Seconded only by the first Modern Warfare, World At War is one of my favorite CODs in terms of presentation. It doesn't have as tight of a plot like MW but instead opts for tracing select battles from both theaters of WWII.
The reason why the campaign feels more than just a super-cut of random stages is because of how it side-steps being a marine on the pacific front to an infantryman pushing back towards Berlin. One mission you'd be a marine struggling with an enemy who won't give an inch with bloodshot eyes, right after you'd be the bloodshot soldier fighting toe and nail in the soviet half. It is COD's final letter to the WW era, it acts the struggle, the cruelty, the necessary, and it does so without further comment. You don't need to read an Eisenhower quote after dying to understand why this man-grinder is bad.

Gameplay somewhat varies between playing the Soviet or American soldier. The American storyline is an island hopping arc of pushing back and reclaiming Japanese occupied strongholds. The Japanese are a relentless enemy, ambushing you from hatches and tall grass, sniping from treetops and charging banzai, you will however show cruelty in return by wielding flamethrowers that obliterate ditches and flora alike.
The Soviet storyline starts with brushing close against death in Stalingrad and stumbling upon Reznov whom you accompany in completing his assignment, then you meet him again during the Soviet counterattack all the way to Berlin, here you see the bigger part of unnecessary (Or necessary?) cruelty driven by a desire of revenge.

Difficulty wise the Pacific missions were more frustrating, with worse checkpoints, more gotcha ambushes, clown car spawns and more. This was played on 2nd hardest difficulty, but I wouldn't recommend as it's not a challenge but a tug of war between you and the levels.

I guess I could say that COD is better when it's quieter and less talky.

Remake discourse has been tiring but this was such an incredible remake that it has to revive the conversation again. I'd argue that the gen 8/9 games that got remade in the recent remake resurgence have different philosophies on how a game can be remade, this falls between the recent Dead Space and FF7R in how it's incredibly faithful while changing and recontextualizing some of it's events.
I actually didn't really want them to change how some of the story elements are presented, but I didn't mind them in the end. I feel like there were no casualties aside from maybe Ada and Ramon, in fact I kind of loved the new Luis and Ashley.
The gameplay blueprint is practically the same which makes the remake practically as engaging as the OG although different in how it feels. People have criticized the new knife mechanics but it really falls in line with how the gasoline/crimson red system worked in REmake, if you liked that system then it makes absolutely no sense you'd hate the knife durability. The most mind boggling change thus far is the stealth which is easily ignored, but it's an option nonetheless if you wanna clear 2-3 enemies before eventually getting caught.
All in all it's a very good reimagined RE4, and I'm gonna be okay with it as long as I'll still have the original available unless Capcom decides to treat this as the replacement.