Call of Duty: World at War PC
Metascore
83 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 36
  2. Mixed: 5 out of 36
  3. Negative: 0 out of 36
view
per page
  1. 3DJuegos
    88
    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.
  2. BigPond GameArena
    90
    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.
  3. Cheat Code Central
    96
    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.
  4. Game Chronicles
    96
    Call of Duty World at War is an amazingly fun and addictive game all around. You couldn’t ask for a better FPS value.
  5. Game Informer
    88
    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]
    All this publication's reviews
  6. Gameplanet
    90
    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.
  7. GamePro
    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.
  8. GameSpy
    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.
  9. GamesRadar
    90
    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.
  10. GamingExcellence
    89
    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.
  11. GamingTrend
    91
    The game is definitely an incremental step forward for the series, and not a revolutionary one.
  12. IGN
    92
    This is a solid, confident shooter with plenty to offer the casual and hardcore alike.
  13. IGN UK
    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.
  14. Vandal Online
    90
    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.
  15. VideoGamer
    90
    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.

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
7.2 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 424 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 57 out of 101
  2. Mixed: 22 out of 101
  3. Negative: 22 out of 101
  1. grandpajoe6191
    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. MegaGamer37
    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. GustavoF.
    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 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 »
See all user reviews »