I must admit that I've had many doubts about the Call of Duty franchise returning to World War II, especially after the amazing success of the instant classic Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. I shared some of the sentiments of senior editor Travis Meacham, who recently asked if WWII shooters had run out of gas. It's a fair question, and I wondered it myself after playing titles like Medal of Honor: Airborne and Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway, which are both decent games but offered little to shake up the WWII shooter genre.

After attending an Activision preview event last June for Call of Duty: World at War, among other titles, most of my fears were assuaged. A very confident, enthusiastic Treyarch team showed off the forthcoming Call of Duty title, which brings the series to the Pacific theater of WWII and focuses on the U.S. Marines' assault of the Japanese islands. While media members didn't have a chance to play Call of Duty: World at War, the early gameplay demos and cut scene footage were impressive. Instead of taking on Nazi soldiers in urban environments and roaming meadows, players will instead find themselves getting ambushed from all directions by cunning Japanese soldiers lurking in the thick jungle foliage.

The preview event at Treyarch's headquarters offered a promising look at World at War's single player campaign, but the developer held back details about the game's multiplayer modes. But late last month, Activision and Treyarch held another preview event, and this time media members were given a chance to play both the game's competitive multiplayer mode as well as the campaign cooperative mode. After playing both modes for several hours (and losing track of time while doing so), I was simply stunned.

Let's start with the competitive multiplayer mode. Imagine Treyarch taking everything that was great about Call of Duty 4's multiplayer experience, replicating it to the last detail, and then adding even more weapons, items, match types and custom class slots. That should give fans a good idea of what to expect from World at War's multiplayer experience. Using the same graphics engine as Call of Duty 4, Treyarch emulates virtually every aspect of Modern Warfare's look and style, from the menu screen and insignia icons to the multiplayer's create-a-class feature.

But World at War's multiplayer goes a step further in several areas. First, players will now have 10 create-a-class slots instead of the five available in Modern Warfare. Even better, perhaps, is the assortment of new "Perks" for players to achieve in World at War's multiplayer. There great part about these additions is that the new Perks serve a purpose; rather than just fling a bunch of new achievable options into the game, Treyarch added some clever Perks that promote better balance in the game. For example, the new Flak Jacket is a valuable defense against grenade attacks or the Martyrdom Perk, which causes dying players to automatically drop a grenade in order to take out an opponent.

World at War's multiplayer will look familiar to fans of Call of Duty 4, which is a good thing.

Treyarch has also expanded the multiplayer game modes; in addition to Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, Sabotage, Search & Destroy and others from Modern Warfare, the developer has brought back other modes like War and Capture the Flag from older Call of Duty titles. But perhaps best of all is the eye-popping assembly of weaponry at the player's disposal. It felt like the developer reached back into previous Call of Duty titles, not to mention World War II history, and packed this title with virtually ever rifle, pistol, machine gun, grenade and attachment possible. And let's not forget about the brilliant addition of the flame thrower, which is key for the Japanese maps. The multiplayer party system has also gotten a makeover for World at War, giving the party leader more control and easy-to-use button commands.

During the preview event, Treyarch had quite a few Xbox 360 stations running World at War's multiplayer (there were a handful of PCs and PlayStation 3s, too). After playing the multiplayer for more than an hour, I was surprised at how polished and well-designed the game was. First, the maps were excellent; they never felt too big or open, and the environments offered a variety of strategic locations and dangerous ambush points. And even with the addition of tanks and other vehicles on some of the maps, the gameplay felt perfectly balanced.

But the real delight for me during this preview event was playing four-player co-operative on the PC version of World at War. As soon as Treyarch wrapped up its initial presentation, the developer turned media members loose in a ballroom filled with consoles and PC running World at War. I immediately dashed toward the nearest PC station, which were reserved for running World at War's highly anticipated cooperative mode. This marks the first Call of Duty title to feature co-op, and not only is it a long overdue addition, but it's an absolute stroke of genius as well.

I've never been a huge co-op fan, personally. In fact, I think the feature has been overhyped and overused on too many games these days, particularly on the console. But World at War's co-op mode had me under its spell from the first minute. Along with a two-player local co-op mode with a split screen, World at War boasts a four-player online co-op mode that simply knocked my socks off. I played with three other media members, and the four of us were dropped into a mission on a Japanese island with Marine team that's suddenly ambushed by concealed enemies. Right off the bat, we learned that without communication and teamwork, we were dead.

One of the best things about the co-op mode is that teammates can heal you if you're injured. If a player is near death, they fall to the ground and are immobile, with only the ability to fire at enemies with a sidearm pistol. The screen slowly begins to turn gray and fade and after 15 seconds or so, you're dead. Other players, meanwhile, will be alerted to your injured status by icons on the screen. On the PC, you can heal a teammate by crouching down near him and pressing the "F" key. Unfortunately, you have to hold the key down for a few seconds and are left painfully vulnerable. This feature created plenty of tense, action-packed moments throughout my playthrough.

The enemy artificial intelligence was impressive, too. As soon as a teammate went down, Japanese soldiers would patiently wait for one of us to crouch down by our wounded comrade and all of the sudden, grenades would begin raining down on us. If one of our team tried to secure a heavy machine gun or artillery position, Japanese soldiers would rush the point to retake it. During two different Japanese campaign levels, our team trekked through thick jungle terrain, enemy camps, and even an airfield. While the placements of most enemy soldiers were the same, their reactions were not. Sometimes Japanese soldiers would attempt to flank our positions, and other times enemy soldiers would simply charge at us with their bayonets.

The two campaign levels I played were full of the kind of meticulously designed battle sequences and fantastic level design for which the Call of Duty series has become known. The epic firefights and exhilarating explosions were all there. And now the series has a brilliant co-op mode, one that isn't just a rehash of the single player campaign but that that feels expertly crafted to promote strategy, teamwork and quick-thinking. My four-player co-op experience with World at War was so enjoyable that I had to pry myself away from the PC station during the preview event.

Call of Duty: World is War's multiplayer and co-op preview left me with the distinct feeling that Activision has another critically acclaimed hit on its hands, one that may actually overtake Call of Duty 4 on the multiplayer front. It's quite a turnaround for Treyarch, which has been criticized for past Call of Duty efforts. Now it looks like Treyarch will have the kind of Call of Duty title that will earn it favorable comparisons to the series' original developer, Infinity Ward. There hasn't been a lot of buzz for World at War, especially since many gamers feel the WWII shooter genre has gone stale. But from what I played so far, the newest Call of Duty title is poised to be the surprise hit of the holiday season.

Join our discussion on this topic