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 567 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 74 out of 118
  2. Negative: 22 out of 118
  1. GustavoF.
    Feb 1, 2010
    10
    The big deal about this game was: Modern Warfare made gamers so spoiled about Call of Duty series that if a game on FPS genre isn't The big deal about this game was: Modern Warfare made gamers so spoiled about Call of Duty series that if a game on FPS genre isn't hardcore ground-breaking, it's called "mediocre". What? Big Red One was mediocre. Finest Hour was mediocre. NDS versions are mediocre. World at War is a great game. But how much can you improve over WWII? You can't lie on history. Most people can't even describe what else they were expecting from this title. Just stick with Modern Warfare's if you like, the world is big enough for everyone. Full Review »
  2. Alex
    Nov 11, 2008
    10
    This game doesn't deserve so much criticism JUST because it goes back to the WWII theme. There have been hundreds of games about WWII This game doesn't deserve so much criticism JUST because it goes back to the WWII theme. There have been hundreds of games about WWII and even the BIA HH is also WWII theme and nobody complains about it. I think it has fantastic graphics, unbelievable sound and atmosphere. I have voted a bit higher than I would have just to equal out a bit other users bad votes. My real objective vote would have been a 9. This is just my opinion but I respect others. Full Review »
  3. 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 darkNothing'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 »