Now, I'm not saying this comparison to suggest that I feel it may become the new messiah of the 360. Nor do I say it to mean that it will "suck harder than a Dyson vacuum cleaner". I only say this to mean that, while it looks pretty, and it plays well, there is ultimately no point to its existence.

  The similarities, while in their physical nature are non-existant, mainly lie in the position among the myriad of today's shooters on the consoles and PC. Take, for example, the setting. Like Halo, (set in the future) WaW is set like so many shooters before it, in World War 2. Yay for originality. But, of course, this isn't just like the other WWII games... No sir, this one has prettier graphics, thanks to the CoD4 engine. Unfortunately, a successful engine might not be enough to save it, in my opinion... While it may be prettier than all the other WWII games out there, it nevertheless is STILL a game that is set in a war that's lasted a shorter amount of time than we've been making games for.
  This results in us having (from what I've seen and heard) the same guns and weapons as before, just with the CoD4 sticker stamped on the front of it... Yes, before the ramblings of the internet begin, I am aware that there is a flamethrower in this version... But, come on, is that really enough to save it? Is the flamethrower really such a unique idea that it warranted having its own achievement, and justifies spending £40 or more on? Personally, I'm not convinced by it.
 
  You could argue that this is a WWII game for a new generation of WWII game-players, as it has better graphics, and Kiefer Sutherland (who I can't really decide is going up or down on the success chain for doing this game, yet). But then, that means that if it IS for newcomers, why have they never tried one of the other Call of Duty games? The only people (who I can think of) who won't have are 8 year olds, who've just goten their shiny new console for their birthday... And, since CoD:WaW (bah, that's one shortening that can go suck on hellfire) has swearing, and toasting of the flesh, I doubt that it's entirely suitable...
 
  This isn't all, though. The gametypes, from what I've seen and heard, hardly change from those already done better by its predecessors. There's your bog-standard Team Deathmatch (which, admittedly, you can't really mess up), free-for-all, and War (a bring-over from the Call Of Duty 3 game). Now, while it's nice to see all these representations done in pretty graphics and all... I can't help but wonder that if this was supposed to be a completely different, more gritty World War 2 shooter, why they didn't include some really original, neat ideas that could have been done with the setting. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any, but since it's set in the tropics, and (I think) you're fighting/playing as the Japanese, why you can't encorporate some kamikaze in there is beyond me.

  Now, since I've been focussing mainly on the multiplayer aspect of the game, I feel I should give the single-player (or, to use the more politically correct term these days: "Campaign") a looky-see at. Now, from the gameplay videos out there (ie the ones on IGN and GameTrailers, and the such-like) it looks like your standard campaign. Go kill dudes, sneak about, and generally have fun in the process. If you like having a challenge, I'm pretty sure that the "Collect all the death cards" achievement gives away that there'll be secret stuff to pick up, and (not unlike CoD4, ladies and gentlemen, I'll pause for the gasp of horror) most likely cheats that can be turned on. Now, I doubt that they'll be anywhere near as fun as turning enemies into tyres when they die, but that could be worth seeing, even if it's just from seeing some gameplay videos on the internet.
 
  4 player co-op isn't an addition that hasn't been seen before. Heck, Halo 3 did the same thing. And it was fun, yes, but it did age rather quickly. And, most likely, will the campaign of the new CoD. Points and the such hasn't been seen before. Now, I could be mistaken (again), but I heard somewhere that there may be varying difficulty in the campaign dependent upon who it is that you're playing with. Now, while that could be good, it could also just make it infuriating if you got the game a couple of months after your friends, and you can't even make it through one mission, because the AI is so incredibly hard for you, and your friends are too busy fending them off to help revive you.

   That's one of my major ticks with the co-op campaign. If just one of you dies, you have to start again. Now, while that's the same story with Halo, except it only ever happened when everyone died. Not just when one person went down. You just had to wait until it was safe, and you came back in tip-top shape, ready to fight another day. That's how THIS should be done. While I'm usually rather neutral to Halo 3, I still have it, because on occasion, me and my friends like to go on the campaign, and muck about. But to me, that just doesn't seem possible in CoD:WaW, with this annoying addition. Now, to give the developers credit, I can see how they wanted to encourage teamwork in the game, but when you're playing with your friends, you don't want to have to use strategy... It may be your cup of tea, but to me, I just want blow stuff away, and be able to go "holy ****, you guys, did you SEE that!?".

  All in all, I can see the reviews of this game being pretty much the same:
     "If you've played Call Of Duty 4, then you'll know how this game plays. If you like that, and wanted it in a WWII setting, then this game's for you. But, if you wanted something really original done, then  you won't really find it here, I'm afraid. This game is for people that either really like the CoD4-style of play, really like WWII games, or have never tried either."
  
   Leading me to think that this game, like Halo 3 was, is a pretty game, yes, but in the grand scheme of things, there's really no point to it being there. There are better shooters out there than Halo, and there are better settings for the CoD4 engine than World War 2.