People who kow me well know that I thought World at War was an amazing game. Same with Modern Warfare 2, they're both good in their own way.
My reasoning for this is because:
World at War had gore. Call me creepy or whatnot, but I enjoy watching the human body being ripped to shreds. I often wonder what happens when a body is hit with said amount of force and what injuries would occour, which is why I tend to watch shows like Dr. G and trauma shows.
In my opinion, it was the gore that made World at War a great game, because no other Call of Duty had even attempted that, and here we are with this dark, violent and bloody mess of a game where you can blow a guy's head off with a shotgun. To me, it's one of the most accurate depictions of World War 2. Not to say the multiplayer is accurate (because it's not supposed to be) but the singleplayer is great and will keep me amused.
Now, on to points people commonly make about Treyarch:
- Treyarch sucks.
No they don't. They've made plently more games than IW (Grey Matter made UO, who renamed themselves Treyarch IIRC) and know how to tell a good story without sacrificing anything.
- Treyarch released a buggy game
They fixed those bugs and glitches a long time ago. What they didn't find in the beta players informed them of and they were fixed in a few days.
- IW is better than Treyarch because Treyarch made a WW2 game
Alright, another WW2 game. Cry some moar, if you don't like it, don't complain about it. I for one find WW2 to be an interesting period, as is evident by my collection of WW2 games and my two Axis and Allies board games. If you don't like WW2, may as well just leave now and forever hold thy tongue in commenting.
- IW is better because they made a Modern Warfare
I'll give you that, they did advance CoD in a new direction. But the minute they took they Call of Duty moniker off of the MW2 box, my faith in them fell to the Grand Canyon and never got back up. Modern Warfare is nothing new. In fact, I'd say America's Army is the best representation of real war than both Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2. Yes, AA's graphics aren't pretty, but would you rather have an enemy that is on the same slope as you than a guy that can knife you from across the map?
In fact, this is really the only point I need to address. They could have done so much with MW2. But they didn't. Leaving those hackers with screwed-up scores on the leaderboards, stopping PC palyers from creating real servers and not releasing a beta are among IW's faults with MW2. I was thinking of getting MW2 on the PC until I heard about no dedicated servers and only "IWNet" would be allowed. Guess what? IWNET SUCKS. Beta, in my opinion, is needed because it gives YOU (the creator) feedback and satisfies the public's thirst for a highly anticipated game.
Final summary: MW2 is good in it's own way, but it does have it's faults. World at War...to me, should have gotten Game of the Year when it came out. (if I'm wrong on this, somebody tell me) Why? WaW is amazing, has a plausible storyline and is ACCURATE. Something most WW2 games aren't capable of. MW2's storyline sounds like something IW took from a rejected Tom Clancy book.
If you're going to just tell me i'm a prick or something similar, stop reading this right now, get up and break your MW2 CD in half. Then vow to never buy another Call of Duty game again. /joke