Metascore
83

Generally favorable reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 36
  2. Negative: 0 out of 36
  1. Treyarch came back this year with an excellent addition to the franchise. Many gamers may look at this game with an "I've been there, done that" attitude. I am here to tell you that this is the best WWII effort so far, as well as the best game in the franchise.
  2. Call of Duty World at War is an amazingly fun and addictive game all around. You couldn’t ask for a better FPS value.
  3. 92
    This is a solid, confident shooter with plenty to offer the casual and hardcore alike.
  4. The game is definitely an incremental step forward for the series, and not a revolutionary one.
  5. All in all World at War delivers. It isn’t a revolution in Call of Duty gaming, but neither is it a step backwards, like some have claimed. Right now, it’s the best WWII shooter we’ve played, largely because it’s got a solid (if unoriginal) single player, some spectacular multiplayer, and oh yeah: because it’s brutal as hell.
  6. A stunning game that doesn't miss a beat from start to finish and includes one of the most feature packed multiplayer components of any game released this year.
  7. The single-player campaign involves a riveting and emotional story, and the inclusion of co-op is fantastic. The game itself however is heavily weighted towards multiplayer, as was its predecessor.
  8. Overall Call of Duty World at War is a great game with some great ideas, but it feels too familiar to be a real must have title.
  9. Perhaps the guys at Treyarch haven't surpassed its predecessor's bar, but it really was too high. Nevertheless, this does not mean Call of Duty: World at War is not a very good game, it is indeed one of the best of its genre, and no shooter fan should miss it.
  10. 90
    It's certainly not the bar-raiser that "Modern Combat" was, especially in the solo campaigns. But with the new co-op play and the rest of the multiplayer content, World of War turns out to be an extremely entertaining and faithful addition to the Call of Duty family.
  11. 90
    The single-player isn't as compelling as Modern Warfare but it's still worth playing nonetheless; the best part though is that there's a deep and satisfying multiplayer component waiting for you when you're done.
  12. A bit of an odd duck. It combines the new, successful multiplayer system of Modern Warfare with the old, familiar setting of World War II. Though WWII games are a dime a dozen, Call of Duty is still at the top for a reason. The campaign is varied and exciting, and can be played with up to three friends.
  13. World at War finally gives us a reason to visit the Pacific Theater with its fun cooperative and multiplayer modes. But the “been there, done that” single-player missions and overall derivative tone keep this very good game from achieving the greatness of its predecessor. [Jan 2009, p.64]
  14. World at War is a great new entry in the epic saga. The new Call of Duty just misses the inspiration that Infinity Ward brings to every project, and which Treyarch still aspires to. This new game offers everything we were waiting for, and has better value in its co-op campaign.
  15. 87
    Although World at War too often feels like a refit, it’s a refit of one of the greatest games of the current generation - and one that’s, by and large, been confidently handled by Treyarch.
User Score
7.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 539 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 70 out of 114
  2. Negative: 22 out of 114
  1. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    Nothing's new in "Call of Duty: World at War". The controls will be familiar to you if you play for like 5 minutes, but the muddy dark textures won't. The difficulty changes too much and too often. The multiplayer servers are emptier than a starving man's stomach. The only thing that enlightens me is the new zombie mode. It's enjoyable and well rounded. Overall there's not much to compliment about the product, but if you're a COD fan...buy it? (I guess) Full Review »
  2. Aug 23, 2010
    4
    While an okay game, it tries too hard to be like Modern Warfare. For example, they attempt to create WW2 versions of most Modern Warfare killstreaks. Recon Planes replace UAV for example. The campaign was indded pretty good but I found that the enemy AI was lacking in their actions. Why would a Japanese soldier attempting to stab Americans with his bayonet run padt the 3 or so guys in front of em and attack me?! I'm only a regular soldier after all. Enemies focus on you too much. Another poor design choice was the decision to make grenades come out and try to kill you without being thrown form soemone if you stand in place to long. It just gets really annoying. I do enjoy the new weapons they put in such as the Flamethrower though. The multiplayer is a severe disappointment because it attempts to copy MW but the weapons don't feel right. Since when was a WW2 era SMG as accurate as a modern day Assault Rifle? The best part of the game is no doubt the Nazi Zombies. It's an interesting game where you get attacked by Nazi Zombies who have a crappy backstory. Honestly, it wasn't fun alone because I would always get overwhelmed. There should be bots that are able to play with you in case you can't go online because when you do Nazi Zombies Co Op and have good team mates is when Nazi Zombies really shine because it becomes very fun. Overall though, the online multiplayer and co op really aren't fun because even in the middle of the day at the most there will be 6 or 7 multiplayer servers but only some of them will actually have people playign in them. Co Op servers are even more rare with usually about 2 or 3 of them with them often full. The game is okay but NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, compared to MW or MW2. Treyarch needs to be original instead of trying to use the success of MW to help them sell the game. Din't believe the game box, this game isn't AT ALL "War liek you've never experienced it before". Full Review »
  3. Mar 18, 2014
    10
    The game is now dead but it was very fun while it lasted.To bad though I got it around the release of MW3 (that HORRIBLE game) so I couldn't really find any matches for Zombies or coop campaign. The multiplayer is still active because of its quite amazing search (Used also in BO) for it. The zombies mode is still though somewhat active just it has mostly players (1-2/1-3) playing on modded maps/custom maps. The game is quite a nice game if you compare it to all their newer games.

    I miss this great series that had a few easter eggs and few ways to get to places. I do not hate BO but I do hate BOII for the overloaded repetitive insane amount of easter eggs that are basically essential for living in zombies mode.

    The multiplayer is quite ok and it is one of the last remaining good multiplayer CoD's along with CoD 4 (I personally don't really like cod 4) and maybe BO.

    The campaign mode is quite amazing since well you don't have a huge amount to work with since it was based in WWII and you had no real main ways other then boats and stuff to get places.

    I really do enjoy the zombies mode and I really do enjoy that it has coop which if you look at it no other CoD has (I am 95% sure). The zombies mode is quite refreshing since it never goes the same way since 95% of the time the people you play with have 200-400 ping and they don't speak English and they are 10-12 and have no idea how to play.

    Over all I give this game a 10 even though in reality I would give it a 9 (just to balance out the 69 trolls).
    Full Review »