If you have NOT played the first 3 CoD Games, it's a chance to see something different. But...
If you have NOT played the first 3 Call of Duty Games, it's a chance to see something different. But if you have, it feels like it has been done before. This game comes in to cash in the success of Call Of Duty 4; which was a Revolutionary Experience (New Multiplayer Format and Time being changed to present day). But if you're Sick of World War II shooters, Stay Away.
1: Single Player
Somewhat disturbing. If you want a Storyline, you won't find it in World at War. Seriously, there was no Storyline (If there was, I didn't pick it up). All what it was doing was throwing you into a map and all what you have to do is kill all the Hostiles and get to the End; Almost Every level was like that. It's NOTHING like the Call of Duty 4 Storyline (No 'HOLY **** Moments like the Nuke being launched and the Bomb going off in the city). I can't even Explain it; there's nothing to say about it. It's just a watered down mess of a storyline basing everything around the History of World War Two instead of making something original.
2: Multiplayer
It's a clone of Call of Duty 4's Multiplayer, but they bumped the level from 55 to 65 and they made it harder to level all together. The weapons are somewhat balanced with the odd Overpowered weapon thrown in there. But the aspect that completely ruins the Multiplayer is the Vehicles. It seems Infinity Ward hates tanks in their Version of Call of Duty; but Treyarch LOVES them. All what I see people doing is race for the tanks and blow up Spawns; it completely kills the skill of the Multiplayer. Some of the Aspects of the CoD4 Multiplayer that weren't implemented in World at War (EX: Weapon Camouflages). The Multiplayer is not at disappointing as the Single Player Campaign, but it's still a let down.
3. Trayarch's Philosophy
It seems Infinity Ward is out to make a good game Gameplay wise and Trayarch want's to make it better Graphically. Now, I will never acknowledge graphics unless they affect the Gameplay (EX: Extremely Low FPS), but this is an exception. It's like all the members of Treyarch got into a large room and asked the question, "How can we make the game better Gameplay wise?". Then some guy with an IQ of 50 or lower said, "How about we add more gore and make the Gameplay slower by making the graphics seem smoother!?" And that's what they did. Call of Duty 4 was fast paced while World at War Seems MUCH slower. The gore is excessive. Sure, it may make the game seem more realistic; but I would have rather sacrificed the extra gore for better Gameplay.
I think I made my Point clear; Stick to Call of Duty 4 and Wait for Modern Warfare 2.