Call of duty World at War was terrible

User Rating: 5 | Call of Duty: World at War PS3
Listen, Call of Duty 5 did not bring one new thing to the table. They used World World two for a storyline. For starters its not like that has not been done yet and second of all how easy is it to make a campaign based of historical proof? With this easy to do campaign mode one might think that the online play would make up for it. One would be wrong.
The online play in Cod5 was nothing that has not been done before. There was almost nothing added to it. Prestige was the same, many of the guns were similar, and the extra tools you got for killstreaks were almost the exact same. The cod4 UAV=Recon Plane, Airstrike=artillery, Helicopter=dogs. Okay I can see where the dogs could have been a huge benefit but in reality were they any good? You go into hardcore mode and It was not like the more fair version of the Cod4 claymores where a handy sprint could get you past. These bettys fly up as high as your neck and explode in a huge radius. Thats almost an upgrade from modern warfare but your going into the past so that makes no sense.
Perhaps the best part about Call of Duty World at War was the Nazi Zombies. Many people do not like this game mode but these people are probably fans of the game and would rather waste there time getting chewed on by dogs than Zombies. Nazi Zombies brings a little more fun to the table with Call of Duty. After you complete the campaign your put into a room and you have to guard it. You can move throughout the building but chances are, alone, you wont last long. The plus side is you can play with up to 3 other people adding alot more fun and strategy to it. If you do get the game and the dlc as well then the new Nazi Zombies map is even better.
All in all Cod5 is pretty much targeted for cod fans. If you loved Cod4 and were a diehard fan of it, stick with cod4. Cod5 is not worth the time, or money.