So, the question at hand: did Treyarch destroy Call of Duty? After Infinity Ward brought the series to a high with Call of Duty 2, Treyarch developed the wholly lackluster Call of Duty 3 to bring it back down. Achieving the impossible, Infinity Ward did it again by creating Call of Duty 4 and raising the series to a level no one expected, before it was announced that Activision was giving it back to Treyarch. The gamer outrage was massive, but most held a little bit of optimism that Activision knew something we did not. Putting it back during World War II wasn't a great start.

When it was announced that Call of Duty: World at War would be using the Call of Duty 4 engine there was a glimmer of hope, followed by a shadow of doubt. Sure, it definitely gave the game a better chance at success, but the engine remaining the same didn’t mean the gameplay would. Hell, Mirror’s Edge is on the Gears of War engine, but the similarities of those titles are nearly nonexistent. This isn’t the case with the Call of Duty titles, and when Activision said that they would be sharing the “same engine,” they apparently meant to say that they were making Treyarch create the “same game.” World at War plays nearly identically to Call of Duty 4 in every foreseeable way. The graphics are similar, the controls are the same, and the mechanics should be familiar to anyone who found themselves enjoying Modern Warfare last November.

The only real differences aside from the vehicles (which I will get to in a moment), lie in its setting. World at War brings the series back to World War II, and modern weapons have been swapped with those of our grandfathers. They all feel a little weaker and less accurate, slowing down the pace of the title. It’s still faster than most shooters on the market, but the sixty year rewind is a great example on how setting effects pacing in a first-person shooter. The same types of weapons are in the game, but they just feel and look a little different. There are different perks as well, attempting to differentiate the game more from COD4, but many of the original enhancements remain like Deep Impact and Juggernaut.  Kill streaks still call in radar support at 3 kills and an artillery strike at 5 kills, but Treyarch replaced the helicopter at 7 kills with an onslaught of dogs. At first it’s a little silly, but… wait, no it’s always a little silly, but it helps set the mood.

One map in the demo has a tank for each side, and players can jump in the driver and gunner seat to ride around in style. The engine supports vehicles fairly well, and while it doesn’t reshape the experience by any means, it definitely fits the style of the game. I almost wish the dogs were replaced with an AI controlled tank just so I could take the game more seriously, but being able to jump in and ride around, blasting enemies with its powerful guns is rewarding enough.

Put down the pitchforks, fellas, Treyarch didn’t destroy the Call of Duty series. It lacks a certain level of polish and the graphics are definitely a step back, but they have succeeded in bringing a grittier portrayal of World War II to the COD series without giving it an archaic feel. If anything, it feels like a mod for COD4, which isn’t really a bad thing. There’s still a chance the single player portion will be a let down or that the multiplayer could become stale, but as of now you should be able to rest easy and know that the series wasn’t shattered. Check out this week’s Somethingcast for more impressions, and check back in November for our full review of the game once it’s released.

Related Articles:

Call of Duty: World at War Footage Debuts Friday

Call of Duty 4 is the #1 Title Worldwide For 2007

Call of Duty: World at War Trailer