World at War is a mirror image of COD 4...is that really, really a terrible thing?
I think, however, this game falls short in multiplayer. It's curse is that it followed COD 4, and COD 4 was so wildly popular because of its completely off-the-charts multiplayer. This is where World at War seems lackluster, because this part of the game feels like it's been done before. I also think the weapons in COD 4 spoiled people, and then having to go back and play with WWII weapons again rubbed people the wrong way, especially people like me who aren't exactly gangsters with an M1. The vehicles were a nice addition, but then you had people living in tanks and for me, it became a noobfest of who could stay in a tank the longest. The sounds from World at War are incredible, though, and I hope the next installment can build on that foundation. I still give this game a "9" because it's genuinely a great game that should be played by all FPS-enthusiasts, and just because it's WWII one more time doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It's an incredible game, just not revolutionary like COD 4.