Video: Call of Duty: World at War gameplay

by Dustin Burg { Aug 22nd 2008 at 3:45PM }

Embedded after the break is freshly squeezed, off screen gameplay footage of Call of Duty: World at War straight from the Games Convention. What's our first impressions of the video? Well, it doesn't look too bad. Really, it doesn't look all that bad. The initial jungle crash landing sequence is intense, the visuals (from what we can tell) look satisfying enough and even the "bunker clearing" seems enjoyable. Give the gameplay a looksy and judge for yourself.

Tags: activision, call-of-duty, call-of-duty-world-at-war, cod-world-at-war, cod5, treyarch, world-at-war

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

tekman94 @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:03PM

This game looks awesome. For everyone saying it is going to suck this looks great.

Alex @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:09PM

I srtill ain't feeling the CoD. Any of them.

Eddy @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:09PM

wow, I for one am impressed.

I think we may have something great in our hands

and that flamethrower definitely looks awesome

come this November I'll definitely be picking this up

Bauer22 @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:11PM

This automatically gets a buy for having Kiefer Sutherland do voice acting for it.

Chris @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:11PM

Sweet. OH HEY for EA has released another trailer for Need for speed Undercover with game footage.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkHJzHIbQQg

spamsphen @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:13PM

So is that considered Call of Duty 5 or does iw get to call there next game in the series (if they make one) Call of Duty 5?

emirabal @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:13PM

Gotta say this looks awesome

legendtaker117 @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:14PM

Looks good. Hopefully the multiplayer is good to. Im not a fan of COD4's multi.

halo 3 sucks. @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:17PM

STOP! verify your age.

I'm thinking this game will get an 8.4 rating. i guess it will satisy my need for another IW call of duty until it comes out. Doesn't sound like dustin is too excited about it. pretty much states that it looks "decent". Meh, ill still buy it.

Rick @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:26PM

I just still am not as interested in this one. It might use the COD4 engine, but it still feels like COD3.1. I don't think this one is going to measure up to the bar IW set on the current iteration. Not so much slamming Treyarch's effort, but I don't think they're totally up to the task. They had to borrow IW's engine to even get it to look like this. I think that says a lot about how little they're able to add in terms of gameplay evolution. It's just a let down for a lot of gamers who loved COD4.

And there's one totally minor thing that just irks the shit out of me: the left arm holding up the machine gun looks so dorky and poorly modeled.

alexkapone @ Aug 23rd 2008 2:57AM

I second that.

Looks like a step backwards in terms of the engine and gameplay. Looks like they went back in time as far as the HUD/UI is concerned. I never liked CoD before Modern warfare and I think I'll hold off on buying this one.

NukeAssault @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:29PM

I'm actually really looking forward to this. Still not too happy about vehicles in multiplayer... in cod3 it was horrible.

Eddy @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:44PM

@ Rick

now it's no surprise that every COD fan wants IW to make every installation of the franchise. Treyarch got heat for COD3, but this trailer looks pretty damn good.

now my bone with you is that you can't say "they're not adding to the gameplay revolution" just because they're using the COD4 engine. Do you know how long it takes to make your own graphics engine, AND have it compete with the likes of Unreal 3.0 and the likes?

just ask Dyack from Too Human, he'll shed a little light on that

so that's just a ridiculous assumption because we all want COD5 to mimic COD4 in lots of ways, and by having its engine, they're enabled to make the game look just as good (if not better) than COD4

P.S: The developers from the new 007 game, Quantum Solace, are using the COD4 engine, does that make them lazy bums too?

how about the dozens of games that use the Unreal Engine? They cant ALL possibly be lazy too right?

krellish @ Aug 23rd 2008 3:19AM

Um.. You're right.. they are using the COD4 engine..

Its Treyarch developing that game, if I'm not mistaken.

ccc @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:48PM

Well, I have to say that those that are not aware, this is not being made by Infinidty Ward the guys that made COD4.

It's made by Treyarch but brought you such lovable games as COD 2 the big red one on the Xbox original which was a pile of garbage.

They also are the ones that made COD3.
That wasn't really a bad game but is no comparison with COD4 and honesty COD2 was better.

This game again goes back to WW2 times which is really way out lasted its welcome. What happened to going modern? Why this step back? I don't know but I'll be passing this up and waiting for the next real COD installement from the people that should be the only people making this series Infinidty Ward.

takamaru @ Aug 23rd 2008 3:51PM

Just a quick comment,
CoD:WaW was already in development before CoD4 came out.
Me thinks the next one from Treyarch will not be WWII (for their own good let's hope).

Who Flang Poo @ Aug 22nd 2008 5:01PM

Well this game looks pretty good so far. I just hope this games campaign actually has some variety and I hope the multiplayer isn’t a huge NOOB game the way COD4 is. I love the COD series but damn did COD4 suck. I just hope its nothing like 4 or im just done with COD all together.

todd @ Aug 22nd 2008 5:04PM

Looking good, wish they would do another modern though...

ZEBRA NINER @ Aug 22nd 2008 5:34PM

Cool. All I care about is CO-OP! w00t!

Doug @ Aug 22nd 2008 6:19PM

Killing hired mercenaries in COD4 was ok, but turning the flamethrower on Japanese troops after so many video games making them the villains... Maybe all I'm saying is the WW2-is-played-out in a different way. An enemy is kinda supposed to feel like an enemy. I would play it for MP, though.

Conor @ Aug 22nd 2008 6:27PM

ugh,is this video uploaded anywhere else?
Game video's lags loads for me.

Bman82 @ Aug 22nd 2008 6:55PM

Flamethrowers FTW!!

Leobebes (BDF: Braid Defence Force) @ Aug 22nd 2008 7:50PM

You know this video got me thinking. With all these shooters hitting the market and using real guns that actually existed. Do publishers have to pay royalties to the gun makers?

blue69corvet @ Aug 22nd 2008 8:31PM

Looks great. Has a huge influeince from cod4 and seems to be more freedom than previous call of duty games. I think it will be fun but nothing special. I can't see a the 4th game in a WWII series having an oustanding story. Good luck cod:waw

gomez001 @ Aug 23rd 2008 12:56AM

WWII is done, they have done it way too many times and this was just a mistake they really should have done another modern but that's just my two cents.

Max @ Aug 23rd 2008 5:10AM

you wanna know why this game is gonna suck my ass? because ww2 guns suck my ass. the best part about cod4 is the modern guns. i dont give a fuck who im fighting, japs, taliban, as long as THE GUNS ARE GOOD. i need my red dot sights and acogs. and the 50cal.

Tephlon @ Aug 25th 2008 8:03PM

Actually, have read back through it, I realized that I had said "for the guy who said that WWII guns sucked..." and then went on my rant. That part of the post wasn't even meant for Metal. It was for Max. I just couldn't remember who had said when I was writing my post, having just gone through everyone's comments.

As far as this confusion goes, I'll admit I could've taken the time to reply to each poster separately, or more clearly. Sorry bout that.

Tephlon @ Aug 25th 2008 8:06PM

Ahhh hell. meant to be a continuation and reply of the post below.

My posting = fail.

MetalGearsOfSolidWar @ Aug 24th 2008 9:48AM

If this game successes CoD 4's success. I'll burn my Wii and PS3, 360, and PSP.

To bad it'll probably never happen. Its to early for another. And most Infinity Ward fans who loved CoD 4 have already made it plain and clear that won't like CoD 5.

I'll probably rent it, but usually most multi-platform games that are for more then PS3 and 360 suck. There are a few exceptions but I don't think this is one of em.

I've disliked everything I seen about this game so far.

Call of Duty series always got average or slightly terrible scores. Infinity Ward makes it and suddenly that changes and the series makes a new epic approach that gamers love. Finally out of WW2, and modern guns and technology.

For some reason Treyarch comes back and rains on the parade. Its hard to have faith in a series when the bad developers rain take over from the good developers. Then we go back to World War fricking 2.

A flashy Call of Duty 3 on next gen consoles with good graphics won't be enough for me.

Tephlon @ Aug 25th 2008 1:39AM

Dude, what the hell are you talking about?

If I'm reading your post correctly, you're implying that CoD sucked until Infinity Ward 'got a hold of it'... in which case, you're a moron.
IF made CoD1 and CoD2... both of which were great.

Treyarch may not have the most stellar track record, but spiderman 1 and 2 were great in their own, different ways, and Die by the Sword was an excellent game, provided any of you are old enough to have played it.

I'll be the first to admit that CoD3 was NOT CoD1 or 2... and it got some flack for that. I'll even say it wasn't as good as the other CoD's, but it WASN'T a crappy game. In fact, it had quite enjoyable multiplayer. And from the looks of this video, I'd say they've learned alot from their last purvey into first person shooters. I think it truly embodies what it is to be a 'Call of Duty' game... plus, as much as others seem to be on the 'WWII' hate train, I have my most fond COD memories in WWII. It was a fantastic fucking war, and there are still parts of it we haven't seen realized into game form. I'm not saying its the only FPS I want out there, but I still enjoy it.

And for the guy who said the guns in WWII sucked... YOU SUCK. Those guns have layed the foundation for most of those newer guns 'you so dearly love'. Also, it sounds what you really care about are the advanced optics, not the guns. Guns haven't fundamentally changed.. well, ever. But they haven't changed much at all in the last 150 years. The auto-loading (or cartridge-fed) gun has been the most significant development.
But the 1911, Thompson Sub Machine gun, M1 Garand and M1 Carbine are what all your 'beloved' guns are based on. Give em a break.

Doug @ Aug 25th 2008 12:48PM

Hey Tephlon,

Why are you getting so aggro on MetalGearsOfSolidWar's post?

He doesn't like WW2 guns. I don't think that means you have to say "you suck."

Do you work at Treyarch, because that would make some sense. Your post was really out-of-line. Please try posting your opinion without personally attacking someone.

thx

Tephlon @ Aug 25th 2008 7:53PM

Admittedly, the "YOU SUCK" probably didn't come off as playfully as I had meant it, considering the negative tone of the rest of my post.
Being a gun enthusiast, I was speaking more to the factual point of "whether the guns from WWII were 'good' or not", and just trying to make the point that WWII era guns don't suck, but rather are what most good guns of today are based on. I don't argue or refute his right to say that he'd prefer to play games with modern guns, but that wasn't the way he worded it.

As far as me personally attacking him... this REALLY wasn't my intent either, unless he deserved it, hence my "If I'm reading your post correctly, you're implying" classifier I started my post with.
Harping, reaping, or dogging on anything while soaking in your own ignorance is not something most people like to stand for.
He was bashing on a dev (who I don't work for) and game series (that I love) for no founded reason. His unfounded behavior founded mine. I wasn't seeking out to defame him. I was simply saying that he shouldn't talk shit when he doesn't know what he's talking about.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/callofduty?q=call%20of%20duty
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/callofduty2?q=call%20of%20duty%202
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/callofduty3?q=call%20of%20duty

You, my friend, need to chill a bit as well.