It’s not often that a sense of normality can be a surprise in itself. The very notion that something following a general trend could somehow seem out of the ordinary is wonderfully contradictory, yet that’s exactly what we felt as we shuffled out of the makeshift room Activision had been using to demonstrate Call of Duty: World at War in.
To put that in some kind of context, let’s briefly recap the events that led up to our 30 minute demonstration. When Infinity Ward unleashed Call of Duty 4 onto the world last year, it looked to be a quantum shift for the series. Gone was World War II, taking its shattered French villages, decimated Russian cities and the familiar cries of the Wehrmacht with it.
In its place emerged a story set in a near-future setting, the likes of which Ian Fleming or Tom Clancy would have been proud of. With its cocktail of tension, exhilaration, despair and determination – not to mention a scenario that most gamers would be able to relate to without reaching for their GCSE history books – it looked for all the world as if Infinity Ward has killed off the World War II FPS sub-genre it had helped to nurture down the years. But just when we all looked set to move on to bigger and better things, Activision promptly dropped two bombshells.
The first of these was the choice of developer. That the next CoD game wouldn’t be developed by Infinity Ward was a given, but the choice of Treyarch – the same studio that did Call of Duty 3 and Big Red One – nevertheless raised a few eyebrows. The second was the choice of setting. Despite the obvious progress IW had made by moving away from WWII with CoD4, the next game in the series promised to reacquaint us with our Axis foes all over again.
And understandably, the fallout was considerable. Headlines flew about, disappointed (and in some case, angry) gamers vented their frustrations on message boards and blogs all over the internet – in short, it’s fair to say that World at War (as it became known) couldn’t have gotten off to a worse start. So with a tried-and-testing setting and a studio that’s failed to match Infinity Ward’s expertise, you can imagine the dreary pessimism we felt as we entered the little plywood room in Leipzig.
But yet, it didn’t turn out to be a disaster – far from it, in fact. As the demo sprang into life and we received our first glimpse of the actual game, there was enough of that familiar CoD magic in evidence to allay our initial concerns, while nevertheless providing just enough new elements to awaken our interest. Certainly, the running commentary provided by our two American hosts as they demonstrated the game gave cause for reassurance. While taking great care to highlight the elements that set World at War apart from its predecessors, they still reeled off the usual adjectives you’d expect to hear during a CoD presentation – “visceral,” “gritty,” “brutal,” “intense.”
The level of the game we got to see certainly plays to Call of Duty’s strengths. Starting out in a jungle swamp, things seem inauspicious enough – our group adopts a standard patrol formation, traipsing through the water and nervously chatting among themselves until they stumble upon the still-smouldering remains of a downed fighter plane. One of the soldiers then investigates the wreckage and the corpse of the pilot, which sets off a booby-trap. And in true CoD fashion, all hell then breaks loose. Japanese soldiers pour in from all sides, and a firefight promptly erupts.
But unlike the Wehrmacht soldiers, Islamic fundamentalists and Russian dissidents we’ve become accustomed to killing down the years, the ferocious, occasionally suicidal manner in which the Japanese soldiers attack the group of Marines is a noticeable change. This, so we’re assured, is the first of the major differences Treyarch has implemented in World at War. Whereas the enemies you face in previous CoDs tended to be as much concerned with their own preservation as killing you and your comrades, the Japanese soldiers you’ll face in World at War are considerably more ruthless. Much like their real life counterparts, Japanese soldiers in WAW will use dead soldiers for booby traps, set ambushes wherever possible and if all else fails, even use grenades to transform themselves into suicide bombers and charge a group of soldiers.
As the level progressed, the scale of the battles and their intensity increased greatly. The next big event showed the squad of characters storming a Japanese machinegun nest. At this point, we were first introduced to what will almost certainly the WAW’s must-have weapon, the flamethrower. With everything from buildings to foliage (and of course, human flesh) being flammable, it’s clear there’s plenty of sadistic, pyrotechnic pleasure to be had with the flamethrower – something that’s helped greatly by it having unlimited ammo. But there’s also a tactical element to it all. In the case of our machinegun nest, sending jets of blazing fuel into the building itself proved to be much more efficient than storming it en masse. Likewise, thanks to the way fires spread, using it to set fire to trees and long grass can be an effective way to flush out enemy soldiers.
As our hosts took us further into the level, we saw more and more evidence that World at War may yet be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with its Infinity Ward-developed stablemates. Set pieces, such as a pitched battle between the US marines and some Japanese soldiers holding a fortified position in a shot-up house, required our hosts to expertly pick off Japanese positions with an RPG.
In all of these instances, the intensity and tempo of the battles felt instantly reminiscent of the sort of pitched fire fights you’d find in CoD2 or CoD4. Even the occasional cut scene – such as watching a stricken American bomber tear overhead seconds before it crash landed – worked in this context.
While it’s worth remembering that this is but one level, it nevertheless seems that Treyarch is showing genuine signs of being able to capture that same chaotic, cinematic atmosphere that Infinity Ward has used to such good effect with its CoD games. Whether Treyarch will be able to match IW in other areas remains to be seen. Activision is promising that World at War will “portray World War II in a way you’ve never seen before,” with revenge a key theme to the background stories. The two scenarios – the Pacific and Eastern Europe – certainly lend themselves well to this theme, with the Americans hell bent on revenge for the attack on Pearl Harbour and the Soviets keen to avenge the tens of millions of dead suffered at the hands of the Germans.
We won’t know whether Treyarch has succeeded at this until we get to play the finished game – although with the likes of Keifer Sutherland and Gary Oldman due to lend their vocal talents to the game, it’s clear that Activision believes it will.There will be no such concerns with the multiplayer elements. Those who want to share the joys of the campaign missions with others will no doubt be delighted to know they can do so with three other players – either online or via splitscreen.
Unsurprisingly, the competitive multiplayer elements are largely based on those found in CoD4. Although given how popular those have proven to be, we somehow doubt that’ll be a problem. Nevertheless, some new additions will be present. Primarily, these will be vehicles. Although it will be possible for gamers to square off in joint mechanised and infantry battles, those who wish to keep the two separate will also be able to do so. Another aspect to be addressed is XP system, which now covers the whole game. As such, players will be able to take in the campaign mode (either in co-op or single-player) without their XP rating suffering.
Whether World at War will be the game to finally see Treyarch emerge from Infinity Ward’s shadow will only become clear when the game is released this November. But for now, the very fact we’re able to ponder this question at all is a positive sign in itself.
