User Score
7.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 615 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 73 out of 615

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  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 toNothing'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) Expand
  2. BitBurn
    Feb 1, 2009
    6
    I have never rated a Call of Duty game below a 9 but this time I had no choice. World at War fails on so many levels I am not sure where to begins; the AI is unrealistic, battles are boring and dumb, game is too short. Game feels incomplete.
  3. ChrisW
    Dec 3, 2008
    6
    To me it does feel like an expansion pack for COD 4. I didn't play the single player much, but the multiplayer feels identical to COD 4 with WW2 weapons, and because of the 1940's weaponry the upgrades for them don't seem to belong. The teloscopic and apature sights are copys of the acog and red dot in COD 4. and the prevalence of silencers in a world war 2 game is To me it does feel like an expansion pack for COD 4. I didn't play the single player much, but the multiplayer feels identical to COD 4 with WW2 weapons, and because of the 1940's weaponry the upgrades for them don't seem to belong. The teloscopic and apature sights are copys of the acog and red dot in COD 4. and the prevalence of silencers in a world war 2 game is ridiculus. It seems to me like Tryarch lake the ability or the guts to try anything that varied from the proven COD 4 formula. So if your are like me and already own call of duty 4 there is no reason to buy this game, just keep play COD 4 and spend the money on something else. Expand
  4. BobG.
    Dec 5, 2008
    7
    Sure Call of Duty: World At War is a good game, but Modern Warfare is still better. One of the best reasons for this is because MW is in modern time, which adds more intensity to the players with airstrikes, helicopters, and modern maps, such as Chinatown. I hope Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will be much better than what Treyarch have created.
  5. RalphW.
    Dec 7, 2008
    5
    I love the COD series, but this one is very below average. The things I love were the ore adult approach, some nice sequences to fill in the story, good atmosphere. Things I hated, bad level design and brain dead AI. Often you will see an enemy soldier standing beside your own men neither group firing at each other. Also the triggers to uncover enemies are often so obvious and I love the COD series, but this one is very below average. The things I love were the ore adult approach, some nice sequences to fill in the story, good atmosphere. Things I hated, bad level design and brain dead AI. Often you will see an enemy soldier standing beside your own men neither group firing at each other. Also the triggers to uncover enemies are often so obvious and predictable. Finally the enemies have it in for you you will see the enemy shooting at you from way over the other side of the map even though there are many more logical targets. War seems to only revolve around the user's character. Expand
  6. HuffmanJ.
    Dec 15, 2008
    5
    This game is just trying to milk the fame of CoD4. Only merit I'll give it is it has some good graphics and decent voice acting. Single player depends entirely on scripted events... I can't imagine how the game would handle it if there wasn't an NPC there to hold your hand the entire time. Multiplayer is trash. No innovation, spawning is all messed up (constantly spawning This game is just trying to milk the fame of CoD4. Only merit I'll give it is it has some good graphics and decent voice acting. Single player depends entirely on scripted events... I can't imagine how the game would handle it if there wasn't an NPC there to hold your hand the entire time. Multiplayer is trash. No innovation, spawning is all messed up (constantly spawning on top of each other, with the only exception being search and destroy mode). Terribly disappointing. If you are a long time fan of CoD, FPS's, then don't bother with this trash game. Save your money. Expand
  7. MikeM
    Feb 4, 2009
    7
    I was very impressed by COD:4 Modern Warfare and of course when people started saying that COD:5 World at War was going to be just like COD:4 except in WWII, I thought I should give it a try. They're not even related as far as I'm concerned. The single player is frustratingly difficult even on normal difficulty only because the enemy AI will throw grenades like the war is ending I was very impressed by COD:4 Modern Warfare and of course when people started saying that COD:5 World at War was going to be just like COD:4 except in WWII, I thought I should give it a try. They're not even related as far as I'm concerned. The single player is frustratingly difficult even on normal difficulty only because the enemy AI will throw grenades like the war is ending tomorrow. The first level I played there was one part that took me 14 tries to complete because I had to avoid five grenade blasts every time in a very small area. It's constant, every level after that it's more grenades. More often than not it's not gunfire killing you, it's dogs, grenades, tank-fire or banzai attackers. Treyarch made the game like every Nazi and Japanese soldier was a grenade spamming jerk waiting to get a cheap kill on you. In multiplayer, the weapons are way, way too accurate, you can snipe with a machine gun and even a sub-machine gun can best a rifle at 100 feet. The entire multiplayer system is taken directly from COD:4 except they replaced the helicopter with the excessively broken dog strike. One minute of dogs attacking you, sometimes three at a time, a particularly awful glitch in the programming allows them to attack you through walls, the floor, sandbags and the ceiling. They also have very poor hit detection from bullets and melee. I've seen a dog attack that lasted for 10 minutes because every person on the enemy team had one. Also rank means nothing in multiplayer because some servers will give you 8000 exp per kill, which allows you to max your rank in one game. The single player is bad, the multiplayer is fun most of the time. The graphics are good but what game doesn't have good graphics these days. The voice acting is made up of some of the worst stereotypes I've ever heard and they all speak English, poorly. Seriously, worst stereotypical English voice acting ever. Worth a look if you can get one for free, I wish I would've waited until it hit a more reasonable price of $30 US. Expand
  8. MaxT.
    Jan 27, 2010
    7
    This game overall is pretty short, the campaign which i beat it within a couple of hrs. I didn't really expect the campaign would be that short but i guess they rushed this game to make more money. CoD 4 was a lot longer in campaign but World at War is exactly the same but slightly better in graphics. The only reason I gave this a 7, is because the Nazi Zombie Mode, I think Nazi This game overall is pretty short, the campaign which i beat it within a couple of hrs. I didn't really expect the campaign would be that short but i guess they rushed this game to make more money. CoD 4 was a lot longer in campaign but World at War is exactly the same but slightly better in graphics. The only reason I gave this a 7, is because the Nazi Zombie Mode, I think Nazi Zombie is pretty fun... but its kinda stupid if you get it on Ps3 or XBox, because you need to purchase Extended Maps which is really stupid because they're making more money from us... Right now the price have dropped so i think its OK to get this game. Expand
  9. Dec 30, 2011
    7
    This is very much like an expansion pack to Call of Duty 2 with the same controls, same gameplay, fair graphics and a decent story. The weapons are more difficult to use than in the older COD games. The big owe up: playing skirmish maps with AI bots with the Pezbot mod.
  10. Mar 3, 2012
    7
    Call of Duty 5 is a competent first-person shooter that introduces some fun new features, namely co-op and the flamethrower, however this might not be enough impetus to encourage hardcore online players of other FPSs to take notice.
  11. ResubianM
    Aug 25, 2009
    7
    I had CoD4 for quite a while before I bought this. I bought it because I was sick of CoD4's multiplayer: Crouch with an overly accurate m4 or run and gun with a piss poor accuracy mp5. World at War's guns are a huge refreshment: there are lot's of balanced SMG's to use, rather than just the MP5 and the P90. The round drum attachments are innovative, as well as the I had CoD4 for quite a while before I bought this. I bought it because I was sick of CoD4's multiplayer: Crouch with an overly accurate m4 or run and gun with a piss poor accuracy mp5. World at War's guns are a huge refreshment: there are lot's of balanced SMG's to use, rather than just the MP5 and the P90. The round drum attachments are innovative, as well as the second chance ability. They could have done a better job on vehicles. Another thing that drew me to WaW is the multiplayer maps. They're all absolutely fantastic. On CoD4 I felt like every map was a complete M4 over-balanced spray fest. On WaW, a single person can take out several members of the other team if they use the map to their advantage. Overall, I think Treyarch just wanted to put the best WWII game out there. Obviously, WaW is the best WW2 shooter out there now, and CoD4 is arguably the best modern shooter, so I think they accomplished what they set out to do. I honestly don't like single player on any game, but WaW's SP does get a bit repetitive. Nazi Zombie is an epic win: you'll see when Der Riese comes out for the PC, it's jaw-dropping on the PS3. Expand
  12. Pixelated
    Nov 11, 2008
    5
    Another mediocre and linear WW2 shooter, even more so than the last one. This is the epitome of brainless, mindless, frat boy gaming. Activision really needs to revamp this series as I can hardly imagine a sixth COD. Once again web review sites are quick to sell out and give it a 9/10. Remember when 9 and above were reserved for only the best the genre had to offer? I can't ever Another mediocre and linear WW2 shooter, even more so than the last one. This is the epitome of brainless, mindless, frat boy gaming. Activision really needs to revamp this series as I can hardly imagine a sixth COD. Once again web review sites are quick to sell out and give it a 9/10. Remember when 9 and above were reserved for only the best the genre had to offer? I can't ever think of another time in the history of gaming where 9's and 10's were handed out like candy on Halloween. Journalistic integrity in gaming? Ha, certainly you jest! Reviews are now open to the highest bidder or advertiser. Expand
  13. EnderW.
    Nov 15, 2008
    6
    Single Player review in a nutshell: I want my money back. Buggy with the enmy death animations starting from the standing position sometimes when the enemy is crouched. Enemy also sometimes "Mario" jumps up in the air. Pretty short too. Finished in less than 10 hours. Sound is hit and miss with the weapon sounds. Missions seem unconnected like in CoD1,2,3. And the Russian campaign ends Single Player review in a nutshell: I want my money back. Buggy with the enmy death animations starting from the standing position sometimes when the enemy is crouched. Enemy also sometimes "Mario" jumps up in the air. Pretty short too. Finished in less than 10 hours. Sound is hit and miss with the weapon sounds. Missions seem unconnected like in CoD1,2,3. And the Russian campaign ends the game pretty damn similar to CoD2. Hope the MP is better. Expand
  14. Seb
    Nov 16, 2008
    7
    If your a Call of Duty veteran you won't get many surprises here. A solid addition to the CoD lineup, but nothing spectacular. The single player campaign is fun, albeit short, though seems lacking in comparison to the Call of Duty 4 single player campaign. Multiplayer is hard and at times frustrating. Maps leave a lot to be desired, and many of the weapons are unimpressive. Pros: - If your a Call of Duty veteran you won't get many surprises here. A solid addition to the CoD lineup, but nothing spectacular. The single player campaign is fun, albeit short, though seems lacking in comparison to the Call of Duty 4 single player campaign. Multiplayer is hard and at times frustrating. Maps leave a lot to be desired, and many of the weapons are unimpressive. Pros: - Cinematic campaign. - Co-op campaign. - Excellent graphics. Cons: - Linear, repetitive gameplay. - Multiplayer rather boring and difficult. - Poor multiplayer exasibated by the lack of decent maps. - Unlike Call of Duty 4, the single player campaign does not really play out like a movie. Character depth is essentially non-existent (the Russian side of the campaign is slightly better in this regards, though not by much). Expand
  15. EricM.
    Nov 18, 2008
    5
    Nice graphics and it has the CoD name. This game is extremely scripted to the point where you get killed by instant headshots if you stray 5 seconds from the scripted path. Reminds me of early (2002-2004) fps games where AI was applauded because they "reacted to your actions". You have to guess what the script/game wants you to do next instead of gunning, running and "fun'ning". Nice graphics and it has the CoD name. This game is extremely scripted to the point where you get killed by instant headshots if you stray 5 seconds from the scripted path. Reminds me of early (2002-2004) fps games where AI was applauded because they "reacted to your actions". You have to guess what the script/game wants you to do next instead of gunning, running and "fun'ning". Waste of a potentially interesting campaign (last days of Berlin). No char involvement or story worthy of note. Sad face. Expand
  16. Andres
    Nov 19, 2008
    6
    I really cant see how the game reviewers rated this 9/10. First, the gameplay hasnt evolved at all, tightly scripted game with the ai taking lame shots at each other, waiting for you to do something, so immersion is nonexistent. The gun sounds are truly bad, really bad, i didnt fell anything from shooting.
  17. LesterG.
    Nov 20, 2008
    6
    A solid game but feels like a bad rerun most of the time. If you haven't tried COD1, COD2 & COD3, this game is worth checking out. However, If you've played the previous World War 2 versions of COD, you will not miss much by skipping COD: World At War. It's a nice a graphical upgrade but brings nothing new in terms of overall gameplay and experience, especially compared to A solid game but feels like a bad rerun most of the time. If you haven't tried COD1, COD2 & COD3, this game is worth checking out. However, If you've played the previous World War 2 versions of COD, you will not miss much by skipping COD: World At War. It's a nice a graphical upgrade but brings nothing new in terms of overall gameplay and experience, especially compared to previous World War II versions. Overall, save your money and buy something else. Expand
  18. KevinR.
    Nov 27, 2008
    5
    After being playing Infinity Ward's absolutely spectacular Modern Warfare, I waited with bated breath for the next outing of CoD action. Treyarch's World at War sounded promising indeed - the fact that it's seen as "yet another WW2 FPS" didn't bug me in the least. Then of course, I bought it. It goes without say that WaW doesn't even come close to CoD4 in terms of After being playing Infinity Ward's absolutely spectacular Modern Warfare, I waited with bated breath for the next outing of CoD action. Treyarch's World at War sounded promising indeed - the fact that it's seen as "yet another WW2 FPS" didn't bug me in the least. Then of course, I bought it. It goes without say that WaW doesn't even come close to CoD4 in terms of story, depth, emotion and atmosphere. Halfway through WaW I didn't have one OMG moment...whereas with CoD4, I had about five within in the first half hour. The graphics are stunning - make no mistake. But, like the godawful Crysis proved, graphics don't make a game. World at War is insanely buggy for a major release, has some of the dumbest AI in recent history, the sound effects are weak and musical score is anachronistic: Electric guitar riffs? 1940's? Well done Treyarch. Also, some the conflict situations are so overly populated, busy and chaotic - not "intense" or "realistic" - chaotic. I like the design of the loading screens between missions - I don't like the "getting pulled to safety by your friend" bit. A shameless ripoff of CoD4. Don't worry Infinity Ward, these bozos at Treyarch never came close. See you boys in CoD6! Expand
  19. TerryB.
    Dec 2, 2008
    5
    Call of Duty was the first WWII Shooter I Loved (PC). Call of Duty 2 was the first WWII Shooter I adored(PC). Call of Duty 3 was awkward (Wii). Call of Duty 4 was a masterpiece(PC). Call of Duty 5 was a miss. Don't get me wrong, I like the game; but the fact of the matter is there is a lot missing in this game. 1. The weaponry sounds should have been taken from CoD2. The only guns Call of Duty was the first WWII Shooter I Loved (PC). Call of Duty 2 was the first WWII Shooter I adored(PC). Call of Duty 3 was awkward (Wii). Call of Duty 4 was a masterpiece(PC). Call of Duty 5 was a miss. Don't get me wrong, I like the game; but the fact of the matter is there is a lot missing in this game. 1. The weaponry sounds should have been taken from CoD2. The only guns that packed a 1940's punch was the trench gun and the sawed off shotty. Shooting a gun is a violent event; thus it should be violently portrayed. The best game that demonstrates my point is Medal of Honor Airborne. Put those guns in this game and consider my Review a 5+1. 2. Unlike CoD4, the sequel has no tutorial at the start so you just jump right in. Problem is the gun drops/placement sucks. For the first Japanese missions you have a horrible assortment of weapons to choose from. (Literally the WORST guns in the game. What I can't understand is how they expect your an experienced player from the start without a tutorial and yet they don't let you use any weaponry you want. I know they design it to create a "learning curve" but most players who are buying the game just want to see awesome, visual effects and guns. Oh, and Nazi's. 3. Shortest CoD I've ever played. Clocked 3 hours play time. I was a bit disappointed in it's length. Then I started thinking, "How much milk can a person get from a cow?" The WWII cow has ran dry. 4. The Graphics are on par with any game of last year. It's not a small feat but for a company that has an engine to start with I was not impressed. Ok, I'm a negative nelly. But there some good points. The mele knife was fun and visually stunning. All the levels were enjoyable and intense. The storyline was engaging enough to not be too boring. All in all a good game. Personally I regret purchasing this game. I recommend it as a console rental over a pc purchase. Expand
  20. TerryD
    Dec 19, 2008
    6
    Great COD intensity, but questionable AI and way to short - a bit criminal, really. And the weapons are way to accurate - you can use a machine gun to effectively snipe? Don't think so. And by the way, WWII is done, over, kaput. OK. Geez. Talk about beating a dead horse.
  21. RossL
    Dec 27, 2008
    5
    My biggest complaint - the AI. This game has taken the psychic, uber-aiming tanks and snipers of the crysis games and combined them with endless rip offs of things infinity ward did better. When you come to the sections where you meet the clairvoyant sniper, you may just give up on the game. Its not rewarding enough to be worth the boring repeat of this level until finally the sniper cant My biggest complaint - the AI. This game has taken the psychic, uber-aiming tanks and snipers of the crysis games and combined them with endless rip offs of things infinity ward did better. When you come to the sections where you meet the clairvoyant sniper, you may just give up on the game. Its not rewarding enough to be worth the boring repeat of this level until finally the sniper cant see you through walls, shoulder his weapon and pick up a headshot in the same time it takes you to hit the "steady rifle" button. AI this bad truly should have died back in the 90's. Yet another game where the reviewers are on the payroll of the company - add treyarch to EA and ubisoft on the list of bribers. Expand
  22. AndrewF
    Jan 14, 2009
    7
    I'm finding a bit hard to say some really good things about this game, it just feels a bit lack lustre compared to COD 4. Maybe that
  23. GabrielK.
    Feb 18, 2009
    7
    This game has too many weak points to score high and the first thing you will notice is the hard difficulty to advance through the levels in the campaign, the enemy AI lauch so many grenades that you can even breath one second to see what is going on around you. With luck and if you die about 20 times maybe you can advance through the next level. Not to mention the banzai attackers who This game has too many weak points to score high and the first thing you will notice is the hard difficulty to advance through the levels in the campaign, the enemy AI lauch so many grenades that you can even breath one second to see what is going on around you. With luck and if you die about 20 times maybe you can advance through the next level. Not to mention the banzai attackers who only stab you at any time and you can barely see where are they hiding. But all this is just a few things of what is wrong with this game. The campaign is too short, and many of the missions are boring like others call of duty that I played before. For sure and I think for the most people the best is Call of Duty 4. But if you want a FPS with only good graphics but with bad gameplay, and you have the patience too die many times and keep trying, well maybe this is the game for you. Expand
  24. IlikeHam
    Feb 22, 2009
    6
    This game is overall OK. Nothing new... just another one of those world war 2 games... it uses Cod4's layout as it's backboard, and does a terrible job.... Don't get me wrong.. its always fun lighting people on fire, but the game itself isn't that interesting. They coulve and shoul've done better. The zombie survival little extra stuff was really good tho! i had a This game is overall OK. Nothing new... just another one of those world war 2 games... it uses Cod4's layout as it's backboard, and does a terrible job.... Don't get me wrong.. its always fun lighting people on fire, but the game itself isn't that interesting. They coulve and shoul've done better. The zombie survival little extra stuff was really good tho! i had a blast inviting somefriends and playing that! IN THE END, the game lies under the shadow of Cod4. Expand
  25. SebsT.
    Feb 23, 2009
    6
    When i first got this game, my friends told me how good it was after only a week of it being out. So i bought it. It was fun at first but after i played campaign online blah blah blah. It was REALLY fricken boring. I thought the campaign sucked. It was undeveloped just go and shoot no real reason ect. Now if i still had that 60 bucks and didnt use it and i KNEW how bad it was going to be When i first got this game, my friends told me how good it was after only a week of it being out. So i bought it. It was fun at first but after i played campaign online blah blah blah. It was REALLY fricken boring. I thought the campaign sucked. It was undeveloped just go and shoot no real reason ect. Now if i still had that 60 bucks and didnt use it and i KNEW how bad it was going to be i would of bought call of duty 4 Modern Warfare. The missions in that are developed, you know whats happening, and its not just point and shoot. In C.O.D Waw theres only 1 mission where you use a sniper. And only use it for about oh lets say 5 minutes through pretty much they whole game. Now in C.O.D. 4 theres 2 missions where you use sniper. And you MUST be sneaky. Now i like stealth games and C.O.D. 4 is a combination. Overall i think cod 4 is the better buy personally. Expand
  26. scotts
    Mar 26, 2009
    6
    Multi-player is like CoD4, but the guns not as satisfying.. more of a mod than a new game. Single-player is OK, the shock that the game tries so desperately hard to achieve falls flat. The game is nowhere near as entertaining nor the story line as deep as CoD4. SP is a disappointing experience, even in co-op.
  27. EdgarsL
    May 12, 2009
    5
    Unfortunately, there can be competition between Treyarch and Infinity Ward - the latter is clearly a victor as far as the Call of Duty franchise is concerned. What doesn't help World at War is the constantly nagging feeling this is a merely a high-profile knock-off of the 2007 iteration.
  28. AlexN
    Dec 3, 2009
    5
    Two words come to mind when describing World At War: mediocre & uninspired. The past several Call of Duty games on the PC have had more than their fair share of thrills and innovations, but this installment just feels flat compared to the others. The single player campaign has incredible production values and presentation, but its really nothing new. More of the same trenches, more of the Two words come to mind when describing World At War: mediocre & uninspired. The past several Call of Duty games on the PC have had more than their fair share of thrills and innovations, but this installment just feels flat compared to the others. The single player campaign has incredible production values and presentation, but its really nothing new. More of the same trenches, more of the same counter attacks, etc. Only now we havevoice over by Keifer Sutherland that is so intense and serious that it is practically a parody of itself. Anyone who played CoD 4 should be familiar with the multiplayer aspect offered in WaW: gain experience, unlock perks and new weapons etc. However, the maps, while beautiful, are poorly designed, uneven and lead to ridiculously one sided matches where one team dominates and pummels the other, often before the even properly spawn. The multiplayer and Coop modes and fun for a while (notably Nazi Zombies mode) but it wears off fast, unless you have someone to share it with. Expand
  29. Nov 25, 2010
    5
    Call of Duty: World at War features a tired story. world war 2 has been done to death. Nazi zombies will be what most people play for and nothing else. not a good followup to Modern Warfare at all.
  30. Apr 4, 2011
    5
    Almost exact port to WW2 of CoD 4 MW.
    Good effort for the single player. Despite the 'on-the-rails' gameplay - it is the nature of CoD games...
    Multi-player is let down by the weapons - you can pick whatever you want...and even more by the add-ons - same as in Cod 4 only gnarled a bit to look like 1940s. Some model animation is outright silly - running for example - fail on both sound and
    Almost exact port to WW2 of CoD 4 MW.
    Good effort for the single player. Despite the 'on-the-rails' gameplay - it is the nature of CoD games...
    Multi-player is let down by the weapons - you can pick whatever you want...and even more by the add-ons - same as in Cod 4 only gnarled a bit to look like 1940s.
    Some model animation is outright silly - running for example - fail on both sound and animation.
    Some nice maps.
    Tanks.
    CoD UO is better.
    Expand
  31. Nov 8, 2011
    7
    I am so torn when it comes to this game. I had some amazing experiences with it, and some terrible ones. Multiplayer was extremely fun, with the majority of maps being balanced and pleasing to the eye. Much more suited to smaller LAN parties than rammed 30+ player on-line games. The Zombie mode was amazing beyond words, and it's a shame most people have moved over to Black Ops zombies, asI am so torn when it comes to this game. I had some amazing experiences with it, and some terrible ones. Multiplayer was extremely fun, with the majority of maps being balanced and pleasing to the eye. Much more suited to smaller LAN parties than rammed 30+ player on-line games. The Zombie mode was amazing beyond words, and it's a shame most people have moved over to Black Ops zombies, as the mods, custom levels and community within this mode was perfect. The Single Player / Co-Op campaign is what lets this game down. It's hard to place your finger on exactly what you don't like, but it just doesn't feel like a Call of Duty title. More like a free-to-play game, with regards to maps, animations, and storyline. Saved from a yellow score, because it felt good to have my bolt-action rifle back again! Expand
  32. May 14, 2012
    5
    Call of Duty World at War is the worst COD game ever made. But, It haves some cool extras, but I couldn't find the fun about the single player. The Nazi Zombies are a really great extra, so I decided to rate it 5 points. The graphics are well. SO the game is a disappointed, but it really addicted me with the Nazi Zombies. (5.5)
  33. Nov 13, 2013
    7
    Call of Duty 5 World at War seems as it is the whole Call of Duty series before Modern Warfare combined! Call of Duty World at War's campaign was nothing special, but Zombies picked up the spot when they showed us round based survival! Multiplayer is very fun but unfortunately, hackers are all over multiplayer. I am giving a 7.3 because I thought that this game was not a "CoD Classic" butCall of Duty 5 World at War seems as it is the whole Call of Duty series before Modern Warfare combined! Call of Duty World at War's campaign was nothing special, but Zombies picked up the spot when they showed us round based survival! Multiplayer is very fun but unfortunately, hackers are all over multiplayer. I am giving a 7.3 because I thought that this game was not a "CoD Classic" but more of a expansion pack for CoD 2 and maybe CoD 3. Expand
  34. Dec 25, 2013
    7
    I can't notice any changes or improvements in this Treyarch product compared to that of my favorite Infinity Ward. Apart from stunning graphics and bloody scenes aiming to truly describe the cruelty and horror of war, single campaign appears to be quite meaningless and, therefore, boring. With literally no story or plot, World At War is full of nothing but never-stop-shooting actions. ForI can't notice any changes or improvements in this Treyarch product compared to that of my favorite Infinity Ward. Apart from stunning graphics and bloody scenes aiming to truly describe the cruelty and horror of war, single campaign appears to be quite meaningless and, therefore, boring. With literally no story or plot, World At War is full of nothing but never-stop-shooting actions. For i greatly enjoy FPS games with good stories such as Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare trilogy and Brothers In Arms, Call Of Duty World At War is, for the most part, not impressive. Expand
  35. Jun 15, 2014
    7
    Best game in whole Call of Duty Series, I love the story and it just a good experience. Sorry for the short review, there is just not much else to say about the game.
  36. Dec 19, 2014
    7
    World at War has an excellent campaign and a moderate multiplayer. The single player is immersive and engaging. Here is my breakdown:

    1. Graphics: 7/10 - not too shabby, well optimized
    2. Gameplay: 5/10 - plays like the original Modern Warfare
    3. Story: 8/10 - interesting, immersive experience as if player were in WW2
    4. Multiplayer: 4/10 - similar to the first MW

    Overall, great game.
  37. Jul 25, 2015
    7
    qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
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. 92
    This is a solid, confident shooter with plenty to offer the casual and hardcore alike.
  3. Overall the game feels a bit short but is not only a very tasty bit of eye candy, and a treat for the ears as well, but a briskly paced action-adventure that should please fans of WWII first-person shooters.