Lately Ive been reading a lot of negative comments about Call of Duty: World at War. They range from "guns sound like cans tossed to a wall" to "it's too hard to take down a tank" to "dogs are shit". I'm pretty tired of this so I will try to explain why these people are just crying foul before they even get a good feel for the game.

1- "Guns sound like cans"
It's been standard now that when a game is in development, the sound department goes on the field and records real, live sounds of all the guns. If you think the guns sound bad it's probably because your used to the sound of today's arsenal. In my opinion they sound believable and that's what's matters.

2- "Guns are crap"
Those guns were top of the line in the 1940s, most of them they did the job fine (allies won, right?), blame history for the feel of the weapons in any case (accuracy, reload times, recoil) if you must. Don't blame the game.

3- "Tanks are hard to take down"
In WW II, there was no such thing as a RPG-7, aka, taking down tanks with infantry must have been a pain the ass. Just look at movies like Saving Pvt. Ryan, they had to use like 3-4 sticky explosives to just stop one, not even disable the cannon, just stop it from moving. Chances are, if you want to take them down, use the sticky grenades, bazookas or another tank. You can also use the remote detonation explosives but for that you have to be very close to the tank. Key word here is teamwork.

4- "Dogs are horrible, they always kill me!"
What do you expect, a poodle attack? These dogs are as much of a pain as the chopper in Modern Warfare was, with the added factor that now campers are in for some dog rape. Yes, they take like 3-4 shots to take down, but didn't the chopper take like a billion bullets before going down too?.

5- "It plays too much like CoD4!"
Modern Warfare sold above 11 million units, you think anyone would completely change the core gameplay when it obviously is a successful concept. I bet we would not have it any other way.

6- "It looks too much like CoD4!"
Again, Modern Warfare was a really, really good looking game. From what I have seen, the graphics in World at War have been improved. There is more details in the maps, more vibrant colors and better shading. And it's even more impressive that the game can look that good, when you can play with 3 other people by your side. All I hope is that the frame rate in the sp runs as good as CoD4 did, love those 60fps.

So yeah, that's what I think about the game, it will be awesome, no doubt. Please give it a chance once it's out. I know some people hate on the devs because CoD 3 was derrivative, prety looking, but lacking originality. I totally agree. But still, no reason to hate on something that has passed, move on. World ar War will be different.

Lately Ive been reading a lot of negative comments about Call of Duty: World at War. They range from "guns sound like cans tossed to a wall" to "it's too hard to take down a tank" to "dogs are shit". I'm pretty tired of this so I will try to explain why these people are just crying foul before they even get a good feel for the game.

1- "Guns sound like cans"
It's been standard now that when a game is in development, the sound department goes on the field and records real, live sounds of all the guns. If you think the guns sound bad it's probably because your used to the sound of today's arsenal. In my opinion they sound believable and that's what's matters.

2- "Guns are crap"
Those guns were top of the line in the 1940s, most of them they did the job fine (allies won, right?), blame history for the feel of the weapons in any case (accuracy, reload times, recoil) if you must. Don't blame the game.

3- "Tanks are hard to take down"
In WW II, there was no such thing as a RPG-7, aka, taking down tanks with infantry must have been a pain the ass. Just look at movies like Saving Pvt. Ryan, they had to use like 3-4 sticky explosives to just stop one, not even disable the cannon, just stop it from moving. Chances are, if you want to take them down, use the sticky grenades, bazookas or another tank. You can also use the remote detonation explosives but for that you have to be very close to the tank. Key word here is teamwork.

4- "Dogs are horrible, they always kill me!"
What do you expect, a poodle attack? These dogs are as much of a pain as the chopper in Modern Warfare was, with the added factor that now campers are in for some dog rape. Yes, they take like 3-4 shots to take down, but didn't the chopper take like a billion bullets before going down too?.

5- "It plays too much like CoD4!"
Modern Warfare sold above 11 million units, you think anyone would completely change the core gameplay when it obviously is a successful concept. I bet we would not have it any other way.

6- "It looks too much like CoD4!"
Again, Modern Warfare was a really, really good looking game. From what I have seen, the graphics in World at War have been improved. There is more details in the maps, more vibrant colors and better shading. And it's even more impressive that the game can look that good, when you can play with 3 other people by your side. All I hope is that the frame rate in the sp runs as good as CoD4 did, love those 60fps.

So yeah, that's what I think about the game, it will be awesome, no doubt. Please give it a chance once it's out. I know some people hate on the devs because CoD 3 was derrivative, prety looking, but lacking originality. I totally agree. But still, no reason to hate on something that has passed, move on. World ar War will be different.

I think people are complaining because a lot of those things have already been done, and done better in other WW2 games.  I don't think they care how accurate it is, I think they care that it just isn't as fun as other WW2  games.  I've never played it so this is just my opinion, just a guess as to where the complaints are coming from.

Call of Duty: World at War is just fine the way it is. I'm glad to see that Treyarch took the core gamplay and mechanics, then implement them into World at War. If the gameplay isn't broken, then why fix it? And why is it such a bad thing that it plays like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare online? 

@Jordan23:
Yeah, Gears 2 is just like Gears 1, and that isn't exactly a bad thing.
CoD5 being like CoD4 isn't a bad thing either, actually, it's a good thing because CoD4 is an amazing game.

Fact is, most people hate on this game because it "looks too much of the same".
Which is weird, because millions still play CoD4. Why not make the jump into CoD5, a potentially better game?

WTF are you huffing? ok let's take a look at your points:

1. no arguement
2. Yeah, well even if tit was top-of-the-line in the 40s, IT'S STILL CRAP! That's why you don't go to the motherfucking WW2!
3. tanks are not hard to take down at all. you don't need any help, just get a class with satchel charges and blow up the fucking tank. it's easy as hell.
4. dogs are easy as hell to take down. have you been playing the same beta? just stab it. it 's much easier than the dogs in COD4.
5. It does not play like CoD4 at all. AT ALL. Sure the perks are similar, but the rest of the gameplay is just bad. At some places, they sort of stole gameplay elements from CoD4, but didn't go the whole 9 yards.
6. Of course it looks like COD4, the developers are too cheap and/or too lazy  to build a new engine and just used the CoD4 engine. However, the maps they created are horrendous. There's just too much space and not enough buildings. It just feels really empty and doesn't grab you like CoD4. and the better colors do less for WAW than the colors for MW. the dark, photorealistic colors made Cod4 seem so much more realistic. WAW is just a big history lesson about what happened before. We can relate more to what we are living with today than what our ancestors live with.

To summarize, you are a dipshit if you actually believe WAW is a good game. The crap weapons and really bad maps just sink the game. And making a flamethrower as a perk just screws up the balance, having another weapon as a perk just ruins the whole system.

Not me, I think this game is actually pretty darn good.

Tryarch developer: "Hey, let's take everything bad about Call of Duty 4, and then make it worse. Hell, we'll even use the same graphics engine. Then let's go back to world war 2 and sell it as our new game!"

It's CoD4, re-skinned in WWII.  With dogs instead of a Helicopter.  :| 

World at war is neither bad nor perfect , it is a good game and worth checking out .  some bash the game which is not appropriate and some exaggerate it which is not good either . 
remember that Jeff in his interview with Game trailers .com chose COD:WAW as his favorite game

Thanks for the comments guys. There all welcome. Even if you call me a "dipshit", that made me chuckle.

You've got it all wrong. Anybody really hating on the game doesn't care about those things; although the game definitely deserves some flame-roasted goodness shoved up it's ass. It's a joke offering.

meh, just another rehash, I got over CoD already, I'm bored of the same damn repetitive thing.

i like it

i hate cod WaW. cant stop me -evil laugh-