Expectations for this game are as equally high as they are low. It kind of sucks for Treyarch because they're constantly pushing uphill, behind Infinity Ward, and you get a sense that they're not so much choosing to take the series back to WWII, so much as they are being asked to do it.

Nonetheless, after last year's stellar update, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, from series creator, Infinity Ward, Treyarch were always going to be under the microscope. Both because the benchmark was set so high, and because they've actually had two years to not only develop the game, but make us interested enough to not immediately dismiss this as just "another WWII shooter".

During E3 Trog and I were escorted out to Activision's Santa Monica HQ where we were then walked over to Treyarch (who happen to be right next door) for a special presentation of the game followed by some hands-on with the co-op.

It was a pretty cool and intimate session with only a handful of us in the demo room. We have an exclusive video of series military consultant, Hank Keirsey, giving us some background on the Pacific campaign World at War focuses on before being shown portions of a few of the levels on offer.

So the burning question really is, is this any good? To which I will gladly respond yes. You can definitely see the value of an extra year's development time, and even though Treyarch are utilising the Infinity Ward CoD4 game engine, they've tweaked and built enough on top of it, it's utterly fresh and really something to marvel at (and proves these guys are no slouch in the tech department).

It's also important I point out I'm a Call of Duty fiend. Seriously. I'm talking at least three hours of online action a night. I'm currently on my fourth prestige, and know most of the nifty tricks of the trade - so it was with vested interest I really ran this game through its paces and grilled Treyarch CoD: WAW boss, Daniel Suarez, about what we should all be expecting from the series' next iteration.

First and foremost, in the control department, everything's as solid as it's ever been. I stand by my point that Call of Duty 4 perfected console FPS controls, and that perfection has carried over here seamlessly. I jumped onto the controller and had no problems picking off enemy Japanese or German (we dabbled in levels from each of the game's main campaigns, but more on that shortly). Trog too, jumped in to have a go, and I know he's a much more dedicated PC gamer, so it likely proves a solid point that he grasped the Xbox 360 controls within a minute of play and was equally fighting the good fight with precision, grace and tenacity - every console FPS from here on out really needs to just copy the CoD model.

So if controls haven't changed and they're using the same engine, what's ultimately shifted beyond the setting? Well, as mentioned above, although they're using the base CoD4 engine, Treyarch have gone in and implemented their own set of tools and made an already amazing piece of software even more robust.

New, more reactive physics are in place, and this time they actually have bearing on the gameplay as opposed to being there for cosmetic purposes (we saw an example of a structural beam falling on the player while it was on fire demonstrating not only that parts of the environment can burn, but that they react - with physics - realistically and can therefore create new impediments or be dangerous). Obviously you can then think about this in reverse and assume there will be parts of the game-world you can interact with to use as weapons, makeshift blockades, etc.

The damage system goes beyond things being able to burn as well. We were shown off some of the new in-game tools and how they react realistically to various types of exposure. So a wooden hut perched on an island just over the water was used to give glimpses of being able to shoot individual wooden panels off, blow big chunks out of with grenades and of course, burn. It was also pointed out (after I asked), that while nothing has officially been said, it appears water is likely going to play as big a part as fire in balancing gameplay. If you can imagine, being set in fire in multiplayer may not be as damning as you might initially think given, in theory, you could just jump into a nearby pool of water.

It was also pointed out during this tech demo that it might be possible, if surrounded by superior fire-power outside the hut's entrance, to simply turn around and shoot your way out. I asked if this is what we could expect to see in multiplayer and was met with a "it's possible to have this stuff in there, but we're not talking about that right now". Hrm.

It's not just the man-made structural stuff you can deal damage too, either. And this is where the real fun stuff starts - with the Flamethrower! Heh, it really is an exciting weapon; and I can tell you now it's definitely not just a cosmetic weapon.

The area of effect and time it takes to burn enemies, areas or items balances the overall power of it, but it's cool because it not only disorients the enemy (with a cool heat wave effect), you can pretty much take on whole clusters of baddies with it. Moreover - and I think this is one of the coolest aspects - whatever fire you firmly plant on a flammable surface will propagate with the direction of the wind. So you can essentially take note of which way the wind is blowing and then point the weapon at some dry grass and watch as it's carried quickly to a troupe of unsuspecting enemies.

What's equally important to remember though, is whatever weapons you can carry, the enemy can too. In fact one of the demoed portions of the single-player game saw the player as a Russian freedom-fighter hiding in a house while patrols of Germans were walking around clearing the streets. Amidst the patrol was a flamethrower which was being indiscriminately directed at any buildings surrounding said patrol, and one of said buildings just happened to house the player. The flame effects in motion are absolutely stunning and can't really be appreciated in full via screenshots or short trailers. Treyarch must have spent a lot of time burning stuff for research, because they really nailed it here.

Beyond the flamethrower, there will be flame tanks, mortars and more that all generate fire. But you'll also have the ability to play with some DIY fire in the form of Molotov Cocktails. Seeing these in action was cool, and the demonstration further pointed out the depth of the game's destructability with German soldiers taking position behind a makeshift barricade in a building. Not to worry, light up a Molotov and throw it in their general direction - next thing we saw was not only German soldiers running around screaming because they were on fire, but also the ashes of the wood-based barricade they were just hiding behind. Not everything in the game-world can be torn apart or burned to the ground, but for narrative purposes and an open-ended choice of conflict, it's all looking pretty sweet.

We only got to see a few short portions of the overall single-player game (though we were playing cooperatively, but that experience will be best left talked about after a lot more time and testing with it). Some taken from fighting Japanese soldiers in open skirmish fields, others as Russians taking on the invading Germans, one Molotov Cocktail at a time.

Other elements we were privy to include the game's presentation, which looks amazing. It's being handled by the same team who did the first game, and also manages and develops presentations for high-end National Geographic documentaries and programs, and the intro snippet we saw was really awesome.

One of the final (and coolest) things we got to see was the in-house sound being developed. You can expect big orchestra pieces, as well as plenty of tight and intense soundtrack moments, but beyond the arty narrative stuff, it's the ambient background sounds and effects that are looking (or sounding) incredible here.

The sound team have built a full occlusion system that actually works (so many other games claim this and it's lost in the overall presentation, or just plain sucks), and we got to see how the game's sound travels based on your location, and other factors. So using a dev camera, we floated over a series of huts on an island built on stilts between shallow shore and sand. Here you could hear the water lapping against the hut foundations as well as night-time islandy sounds off in the distance (you know, wind, bugs - that sort of thing). When the camera was pulled up from the water to the top of the huts it was immediately obstructed by the structures. Then, moving further away and into denser forest, the water become nothing but a very faint background noise against loud cicadas, wind brushing over tree-tops and the gentle clanging of a wind-chime dangling from a ceremonial grave. The whole demonstration really was incredible.

The sense we grabbed from all of this was that the single-player campaign was going to be an epic story-telling piece, running at roughly the same length as the first game (which might annoy a few people), and while they were very tight-lipped about multiplayer, it was suggested the team are very much looking at the incredibly solid ground work already in place with the Xbox Live's most played online title. Unfortunately we weren't shown any of the on-rails stuff (hopefully there's not too much), or how any of the vehicular action would work, but given the game is due in November it makes sense to leave something for us to feast on between now and then. I'm not sure if Call of Duty: World At War will buckle Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, but everything is looking pretty peachy so far.

We're off to Activate (Activision's annual Australasian show-piece) next week where we'll get even more hands-on time with Call of Duty: World At War, so be sure to stay tuned.