CALL OF DUTY: WORLD AT WAR, first impressions/early review from XBOX360 multiplayer beta

I was one of the lucky ones to get a key for the XBOX 360 multiplayer beta of "CALL OF DUTY: WORLD AT WAR", which is one of the most anticipated video games of the year - not only because it is part of one of the most popular video games series but also because its predecessor CALL OF DUTY: MODERN WARFARE was a tremendous, unexpected success (eventhough it was a departure from the WWII theme of the series), especially due to its astonishing multiplayer. Here's my first impressions after ~10hours of game.

-INTRO.
to make a long story short, it's a relatively bug-free beta which gives a good insight to the
multiplayer portion of the game. I started out with COD4 (I played COD2/3 multiplayer almost not at all) and I havent been very impressed or excited. I guess that people like me who started out with COD4 will find COD:WW a nice, satisfying multiplayer game, but will not abandon COD4
(especially if a new map pack becomes available) and will be eagerly anticipating COD5 which
will also be in a modern context and that should be out in Nov. 2009.

-GAMEPLAY.
More or less the same than COD4. Most game modes will remain, there's a return of Capture The Flag as well as War mode, which is between Headquarters and Domination (each team fights for command points, one at a time, once one has been taken everybody fights for the next one).
The reward for consecutive kills without deaths is still here: with 3 kills you get ennemy position recon, with 5 artillery (more or less the same than airstrike but the effect is better - the ground crumbles and shakes and it feels real) and with 7... dogs! It's cool and at least as lethal as helicopter. Except that by shooting dogs you get points (in COD4 you didnt get points for shooting helicopters and that was certainly a shame).

-PERKS.
Basically its the COD4 system with a few minor differences. There's still juggenaut, last stand (except that you can revive somebody fallen if you're quick enough), martyrdome, stopping power plus a couple more like monkey in order to climb trees (not tested here).

-GORE.
That's a plus! You'll get mutilated when bombarded or grenaded, that's certainly very cool.

-WEAPONS.
Evethough the comparison is not relevant, weapons are one of the things that COD4 fans will immediately regret! At least as far as I can tell from the
weapons unlocked till cap level 11 that you can get at the demo, we sorely miss our
MP5/M16/M4/P90/etc! To put it simply it's less satisfying to shoot with (the sounds are less
powerful too). The Thompson, the SMG you start with, is not accurate at all (imagine something
like the Uzi) and its magazine clip empties in a flash. Eventually you will unlock the MP40 with
the double magazine and things will get better. As far as the rifles go, the Gewehr 42 is not
bad, but we all miss automatic rifles and at this point I cannot tell how good will they be.
Many people wondered what will be replacing red dot sight. This is called "APERTURE SIGHT" and it's somehow similar (except it doesnt help with the light), but not something you would get
into a SMG. But as I said we cannot judge until we play the full game and unlock all the bastards. For example we cannot play with one of the most anticipated features: the flamethrower! Bazookas are quite cool and you'll be able to unlock by completing the last rifle challenge rifle-mounted grenades which I heard from other players that they're very cool.

-EXPLOSIVES.
For starters fragmentation grenades dont have any punch and you should definitely not expect the devastating effect they have on COD4. Maybe its because of the technology of the time. You also have molotovs which are slower to launch but spread a little bit more (you're still not able to burn the environment though - e.g. wooden cabins). There's also satchels of explosives - the equivalent of C4 in COD4, which I havent used at all so I cannot tell. We also have the equivalent of stun (very nice effect) and flash grenades.

-MAPS.
There's 3. An industrial complex, a japanese castle, and a seaside village by night. The castle
and the village are pretty cool, i dont like the complex. Graphics are good and they are pretty
big, with a lot of places to camp and different routes to take.

-GRAPHICS.
Well as I said the graphics of the maps are good, especially the castle with the cherry trees or
the moonlight reflecting at the sea (Makin map). As far as the soldiers go, I havent been
impressed. I also dont like the animations when they run, I find it a little bit arcade-like.

-TANKS.
Well, yeah there will be tanks in some of the maps (I think in 4 out of the 14). One out of the 3 maps included here features them, the industrial complex. I think that vehicles in shooters (multiplayer or singleplayer) you either like them or not. I dont. I think it's boring and you lose focus out of the most fun part of it, which is good old infantry combat. I admit it can be amusing in some instances, one drives the tank and shoots the canon, the other is on the turret and fires the machine gun. You can take them out either with another tank or with bazooka's and explosives (anti-tank grenades and explosives).

-ΜΑTCHMAKING.
Almost the only relevant complaint/criticism as far as COD4 goes, was matchmaking. For starters the whole host system is a scandal: I cannot comprehend why should we depend of the host in order to make a good match and be able to do decent kills. The way things should be is that we would all connect to servers... Which is still not the case here. And then, COD4 was pretty good at putting you into the same match as some guys in the states with perfect lines, where you wouldnt stand a chance since they would see you turning around the corner before you (it would also take the double of bullets to take them down, compared to a match with a decent ping). I havent experienced any host disconnects (or maybe just once) but there certainly was lag, especially during the periods of the day when there's more americans in. But at least Treyarch optimized the whole system and gives the possibility to configure the match search. Either you leave the preferences to "DEFAULT" either you chose between "LOCAL" and "LOCALE" which restrich the search to matches with players geographically close. It makes sense and as far as I can tell it works.

-CONCLUSION.

As a comrade pointed out:
a) It would have made more sense if COD:WW was released before COD4. But of course this is hypothetically speaking since Infinity Ward was developping COD4 in a couple of years taking a break from the series, while Treyarch had to round up COD3 in just one year.
b) Guys who started out with COD4 will not like COD:WW better, eventhough eventually they will find it perfectly fun.

Treyarch did a very good job with the COD4 engine and overall I have the impression that COD:WW multiplayer will be solid and fun. It's just the split of the COD series in two (WWII and modern warfare) that is weird and confusing for the fans. And it's somehow not right, but COD:WW will have to suffer from the comparison with its predecessor, eventhough they are not comparable in many instances. If COD:WW multiplayer will have the same overwhelming success than COD4 it's something that we will see (eventhough I doubt a bit). I definitely expect the full game to test in order to make my mind.