COD5 is an excellent game, but COD4 is still the king...

User Rating: 8.5 | Call of Duty: World at War PS3
Call of duty world at war is an excellent game no doubt. But the reason it failed for me in not being better than call of duty 4 modern warfare, is because they went back to the old boring historical timeline of world war 2, again, for the fourth time. I am not bashing this game, just saying that with the call of duty series, you should be able to experience diffirent timelines. Such as, perhaps in the next call of duty, they could make it in a future timeline?

Anyway, a little off the topic, but a conversation nonetheless... Anywho, call of duty world at wars gameplay is pretty impressive, using the call of duty 4 engine, Treyarch has managed to make a successful addition to the cod series.

The graphics are impressive, in fact, that is the factor that call of duty 5 has beaten 4 in. The graphics in this game are very impressive and realistic looking besides they still use the 2-d imgae trick persay on barbed wire or trees, but still very impressive for a call of duty game.

The online multiplayer gameplay is a lesser compared to that of call of duty 4's, but it still uses the whole level up get guns and upgrades for it, but they took out the whole headshots for camouflage finishes. Instead, they only give you a cheap XP reward.

The campaign for call of duty world at war is far greater than the one of call of duty 4, it isnt longer i think, but it still has a better war-like feel to it. And you go through diffirent things, and also as two diffirent teams, in call of duty 4 you only get around 10 missions as america, in call of duty world at war you get to have around 15 as the russians, i dont know my claims may be inaccurate in this state, but my point is that the call of duty world at war campaign gives a much more militant feel.

Call of duty world at war has all its ups and downs, but it still manages to make itself a great shooter and definitely worth buying.