I consider myself an optimistic person. When it comes to games, and movies for that matter, I almost always choose to see their potential as something good rather than painting a wide streak of derision across all things for fear that I'll say I like something that no one else does. But even as an optimistic person, a fan of the genre and a fan of the game series, I can't muster much excitement for the next Call of Duty game, Call of Duty: World at War, which is currently scheduled to hit stores in November. I've watched the trailers, the interviews, paged through lots of screenshots and nothing hooks me.

There are two reasons that World at War isn't peaking my interest yet and you can probably guess exactly what they are: the developer and the setting. I mean no disrespect towards World at War's developer, Treyarch. After all I loved Die By the Sword, thought Ultimate Spider-Man was really good and I'm looking forward to playing Spider-Man: Web of Shadows. But Treyarch's first stab at a Call of Duty game was the 2006 release of Call of Duty 3 and while it wasn't a bad game it was definitely missing something elusive. That "something" was the special sauce that developer Infinity Ward, who created the Call of Duty series and made the subsequent sequel as well as Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, puts into their Call of Duty games. It's not Treyarch's fault that they aren't Infinity Ward, but it can't be helped. A Call of Duty game without Infinity Ward's name on it lowers my expectations and my enthusiasm.

The developer is only a small part of my blasé attitude towards World at War and you'd be a fool to count Treyarch out all together. The real damper on this party is the World War II setting. I loved Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Loved it. By taking the conflict from the well-worn trappings of World War II to the modern theater, Infinity Ward moved Call of Duty forward. After three World War II games it was definitely the right time and gamers embraced the change. When Activision announced that the next Call of Duty game would return to the World War II setting - albeit in the Pacific conflict this time - I could almost hear the groaning of FPS fans everywhere. Is World War II played out? Is the setting still relevant? Yes and no.

Call of Duty: World at War adds a flamethrower to the arsenal.

My first inclination when challenging my own assumptions about World at War was to say, "World War II is just a generic setting, no different than the Dungeons & Dragons Forgotten Realms or the catch-all of a post-apocalypse setting." The setting doesn't make or break a game -- it's what you do with it. At this year's Game Developer's Conference, Will Wright described videogames in terms of nouns and verbs. This is the crux of the World War II problem. The verbs of a first-person shooter are almost universal: run, shoot, duck and cover. They are setting independent. The nouns, on the other hand, are defined by the setting. Since World War II is a real setting with historical documentation, all the nouns - the people, places and equipment - are known quantities. Deviating from that list will only erode the gritty realism for which all World War II shooters strive.

Because World War II has been visited in games so frequently I feel like I already know how the game will play out. I'm betting there will be a Thompson machine gun, a Browning Automatic Rifle, an M1 carbine, a PPSh, a shotgun and a few bolt-action sniper rifles. There may be an invasion level that takes its cues from a movie. "The Thin Red Line" seems like a ripe field of inspiration with its Pacific setting although I understand World at War's American campaign does not include the Battle of Guadalcanal as seen in the film. The point is there aren't many surprises in a World War II game. Call of Duty: World at War boasts a flamethrower, some impressive fire propagation effects and four-player co-op but it isn't enough to make me anxious to play it.

Despite the 1940s time frame and lack of Infinity Ward's golden touch, I refuse to cast Call of Duty: World at War aside. I may not be percolating with excitement but I will play it before handing down a verdict one way or the other. When I think back to the best moments in Call of Duty 4, few of them are setting dependent. More often than not they had to do with excellent game design and turning the tables on player expectations. Was anyone expecting to experience death not once but twice as part of the game's story? And after all the action, explosions and chases, to boil down the finale to a few well-placed pistol rounds in slow motion was absolutely brilliant. I was sure a third visit with death was on its way. I've never found an ending both so tense and satisfying. Those moments had nothing to do with the setting and everything to do with inspired design. While it is possible to make an exciting shooter set during World War II, it won't be easy for Treyarch to follow-up Modern Warfare.

I hope Treyarch pulls it off and makes World War II interesting again. I hope I can revisit this column by saying, "I was wrong to doubt this game." But mostly I hope that Call of Duty 6, which is being developed by Infinity Ward for a possible 2009 release, comes roaring off the tails of World at War the same way that Modern Warfare followed Call of Duty 3: by moving the series forward rather than revisiting the past.

Previous Columns:

• What Causes MMO Tribalism?
• Too Many New Games
• The Retro-Gaming Surge
• DRM and Piracy: The Vicious Circle
• Who Is to Blame for the State of Game Scores?
• Expectations and Predictions for E3 2008
• The Legacy of Diablo
• Parrying Premature Attacks on Indy 4
• Why Movie Tie-In Games Suck
• A Perfect Score: Is Any Game Worthy?
• Massively Multiplayer: Fantasy vs. Sci-Fi

Join our discussion on this topic