist with a touch more intelligence.

    There's a pretty big difference between sniping and camping.

  • miiiguel #61 3 years ago

    "There's a pretty big difference between sniping and camping."

    Still..., I mean, as long as it's not exploiting the code I don't think one should whine about "game styles", even more in a genre that praises "reality", therefor it sounds kinda silly to imagine a guy in a real war complaining about camping/sniping.



    Disclaimer: I don't even play DM much (or at all).
    Edited by 1 at 22/10/08 @ 10:38

  • Meer #62 3 years ago

    "There's a pretty big difference between sniping and camping."

    There's also a pretty big difference between either of those and not playing fair. Getting under the map on roundhouse is not playing fair, covering an arc of fire is perfectly within the context of the game. If people either lack the skill to flank/grenade/whatever you or are dumb enough to keep running blindly into that arc then that's their problem but it's by no means not playing fair. Brains > brawn.

  • miiiguel #63 3 years ago

    I do love your reviews though, Dan...

  • allychaz74 #64 3 years ago

    I see the little un is still complaining about the dogs eh take it she still sucks at the beta

  • ronuds #65 3 years ago

    Can't really complain about snipers, but it does get cheesy. Let's face it, you're fighting a team that likely isn't using teamwork and thus you have almost no opposition. It's almost, to me, a coward's way to play the game. If you were going clan for clan, that's a different story, but against a team of nobodies you basically have all day to sit around picking people off.

    It's in the game, so you can't complain too much, but it's not something I personally feel good about if I take advantage of it. Juggernaut, too, is in the game, so you really can't complain. But, again, not something I personally feel good about using. Some people don't care about feeling good, though. :p

    And I agree WHOLE HEARTEDLY with the COD3 love. Greatest maps EV-RAR!!! :D

  • zakrocz #66 3 years ago

    Big fan of cod4, especially online, but this just comes across as a bit cartoony, from the animations to the garish primary colours look of the Pacific maps and the rubbish dogs which look like they've come from a PS one game!!

    And ww2 is a real bore after Modern Warfare. They should revisit ww2 in a couple of generations down the line so they can really go to town on the graphics and fx which this game sadly doesn't.

    I'll probably end up buying it but i don't think i'll be bothered about getting to prestige level online.

  • metalangel #67 3 years ago

    I really really want to like this game... I loved using weapons like the K98 and Thompson in CoD3 and am delighted to be able to use weapons like that (unlike the all-powerful modern assault rifles in CoD4) but am dismayed that all the balancing issues of CoD4 have been carried over (Juggernaut, Martyrdom) along with new ones being introduced (the "momentum" thing just means that the team that gets ahead gets even more advantages over their enemy who are surely the ones who need the boost). Add in the dogs, crap presentation and the weakened bolt-action rifles and I will not be buying this any time soon.

  • ReillyRams #68 3 years ago

    what is pwning, why do americans say this (and now brits) ?