...mostly because I don't want to throw that much profanity into a review.
Either way, consider this as much of a review as you will get for Call of Duty: World at War from me.
Single player isn't nearly as epic as the past games. Too much flamethrower shit. Rocked co-op with my boss last night since we couldn't pick up Left 4 Dead until later today. The co-op worked okay, but after playing the Gears 2 co-op where I could have separate difficulty settings, I don't think I can go back to regular co-op that isn't Left 4 Dead anytime soon. You play across two campaigns, and neither one is very stellar. You use the flamethrower a whole lot, but really, all you need to know is that I just didn't know how to feel about Harry Truman picking Jack Bauer of all people to lead me into the battlefield and yell "get your fucking ass moving, soldier". I remember when this franchise was rated Teen and didn't have to rely on blood, gore, and/or strong language to tell its story...and I'm getting to the point that I PREFERRED it that way.
In about 10-12 hours of gameplay over the past couple of days, I busted the multiplayer rank up from 1 to 30-something (I think 32, but I'm not at the Xbox right now). Kind of sad to think that it didn't take that long, but given that I can 55 a CoD4 profile pretty fucking quick, it's not completely impossible to think.
One of the things that everyone has complained about is the maps in multiplayer. There are quite a handful (I would say about half at least) that are way too fucking big. There were times I was wandering aimlessly around a battlefield looking for a fight, and nothing was in sight. However, I started thinking about it...really thinking about it...and I see where the problem for this is...
When Call of Duty 4 came out, a lot of people complained that on the PC, the maps for it were way too small for supporting as many players as it did. Well, with World at War coming out, Treyarch made a lot of the maps bigger...but they didn't think about the console market that ate up CoD4...I would assume, at least. In turn, the consoles got to bite the bullet this time around.
Overall, there are three maps that I found to be worthwhile: Upheaval, Makin, and one of my new personal favorites in ANY multiplayer game, DOME! That map is absolutely incredible and very well made, and to think that Treyarch was able to create something that astonishingly fast-paced and fun gives me hope for them yet!!! lol I adore Dome like I adore Karkand on BF2. Other than that, it has a few memorable maps outside of that, like Cliffside or Asylum.
My biggest problem with the multiplayer is a continuing problem in many multiplayer games: tanks.
WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED TANKS IN AN INFANTRY-BASED SETUP?!?! The fact that they have armor on the outside of them that has to be penetrated, followed by about 3-4 rockets after to kill one of them...and that's if you are hitting an exposed area....is ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT!!! There is NO reason for tanks to EVER be in CoD games, and for some reason, Treyarch has put vehicles into BOTH of their games. It's so damned stupid. It single-handedly ruins maps like Outskirt, Seelow, and Roundhouse!!! Roundhouse would've been perfectly fine if it were a bit smaller and had no fucking vehicles!!!
I'm just baffled, that's all.
Besides that, the game just isn't as memorable as any of the previous CoD games, and it definitely does not live up to the pinnacle of single and multiplayer that was set by IW's Call of Duty 2 and Call of Duty 4. I enjoyed CoD3's single-player, but the multiplayer was just god-awful. World at War, though...is that game you will play in your off-time from CoD4 until IW comes out with a new one (and let's just PRAY they finally go to Vietnam!).