After the smashing success of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, which might very well be the best online FPS experience available for consoles, it was only a matter of time until the next iteration of the popular series made its appearance. Call of Duty: World at War takes the series back to its World War II roots, including a Pacific Theater setting that’s been long overdue.

Developed by Treyarch - develepment for the Call of Duty series regularly alternates between Treyarch and Infinity Ward, which was responsible for CoD4 - the game may be able to stand side-by-side with Modern Warfare when it releases in November due to the stylistic differences afforded it by using different eras for each game’s settings instead of arriving as a direct sequel. After putting in some quality time blasting away at the beta, I believe that publisher Activision has a terrific chance to see both of its Call of Duty titles atop the online charts simultaneously this winter.

Treyarch is often unfarily maligned in the gaming world, simply because it isn’t industry darling Infinity Ward, but it the beta of World at War is to serve as any indication, Treyarch stands ready to prove, once again, that it’s no slouch. Essentially re-dressing Call of Duty 4, Treyarch wisely doesn’t stray from that game’s extraordinarily successful formula, but it adds a few wrinkles. First and foremost, tanks can be commandeered, and certain “perks” provide advantages in that environment. Each side in a battle can also be broken up into squads, which could become very useful to strategic gamers used to teamwork. The squad members will have different colored names above their heads, but they’ll be instantly distinguishable from opponents, which either haver no name hovering above them, or have a red one above them when close. Squad leaders can target objectives, which will appear as a star on the rest of the squad members’ maps, meaning that in objective-based games like “War” or “Capture the Flag”, it’s easy to assign players to squads that might be charged to protect a certain area, for example, while others might be planning to charge the enemy. On the battlefield, one can instantly tell which of their teammates is supposed to being doing what. While this isn’t being utilized to the fullest by the gamers in the beta at the moment, I suspect that savvy gamers will be doing so soon after the game’s final release.

To that end, an improved party system has been added to World at War. Now, parties can be open to anyone, open only to players on a party member’s Friends list, or closed entirely. This makes clan practice games a breeze, and if strategic gamers want to keep the Rambo-types from spoiling their fun, that’s easily arranged.

Much of the online feature set from Modern Warfare is otherwise unchanged. From earning “perks” to creating classes to advancing in rank, most of World at War will be instantly recognizable to Call of Duty fans. The control scheme and gameplay is essentially identical as well, which isn’t a bad thing. On the contrary, one can switch back and forth between Call of Duty titles with ease, which may actually help to keep both titles in many gamers’ playing rotations.

Modern Warfare succeeded, in no small part, by becoming one of the most playable games of its kind on the market, with pitch-perfect controls and accessible gameplay, and World at War will be able to make the same claim. In fact, the layouts of the few World at War maps available in the beta, in this author’s opinion, are more interesting and more varied than Modern Warfare’s, especially with regard to elevation. The game’s terrific “Castle” level is a veritable bonanza of of strategic opportunities and bursts with color and lovely visual touches like falling cherry blossom leaves.

Unfortunately, much like Modern Warfare, the game generally suffers from a drab and otherwise homogenous color palette, which may be realistic, but isn’t terribly attractive. The beta’s “Roundhouse” level, which includes some intriguing tank battles, is a visual wasteland of brown, light brown, dark brown and gray. Given that the player-characters blend into that environment, it’s not surprising to see melee combat becoming every bit as effective as ranged combat as unsuspecting players often stumble right into one another.

While they’re effective in-game, the usage of dogs in combat can also be somewhat unsettling. In place of the helicopter in Modern Warfare (awarded after eliminating seven enemies before getting bumped off yourself) which patrolled the area from above, picking off opponents in the open, a pack of hunting dogs takes their place. The dogs, which zip around the map and home in on opponents, help lead you to them and can attack them effectively, as well. Of course, that means that if you’re being hunted by the dogs, you’ll need to kill them before they can kill you. I realize that these game-world dogs are nothing more than an abstraction, a game mechanic, and can I get by my inherent distaste; and yes, I’m aware of the odd irony in the fact that I’m comfortable blasting away at other virtual humans but not at virtual dogs - but it’s there nonetheless, and I suspect that I won’t be alone.

These qualms aside, the fact of the matter is that Call of Duty: World at War looks to be a well-produced, slickly-playing game that’s sure to have a lot of appeal to online gamers everywhere, and the 65-year backpedal from the Modern Warfare era doesn’t hurt it one bit. It’s intense, exciting and fun - and given the addition of tanks and the new strategic opportunities that the squad system provides, it’s likely that - with a good group of gamers - it’ll become more fun as you play instead of less.