My problem with a World at War

Just recently a bunch of beta keys were released for Call of Duty: World at War, the latest entry in the Call of Duty series, a series who’s last entry I loved to pieces. But hearing and reading people’s reactions to the beta it seems my fears regarding the quality of World at War were well founded.

I had a feeling that all would happen is Treyarch would come along, take the Call of Duty 4 engine, developed by Infinity Ward, copy and steal as much of the gameplay aspects of Call of Duty 4 as they could get away with (naturally ‘tweaking’ a few bits to make it ‘new’) and put a World War II lick of paint over it all. And it sounds like that’s exactly what has happened. For example, read this Joystiq hands-on with the beta, which contains the following choice nuggets:

Alexander Sliwinski: Um, isn’t it just Call of Duty 4 with a different setting?
Ross Miller: More or less, and I think that’s a great way to describe the game: It’s Call of Duty 4, with a few differences. For example, instead of helicopters, you’ve got dogs.

-and-

I just don’t see what will compel COD4 players to switch over, at all, especially when Infinity Ward is still supporting the former.

And this comment, from a member of Joe Public, made on AintItCoolNews sums up my thoughts on that aspect (emphasis is mine):

And just off the cuff, it simply isn’t as good as CoD4, so what’s the point? It doesn’t look as good, it doesn’t feel as tight, the dogs are really stupid, and the level design (at least on the three beta maps) is putrid compared to MW. It isn’t a bad game, but when we’ve been playing MW for a year now, we the same level of excellence, not a copycat that isn’t even as fun. Going back to WWII was a huge mistake anyway, it feels slow and outdated now, there’s nothing to bring.

Exactly, why would you pay full whack for an inferior version of a year old game, one you can pick up now dirt cheap? Some may argue the single player campaign, but I don’t believe Treyarch possess the skills to turn out level design anything close to Infinity Ward. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure World at War will be an OK game, maybe even good, but it won’t be as good as Modern Warfare and any way you slice it, that’s a step backwards.

Also, I’ve no respect for a development team, one that takes and uses tools and engines developed by other people, lifts directly the gameplay of better games, and then has the cheek to talk trash about other companies – they branded Gearbox (the guys who made Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway) as “someone else making a crappy wargame” going so far to say “these guys are not even in the same league” (from this interview).

As far as I’m concerned the feedback from the beta now cements in my mind that Call of Duty: World at War is not worth consideration, and certainly not worth my money. The one good purpose its release will serve is coaxing half the idiots plaguing Call of Duty 4’s online game away.