[Druid]

Dude, this is treyarch's best game. If they didn't copy cod4 and tried to go off and do something on their own, there is a 90% chance it would have been worse than what we got. Cod4 had the best multiplayer yet and there is no need to change it if you can't come up with good ideas all by yourself. Be thankful you got what you got. Every two years you can expect something new and fresh to play. The odd ones are really only "tide you over" games. It is nice change in scenery with new maps, and the guns are somewhat different. There is only one assault rifle. The smgs aren't as good. Assuming you are going to call the bolt-action guns the sniper-rifles, there are no semi-auto snipers. It is good enough.

[Waphlez]

Doesn't mean they had to reskin CoD4. There was plenty they could have done while keeping the same perk/challenge system 4 has. Instead they just ripped 80% of the game and released it almost exactly a year after 4. Everything about it feels like an expansion pack, and I should be thankful I paid 50 bucks? This isn't treyarch's game, they just took the masterpiece Infinity Ward made and gave it new maps and WWII guns and called it a sequel. I'm not saying the game isn't fun, as I probably will still play it. Expansion packs takes a game and gives it some new content so it stays fresh, this is exactly what World at War is doing. Like I said, if they wanted to make another CoD4 game, they should have just made an expansion pack and kept it in the modern era, cause taking CoD 4 and giving it WWII weapons and models doesn't make it a new game.

Meh, I'm just going to go play Left 4 Dead later.

[Druid]

I'm not saying you should be thankful for paying $50. I'm sayinging you should be thankful they didn't ruin the game.

[ricanflow]

Just so you know, the next cod will be sci-fi based.

But im sorry i dont agree with it being an expansion.

[Gabb]

Originally Posted by Druid

I'm not saying you should be thankful for paying $50. I'm sayinging you should be thankful they didn't ruin the game.

I just think its sort of amusing how your saying we should be thankful that Treyarch didn't ruin the game but provided at the very least an acceptable COD. Haha just shows how bad their rep is after COD 3

[boomstick666]

I agree with Beefcake.
It is extremely similar to CoD4. almost like a mod to it.
I still think CoD1/UO is the best CoD series.
Way bigger maps, no spray-and-prey, balanced tank/jeep & infantry combat, good 64ppl game, etc..
If you compare WaW to BF2 or RVS, there are noticeable difference.
But not with those CoD4 and WaW...

[Bretskate]

This is how I view World at War.

Basically CoD4 skinned and modded for World War 2.

Best games in the series are CoD1, CoD UO and CoD2. Then it went downhill.

[Waphlez]

CoD UO was godly, and still is I would say, except a lot of people have moved on.

[ricanflow]

Originally Posted by Bretskate

This is how I view World at War.

Basically CoD4 skinned and modded for World War 2.

Best games in the series are CoD1, CoD UO and CoD2. Then it went downhill.

Sorry, i played all of them when they came out and cod4 and cod5 just own of them.

You cant even freakin sprint in the old ones.

[Bretskate]

The originals outdue the new ones by far in gameplay and competitive online play. They have better graphics and more features but the classic Vcod, uo and CoD2 were one of the best competitive online games.

I'm not saying CoD4 and CoD5 are bad, just the competitive play for them are bad.