World at War is a great addition to a fantastic series and proves that Treyarch can make great war games as well.
Call of Duty has once again returned to world war 2, though this time it's partly set to the fight against the Japanese in the southeast. I won't call it a new take on a war game, but it's quite fresh for a CoD game. It's also a lot bloodier than previous games in the series, and it feels fitting for a game grittier and darker than other war games on the market. The overall presentation is awesome with Kiefer Sutherland briefing you on the American missions alongside seeing real war footage and war statistics. This makes for the best presentation in a Call of Duty game to date.
World at War looks great. It uses the same engine as Modern Warfare, and it still holds up quite well. It can't compete with Gears of War or the latest Killzone 2, but it doesn't stand in the way for enjoying the game. The sound is just brilliant though. Sound effects comes at you hundreds at a time, and it's all so chaotic it's exhausting.
The game isn't particularly long, and the multiplayer is much the same as in Modern Warfare. It's just wrong to say that a game is horrible just because it's not as good as its prequel. The game is very entertaining, and manages to stand up with its own feel and identity in the Call of Duty series. Some missions are a lot better than others, and neither the A.I. nor set pieces are very impressive. But the game has its fair share of good things like the weapons for example, allthough having shot with a Thompson a hundred times before, it has never felt this good. And one of the things the game actually does better than its superior prequel is the change in controlling factions. Here you switch between controlling an American and Russian soldier, and they feel very different being set in the pacific and in the middle of Berlin.
World at War is definitely worth playing and plays better thn most war games out there.