Metascore
74

Mixed or average reviews - based on 11 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 11
  2. Negative: 0 out of 11

There are no positive critic reviews yet.

User Score
3.9

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 1456 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 84 out of 398
  1. Nov 13, 2012
    5
    Absolutely nothing new, if you would update World at War's graphics, you could not tell which one is the 5 years older game. And speaking of graphics, they seem strangely bad for a "triple A" game, i kept getting vibes of "console port" and "outdated engine"
    Single player is defined by the word Boring. I did not even want to play the optional "RTS"-style defense missions after the first mandatory one.
    Full Review »
  2. Nov 13, 2012
    1
    This game is just awful. I really wanted to get into it, but I just couldn't. It's the same tired formula they used in black ops, and it's even less enjoyable than mw3. The single player campaign is awful, the game gives you auto-aim, so you don't even have to try when playing, and it still uses the same engine it's been using for so many years now. Call of Duty has essentially been turned into a $100 per year subscription service. If you value the video game industry and are tired of being taken advantage of, stop giving in and play games that are actually GOOD for a change. Full Review »
  3. Nov 13, 2012
    1
    no inovation in this game - copie of DLC of BO1. MP classment very crazy. DX11 - where is this used? No dedicated server. its more jump & run as shooter Full Review »