Did Treyarch's CoD Really Beat Infinity Ward's CoD?
After the spectacular Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare last year, few believed Treyarch could even approach that greatness with Call of Duty: World at War, let alone surpass it. But one of the first reviews out there claims that - against all odds - the latest CoD is actually the best.
The review in question that's getting plenty of attention across the Internet comes from PSW magazine, which says that Treyarch's effort has indeed surpassed Infinity Ward's. Here's a direct quote from the PSW blog:
"Modern Warfare was pretty much the best game on PS3 for the last year, it's online gameplay kept Deano, in particular, playing for months. So to hold the position that it's sequel, World At War is a better game, is surely to stir up some controversy. That's right, Treyarch has toppled Infinity Ward."
Now, in comparison, IGN awarded the game a 9.2, which is of course quite high, and the average critical score seems to hover right around 9. GameDaily only gave it a 8.0, though, and 1Up went even lower with a 7.5, and you would never see such scores for Modern Warfare. But we've heard whispers of other sources that are claiming World at War is the better shooter and at the very least, Treyarch has worked to bring the WWII FPS back into the limelight. The developer has said, time and time again, that they have to deliver the best WWII shooter ever to compete favorably with CoD4, and they seem to have done just that.
But is it better? Who out there has now played both, and would like to weigh in with their thoughts?
Related Game(s): Call of Duty: World at War
11/12/2008 Ben Dutka