If we had to make the follow-up to the monster-selling Call Of Duty 4, we’d be bricking it. After 3 million-plus sales, countless awards and overwhelming critical acclaim (we gave it a sensible 88%, though. Take that Metacritic average), it’s arguably the PS3’s defining FPS. In comparison, Call Of Duty 3 was just a solid first-person shooter with too much filler – the rushed development phase almost reduced it to a cash cow status, suggesting that Treyarch couldn’t match up to the talent of its FPS contemporaries. Spider-Man games, perhaps, were better suited to it.

Call Of Duty: World At War, however, has all the hallmarks of an aggressive comeback. Treyarch is raring to re-enter the FPS fold, because it’s had twice as long to make this COD than it did with the third game. We had the privilege of meeting the Treyarch team, and they were easily the most enthusiastic developer we’ve met. If there’s a friction between Infinity Ward and Treyarch, it’s surely beneficial to both developers: this studio clearly wants to create something memorable with World At War.

After talking to the team in-depth, we realise that referring to World At War as a ‘return’ to World War II would rightfully annoy them. World At War is set in the ‘Pacific Theatre’, and this area of conflict has never been explored by a Call Of Duty game. Given the frightening, unique nature of warfare in that time frame, the concept is definitely worth exploring, but the Pacific conflict isn’t alone in piquing our anticipation.

Call Of Duty: World At War will also feature the ‘Road to Berlin’, told from the Soviet Union’s perspective. Consider that, for a moment. The Soviet Union lost millions of its people when the Nazis invaded in 1941, so following them in the latter years of the war, enraged and vengeful, could result in a fascinating historical context for FPS gameplay. It all depends on how Treyarch interprets the events, but we’re confident that it can pull it off, based on its gritty and literal approach towards the conflict in the Pacific.

With these two settings confirmed for World At War, it’s safe to say that this Call Of Duty will be more explicit than its other WWII counterparts. Anything beats the ‘intense hedgerow combat’ mantra of Call Of Duty 3, anyway – that was just embarrassing. Unlike Treyarch’s previous effort, World At War aims to do everything but play it safe. From what we saw of a level in the Pacific campaign, ‘Makin Raid’, we believe it’ll achieve this through the volatile nature of the Japanese as an enemy.

We’re not saying that Treyarch is going to revolutionise AI with the Japanese, but it does aim to shock and surprise. In one scene of the demo we saw, the US soldiers came across a slew of Japanese corpses in a dark clearing – or so we thought. A few seconds later, a bang and a flash of light sees the enemy stand up, before attempting to stab their American opponents with some scary-looking blades. They were playing dead, in case you hadn’t caught on. These dirty tactics aim to redefine the machinations of how the enemy operates, in the COD series. There’s more to the Japanese beyond useful cover spots, strength in numbers and conveniently placed gun turrets. Besides playing dead, expect to see a wide array of creative booby traps in World At War, all in the name of capturing the deadly skill of this powerful adversary.

What else has changed, then? Aside from the rulebook-burning villains, who we’re big fans of, the weapons are quite different from COD 3 and COD 4. The flame-thrower, in particular, looks like an inviting-yet-horrid prospect, as soldiers can be burned alive. Call us un-PC and awful, but this looked bloody entertaining. Those who played Return To Castle Wolfenstein will fondly remember the flame-thrower, which was created by some of the team on World At War – they were called Gray Matter, at the time, but now they’re working on this. World At War will build on the team’s excellent work in Wolfenstein, adding an intense realism to the fire effects that the PS2 wasn’t capable of. Bunkers can be cleared out with a blast of flames, trees can be set alight and grass can be scorched; it’s quite brutal to watch. Enemies, of course, are far more loveable when they’re on fire.

Thermite and bazookas will also make an appearance, among the basic range of rifles, pistols and machine guns, but we’re most excited about the potential of vehicle-based gameplay. Yes, it’s been done in practically all of the COD games to date, but we’ve never seen vehicular combat looking as frenetic or populated as it does here. In the Russian campaign, the Red Army will have flame tanks, as well, which is quite a mouth-watering prospect. Treyarch wants the vehicles to carry the same significance as the on-foot gameplay, so expect these sections to entertain amidst the base nastiness of battling the Japanese.

Besides a bevy of vehicle-centric sections, however, Treyarch needed to challenge itself in a more fundamental way with its next COD game. Sure, we’ve seen it in practically every decent FPS to date, but co-op is one of the last staples of the modern FPS that the Call Of Duty franchise has always ignored. In World At War, Treyarch is finally bringing it to the series: rejoice! We had a look at a two-player co-op session in action, and it was even more effective than we’d anticipated. While we enjoyed the Makin Raid level, it lacked the type of explosive set pieces that we’d always associated with Call Of Duty, such as the North African tank assault in COD 2, or the ridiculous post-credits sequence in COD 4. The second level we saw, though, suggested that the game’s four-player co-op mode could be quite multi-layered, as well as epic.

Unlike the Makin level, which was set at night, this stage was more of an open, daylightstrewn expanse. Squaddies were everywhere, which we were immediately happy with, and the team seemed to be forming some kind of tactical coup on a Japanese position. This entire section, to us, felt like a nonstop assault on the senses, and was certainly something that’d demand full concentration from even the most experienced players.

One of the players began launching grenades at a two-storey enemy position, while the other got busy with a flame-thrower. We caught a glimpse of an enemy hiding in the tree, before toppling out, shot dead, while one of the players demonstrated the fictional horror of burning an enemy alive. Later on, a huge tank battle ensued between both forces, and we witnessed a great moment where one of them tossed a grenade into the back of a tank, before it gave out an intense explosion – wonderful stuff. It was hard to keep track of it all, but that’s why we appreciated it. We want to feel like we have to concentrate for every second of a multiplayer co-op, regardless of the difficulty, and Call Of Duty: World At War looks like it’ll give every player enough to do. Perhaps it was in the composition of the players’ styles, but it looked like one guy had to take care of the short-range troops, while the other made a heavier attack on the enemy stronghold. According to our interview with Treyarch (on pages 17 and 19), balancing the co-op is one part of the uphill struggle that the team is currently facing.

There are far too many co-op modes that are easy to conquer, providing there are enough players (Halo 3 on the 360, for example is lazily simplistic on the harder difficulties), so we’re hopeful that Treyarch will tweak it to our eventual satisfaction. This is sure to be one of its main objectives, though, as it wants gamers to replay these co-op ventures with relentless passion. To ensure that it does this, it’s incorporated an RPG-style level-up system for the co-op mode, which shouldn’t be too dissimilar from what’ll be seen in the regular multiplayer. On top of that, two different parties of two can play cooperatively through online split-screen, which sounds excellent, even if it is a familiar idea to anyone with an ear to the multiplayer pipeline. Resistance 2 may promise eight-player online co-operative, but we’ll be intrigued to see if Insomniac is putting the same level of balancing into its team-up experience.

Like all multiplayer segments in the Call Of Duty franchise, World At War aims to innovate and build on what has come before. Indeed, we awarded COD 4 88%, but that wasn’t factoring in the sheer wonder of its online multiplayer component – with its engaging level-up system, perks and stupendously varied playlist, it was second only to Unreal Tournament III in its online functionality. With World At War, Treyarch is topping up the Playlist with a number of vehicular modes, as well as the option to mix the vehicles with more standard, infantry-based gameplay.

Everyone, from experienced games testers to people off the streets are testing World At War, a process that has had almost no precedent at Treyarch. Remember, this is a developer that usually has under a year to make a gutless licensed game (except for the brilliant Spider-Man 2, of course), so extensive testing has naturally become an imperative of Treyarch’s with a longer development slate. Treyarch is trying to stick to a five-second rule, with the multiplayer in Call Of Duty: World At War. This means that the player should never be any more than a five-second sprint away from the next cover spot, or key aiming position; it’s an impressive claim, as long as it can stick to it. With enough design savvy, Treyarch could build on the engaging framework that was present in Call Of Duty 4.

It seems pretty in touch with how the best multiplayer maps are constructed. Given the island-hopping nature of the Pacific conflict, it’s also hoping that players will use the surrounding water to their tactical advantage. In addition, machine guns can instantly be converted into turrets on the move, lending players a greater accuracy and rate of fire, so Treyarch hasn’t skimped on the minute details of the multiplayer. Obviously, the validity of using either in practice remains to be seen.

Still, in spite of our humble reception towards the multiplayer, which is convincingly progressive and thought-out, there was one part of our Call Of Duty: World At War demo that we just couldn’t get on board with. An on-rails section, which we initially thought would be promising, turned out to be the most clichéd and humdrum add-on that could possibly have been conceived. Taking place on a PBY Catalina, one of the USA’s best multi-purpose aircraft in WWII, this weak level basically boiled down to shooting explosive barrels, on the decks of many battleships. Although it’s possible to switch between areas of the plane, for better accuracy, this sort of diversion is the exact type of pitfall that Treyarch should be avoiding. It’s variety, for variety’s sake; in the wake of Metal Gear Solid 4, which has shown us some of the best on-rails segments ever created, the quality of this aspect needs to be elevated before the game is completed.

We can forgive this minor misstep, though, because the other two levels were incredibly tight. Since Treyarch is aware that each one will be accommodating four players, there’s a definite air of free will to its design. After all, Treyarch has designed the multiplayer and single-player maps simultaneously, ensuring that there is a certain amount of crossover between the two. In terms of artistic direction, they’re interesting enough. Our main concern with the environments, however, is that they won’t look as up to scratch as their PC and Xbox 360 counterparts – actually, this is a concern that applies to every graphical aspect of the game. The PS3 version of World At War, unfortunately, looks like it’s behind every other iteration, in terms of graphical detail.

This is a shame, because the graphics have the potential to be some of the best on the PS3. With the Modern Warfare engine contributing a striking level of detail to environments, characters and effects, this could wind up looking like an upgraded version of the beautiful Call Of Duty 4 – let’s just hope it can fix the PS3 version. Regardless of how it looks now, there’s bound to be a lot of polish applied in the coming months. There is a dedicated team working on the PS3 edition, so… here’s hoping. No delays, no technical drawbacks: that’s all we ask.

Call Of Duty 4, of course, was one of those rare games that perfected the PS3 development process, despite the fact that it was making a multiformat title. Apologies for mentioning the game again, in this feature, but it was always going to be habitual. The fact is, Treyarch is following up a title of almost immeasurable magnitude, as Call Of Duty 4 shifted over 3 million units without any gimmick to help it along. We feel for the Treyarch team, a little, because it’s really facing an unenviable task with World At War. Aside from the fact that it’s a different developer, new fans are sure to question the decision to move away from the modern setting.

Hey, we’re not saying that Call Of Duty 4 was perfect, unlike the trillions who deemed it the Holy Grail of the FPS upon release. There were many levels that could certainly be described as pedestrian, in between the big moments like nuclear attacks and Chernobyl flashbacks. That, for us, wasn’t good enough. In Call Of Duty: World At War, we want this to be rectified. We want to be completely surprised and entertained, all of the time, and we also want the context of the Pacific Theatre to be breathtakingly cruel. It’s quite easy to dismiss World At War as a mere return to WWII, but this game isn’t really revisiting anything. Granted, we’ve seen the Pacific context used in Medal Of Honor: Rising Sun, but that hardly captured the horror or realism of actually being there.

This, in part, is why we’re so impressed by World At War. We must admit, we did have some doubts, especially when we realised it wouldn’t be called Call Of Duty 5. This seemed to confirm that it wasn’t worthy of the series’ numerical legacy – but after seeing it in action, we believe it’ll better Treyarch’s last effort. With a vicious, devilish enemy in the Japanese, on top of a rather promising-sounding Russian campaign, there’s every chance it could match the quality of COD 4.

Then again, our experience with World At War is worth comparing to our time with Call Of Duty 3. At that time, we were similarly impressed by what we saw, as Treyarch did a good job of showing us what worked well with the third instalment. What it hid from us, however, was the hours of filler that comprised the majority of the game’s life span. Although it’s had twice as long to develop this title, there’s always the chance that this clever choice of focus has occurred again.

In addition, we’re still in a panic about the visual quality of the PS3 version. Let’s hope it can polish it up, lest we end up with another buggy and inadequate port, as we did with the third game. Providing Treyarch can fix this issue, however, there’s enormous potential in Call Of Duty: World At War.

We weren’t totally offended by Call Of Duty 3, but it fell so short of Infinity Ward’s efforts with previous titles. In our first look at World At War, though, we’ve seen the seeds of how Treyarch can best its rival – let’s hope it has the balls to carry it through. This could be the last FPS to use WWII as a backdrop, especially after the modern setting became vogue following Call Of Duty 4. With the Russians rampaging across Europe, and the Americans desperately moving between islands in the Pacific, World At War offers two sides of World War II that are, perhaps, the most interesting of all. Hopefully, Treyarch can match the context with an outstanding FPS.