Anyone reading this knows that Call of Duty 4 was amazing - a huge leap forward for the series and honestly for games in general. Most of those same people will have been stunned to hear the announcement that World at War was going back to World War 2. Those people were right to be worried.

Anyone reading this knows that Call of Duty 4 was amazing - a huge leap forward for the series and honestly for games in general. Most of those same people will have been stunned to hear the announcement that World at War was going back to World War 2. Those people were right to be worried.

I like World at War more than 4.I'd rather play a real conflict than a fictional one based on a political scandal and a hunt for more oil.However,the main reasons why I like World at War better are 1:I am a 20th century history buff(especially WW2),and 2:WaW builds on things from CoD 4.So I guess you could say that I like the mechanics that were established in 4,but the setting of WaW.It's also worth noting,that I have only played a couple of WW2 games in my time,so it's still quite fresh to me.Also,I don't get why people complain about the setting of WW2 so much,when the setting of modern conflicts has been used just as much if not more than WW2.What would make WW2 games more fresh and interesting is if they put a more crazy,fictional,sorta what if,secret technologies,alternate history thing into more WW2 games.Like have a robot army of Nazis with lazerz,or have you travel in time to WW2 and change everything,or have you infiltrate a secret base with aliens and secret Nazi technology that we still don't have today.Or have Nazis be aliens,or i don't maybe,SHOW HITLER!!! Seriously the only game I've seen Hitler in is Bionic Commando Rearmed(and he wasn't even called Hitler).Anyways I like to rant about game ideas,but I think that would make the whole setting of WW2 alot more interesting.All in all,i'm still way looking forward to CoD 6 this year:)

I like historical games like WW2 shooters over modern weapon games.

any insult to WAW is insulting COD4 since WAW is basically  a reskined version

"I like World at War more than 4.I'd rather play a real conflict than a fictional one based on a political scandal and a hunt for more oil.However,the main reasons why I like World at War better are 1:I am a 20th century history buff(especially WW2),and 2:WaW builds on things from CoD 4.So I guess you could say that I like the mechanics that were established in 4,but the setting of WaW.It's also worth noting,that I have only played a couple of WW2 games in my time,so it's still quite fresh to me.Also,I don't get why people complain about the setting of WW2 so much,when the setting of modern conflicts has been used just as much if not more than WW2.What would make WW2 games more fresh and interesting is if they put a more crazy,fictional,sorta what if,secret technologies,alternate history thing into more WW2 games.Like have a robot army of Nazis with lazerz,or have you travel in time to WW2 and change everything,or have you infiltrate a secret base with aliens and secret Nazi technology that we still don't have today.Or have Nazis be aliens,or i don't maybe,SHOW HITLER!!! Seriously the only game I've seen Hitler in is Bionic Commando Rearmed(and he wasn't even called Hitler).Anyways I like to rant about game ideas,but I think that would make the whole setting of WW2 alot more interesting.All in all,i'm still way looking forward to CoD 6 this year:)"

"any insult to WAW is insulting COD4 since WAW is basically  a reskined version"

@ ieatlions : a little too general don't you think?

I agree with everything you said. WaW isn't a bad game by any stretch, but I think Infinity Ward was truly robbed here. It is painfully obvious what Treyarch did by themselves and what they just ripped off of Infinity Ward. The multiplayer, slick and addictive as usual. The maps? Well, aside from about 3 of them, they pretty much suck. Also, tanks are a very unwelcome addition to the series (yeah, I know CoD 3 had them but let's be frank here, FUCK COD 3) because of their super-high health and all around frustrating qualities (seriously, Roundhouse would've been perfect without tanks). The campaign is generally well paced, but as you said, no matter where you put it, it's still fucking WWII. The Russian campaign can be quite epic and fun at times, but the American one is noticeably inferior. Treyarch knew damn well that everyone (myself included) would buy their game no matter what because CoD 4 was so good, and that every casual gamer would get the game for Christmas because they don't know any better (or just have what some might call "standards".). IW is a developer with so much potential, but it's become painfully clear that Activision is intent on driving every one of its franchises into the ground until it stops breathing or people stop buying it. They just HAVE TO have a sequel out every fucking year, because obviously CoD 4 has nooooo staying power, obviously... From the staff rap hating on Treyarch at the end of CoD 4, to the beta build version of CoD 4 being called CoD 3, there's clearly bad blood between these two developers. Hell, I even remember that one guy getting pissed because Treyarch fucked up and made bolt action rifles 2 hit kills (10 if you're using the Arisaka). CoD 4's immense popularity was a blessing and a curse for two reasons: 1.) It showed the franchise still had a bright future ahead of it and (and this is the curse part of it) 2.) It gave the series new, casual players who will buy everyhing with CoD on it from now on. This allows shitty developers like Treyarch to pump out carbon copies every other year and have people still buy it...

I should probably end this rant by letting Toma know that there's a big white bar at the bottom of his keyboard that he should hit before starting a new sentence.