Call of Duty: World at War is the fifth major Call of Duty game in the World War II franchise by Treyarch. Which, we can't even call it a World War II franchise now, as Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare brought us a, well, more modern look. I'm an XBOX man myself, and therefor most of the games I buy are for the XBOX. Based on the game (if it's bound to the PS3, or if all the people I know who are buying it are buying it for the PS3), I will decide which console suits it best.The Premise:
Yes, I said "The Premise", as the plot is not... well there is no plot. The campaign comprises of you taking the role of (A.) A Russian soldier named Dimitri Petrenko, (B.) U.S. Private Miller, or (C.) For one mission, "Black Cats", you are Petty Officer Locke. How about I just finish this paragraph off, here's the storyline: "I'M IN A SQUADRON, GOING PLACES! KILL SHIT! GOT IT!" That's the storyline. "KILL SHIT!" That's the storyline. But the Multiplayer is the game, really. In fact...
Multiplayer -- Cons
Bullshit. That's a con! Shuttup! It has enough bullshit to just call it a con. It's got retarded respawn points and stupidly sized maps and retarded respawn points and horribly designed maps where it's super small and you can't NOT get spawnkilled. That run-on sentence + the double negative + the repeated statements wasn't as retarded as the content design of this game.
SIZE: SMALL
VEHICLES: NO
SO DON'T FUCKING USE IT IN TEAM DEATHMATCH, FUCKTARD TREYARCH!
Multiplayer -- Pros
It's still fun, of course. Just a little anger inducing, that's all. The Flamethrower being included is a good plus, and the use of Dogs in multiplayer is definately an added plus for you, Treyarch. Not much to add to this, nothing really "Pro" worthy, because it's all the same as Call of Duty 4. Even without the modern guns, it's the same thing, really. Not much of a change. Still, fun!


