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)… Expand

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.… Expand

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.… Expand

This is an excellent game - by far the best World War II shooter ever developed - brutal, chaotic, and bloody - and is rivaled only by Modern Warfare (which it admittedly derives heavily from) for the franchise's top spot.

Not a bad game at all. There are many map packs/patches now all for free. I spent over 200hrs on multiplayer and to me is more enjoyable than CoD4 multiplayer. This game isn't as much as a noob game as CoD4. You knife slower in succession, can't jump continually, reload slower, etc.

This is absolutely an amazing game experience for the PC gaming. the online play is fantastic and the zombie mode adds a new quality to the call of duty warfare. Best game of 2008!

I was blown away about the story line, but like always graphics need some tweaking and some glitches here there but all in all as a game review before games come out i can bet there will be huge improvement! A must buy!

I'd have to say the guy who said HATE IT is just retarded. I got mine with the same deal and it was pre-loading because of an update. But otherwise I love the Game. I am a WWII addict and this quenches my thirst for some heavy FPS WWII style action. And with the added Nazi Zombies, it also quenches my thirst for realiztic zombie survival. Top Notch EA ^_^

Not half Bad.... Overly Manic, and almost the same as COD4 (but with different uniforms and weapons obviously) Graphics are Stunning, Missions ok, gameplay Brutal (Love the Bayonet attack, and the Flamethrower is fun) few graphics glitches, such as Sniper's Gun hangs out in thin air when you kill one in the trees..but this a small problem. I have to say though, that BIAHH is my favourite of the two, But glad I got COD5, But cant see me playing it twice… Expand

I got to admit, I bought this game on steam on a weekend sale for 25 dollars. Not even a month past, the game was on pre-load mode from Steam. I tried to delete the local content and play again, but when i deleted the content, it was removed from my game list. STEAM SOLVE THIS RIGHT NOW OR I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MY FREAKING REFUND!!

One of the best World War 2 shooters Ive ever played. The battles are great because your not storming Normandy for the seven millionth time. There are Russian missions however these feel more darker and more brutal from previous games.

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

I gave this game a 8 when it first come out beacuse the variaty of things that you can do as tactical and solo or driving a tank or shooting I'm a hardcored team player I love to play as team I don't play any other mode and now I give the game a solid 5 they took the tank out of the only game mode that I like to play beacuse winers that doesn't know how to play and organize with teammeates to take control of a battel as a team the tank was a major plus it give the game that edge to figth now what we have is a regular boring shooter with the same thing camp or no strategy what's so ever only guns and a freeking quiet level with out dogeing tank rounds and explosion what happend I'm a level 57 in the world in hardcord with 26 days in the game and a red star all of it playing fare and square figthing and enjoying what this game has to offer but now total dissapointment I want the tanks back I purshes this game beacause it was difrent ,dont pay attention of whyners that the only sole pourpes is to mess up a good game .… Expand

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

So far its awesome. I love the gameplay, I loved call of duty 4s engine, I love the coop, this game is where its at as far as FPS. One thing, the reason i didnt give it a 10.. Too many WW2 games already. Lets let it rest. Be creative!

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

Run and gun, tired and just about everything this tries has been seen before, and has been accomplished better in some other title. This one is Buggy, couple that with poor support, predictable and linear single player action with lousy AI, boring coop play, and mindless worn out multiplayer game types and features means unless you need the frequent flier points you earn for charging this game you should save your money, you've already played this dud, you just don't realize it yet.… Expand

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.

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.

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

WaW is the best WW2 game i've played yet, i like the choices in weapons with the attachments (also discovered that the japanese had this thing for bayonets on thier weapons :D) I really like the idea of the flamethrower, its very fun in multiplayer, and also the perks are tailored to actually make sense in the WW2 world, and unlike what SJT-Ruler said about "Experienced gamers will die over and over again," which is a complete lie... i'm a very experienced gamer and i play very well, i just think that SJT is a terrible gamer and won't admit it. But i've played this game and would recommend it to my friends and others to buy.… Expand

COD4 Reskinned. Absolutely no effort to make this either an original or a WW2 game. No tactical multiplayer possibilities due to players being able to use any weapon they want, irregardless of nationality, reducing the game to a run and gunner. Historically accurate? ACOG gun sites are available, need I say more? As an educated person, I am insulted that this was sold to me as a WW2 game. I tried anyway, and lasted about 3 hours before I was fed up. The maps are the only saving grace, they are beautiful. Otherwise, the game is a bust for anyone who has any notion of WW2.… Expand

single player squad ai is awful. its like who ever made this game didn't care about it being a repetitive mess though the 4 hours is took me to complete the campaign. fighting hordes of enemy's just isn't fun to me especially when im the only one shooting and hitting varies enemy's while your squad mates just sit there and bark orders at you. multiplayer on the other hand is just fun. with loads of different game modes especially my favorite nazi zombie's :). final there's a game that did an rpg feel for a shooter right. you earn different upgrades and get to customize your load out how you see fit. all in all i say buy this game for the multiplayer don't expect much for single player besides a headache and thoughts of suicide lol.… Expand

This game is pretty great compared to other WWII shooters in my opinion. The graphics I would give a 10 to, overall game-play a 10 as well. I don't have too many bad things to say about this game, maybe the quick heal health system (don't really like the Halo 3 style of health regen). So for all of the dumbs out there that keep on comparing this to COD Modern Warfare... This is a World War II shooter. Its a game built on the storyline of the most destructive and costly war that ever took place on this planet. So stop crying about not being able to run and gun with your M4. Grab an M1 and go kill some Nazis.… Expand

So many bugs that it is just unbelievable and makes the game either impossible to play because the console will spam you error messages or you end up being unable to reinstall unless you reinstall windows, etc. (Yes, I tryed reinstalling the game, fixing registries, upgrading and downgrading the drivers, etc. but only reinstalling windows seem to have worked and yet I still got the issue that some textures cannot be found...) About the gameplay itself... Some say it's a copy of cod4, I'd say a copy of the battlefield series with even worse upgrades. If you use the grenade launcher with fireworks, you can kill anyone in sight (even those wearing protection agaisnt explosive). you can also lob those anywhere on the map without being seen just by looking the 'red dots' once someone gets his 3 kills. Yes, it lacks all the vehicules of battlefield but it's almost the same. COD was different by being a player vs player gameplay but now it's not. Why would you buy a half biased game with lots of bugs when there's better out there doing the same thing. Weapons are not army/nation based. This is a big down point since it doesn't matter which army you end up as since you can take any weapon you want... Usually ends being 4-5 weapons used whatever map it is. Even the bolt actions are rather useless since in softcore they,ll take 2-3 hits to kill and in hardcore it's 1 hit but almost all other weapons can 1 hit (semiauto rifles, bar, dp28, etc.) if you set them right. The tanks also have 3rd person view which makes it so easy to play as them and almost impossible to sneak on them. Dogs are somewhat easy to kill but they 1 hit and if your team is bad you will end being stuck in the spawn being struck by artillery and a spam of dogs. The only good thing which is also a bad thing... is that the community of cod2 has moved to cod5 (and 4). The wrong part about it is that cod2 has almost as good graphics but its gameplay is more unique then the package of random ideas half made and loaded with bugs that is cod5. would have gave it a 0 if it wasn't from how many players are online to play with and that it wasn't a ww2 game. Is there no alternative of gameplay with a strong community still left out there??? Why can't we simply have a good old wwII game with infantry and without the random weapons. Oh yea... betties can be planted in solid concrete and still detect pressure? (they're easy to counter but still is lame)… Expand

Same engine as call of duty 4 (but things look much worse because it was made for modern environments not 1944) , same story , Germans and Japanese are spawns of evil , they like raping and pillaging while the good Americans and Russians love God. It also has tons of bugs and glitches. This game is crap.

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

Infinity Ward - a small boutique game developer (since purchased by Activision) that has exclusively worked on the Call of Duty series. They did the original COD, COD2, and COD4. All of them absolute hits, pushing the envelope further every single time. Think of them as the creative geniuses of the genre. Treyarch - an industrial bulk game development shop ("focusing on AAA quality next generation games" as per their own website). AAA as in subprime AAA? They have done no less than 25 games so far - not a single one of them being a success (including COD2). They are basically the whore studio of Hollywood and they are the kind of guys you hire to develop a crappy little game to go with a big budget movie (e.g. Spider-Man 2). Look up either studio on Wikipedia to learn more about them. As such, you should not be surprised that CODWAW was not named COD5, since it is more of an expansion pack for COD4. Basically Treyarch decided that they are indeed incapable and unworthy of contributing to the COD franchise, but to nonetheless milk the captive audience, they put out some garbage while the guys at Infinity Ward are working on the next truly innovative installment. Factually, CODWAW is basically a few more missions set in WWII and powered by the old COD4 engine. There are new fire effects - exciting for 2007 but embarassing in 2008, at a time when we have Far Cry 2. If you watch up close the grass burn, the grass object is simply shrunk and is given a black coloration while emitting smoke. And only some objects can burn; and there's no catching fire concept. Now try the same in Far Cry 2. Watch every leaf and every branch get charred, watch how the fire spreads in the savannah, see the AI respond to it, and imagine all the strategies you can apply using it. So now that we've established that the engine brings nothing truly new, let's focus on the actual solo missions. They shamelessly plagiarize COD4 - you will be injured countless times, shot, drowned only to have your good buddy rescue you in a slow-motion scene. There are also two parallel plots that you alternate between. However, the specific missions are extremely heavily scripted. More so than the original COD4. In many instances you're better off going to the right place to trigger the next event than focusing on doing a good job shooting. There's a scene where you man the machine gun on a plane, but that is also incredibly scripted. Overall this plays much more like an interactive movie than a real game - which is a huge drawback. Think of the sniping mission in COD4 - how incredibly immersive it was - there are whole websites with strategies for the last part, right before you get rescued. There is no equivalent here. Its much more point and click. The realism element is missing, and I could not relate to any of the in game characters. Do not buy this game - play COD4 multiplayer and Far Cry 2 single player in the mean time, and await patiently COD6.… Expand

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

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

HEAVY, this game as made me stare at the screen in awore, of the horrible thins that happens in this game. One time i wondered who are the good guys. The campaign on the Russian side has great characters unlike the Americans they feel to cliche`. The Russians have a soldier who feels for the enemy, hoping the violence will end, the other main character is a Sgt who has seen the war from beginning to end and is blood lusted on revenge. The multilayer is no exception from COD 4 just tweaked a bit.… Expand

This is a Exellent game. The singleplayer battles feel real with all the things happening all round compared to call of duty 4. The multiplayer is great lots of great weapons to use no weapon is the best all balanced well. The dogs was awsum to fight agaist you would get your team together trying to fight off these dogs while the other team was killing you at the same time. I loved call of duty 4 but to me call of duty world at war is better.… Expand

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

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

The guy below me is an idiot. He whines that "experienced players" will never win because if you try to take a careful shot it takes "5 seconds" and you die. Any person who has ever played a game knows the person with better, more accurate reflexes will win. Period. End of story. If you're taking too long to aim, you are NOT experienced in any way. He makes these assertions based on the fact that HE isn't on top, so he assumes everyone else is a noob. Do NOT listen to this guy, if you want to have a good time, don't be swayed by someone who isn't good and whines on metacritic. This game is a good, quality game that is essentially COD4 with a couple new perks. Is it worth the new value? I don't really think so, seems more like an expansion. But both COD 4 and WaW are good solid fun for all gamers. Don't let stupid historical problems with weaponry sway you from buying a good game. I also love how he refers to the "Chopper of Doom" from CoD4. To put it simply, SHOOT AT IT. Any truly experienced player knows that noobs get killed by choppers. Why? Because they dont know enough to shoot at it. Worth 50 bucks? Not really, especially if you have COD4. My recommendation: Get COD4, You will become addicted to the best multiplayer online since CS.… Expand

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

Call of Duty: World at War, many people hate it because it's WW2 once more, but to those people I'd like to say; just shut up, there are more freaking anti-terrorism shooters than WW2 games so the setting doesn't make a SINGLE difference. So, what does destroy this game? Well, first of all, the campaign is really short, you will have it completed in no time. Not to mention the fact that it makes no sense, in the campaign Treyarch wants to tell you that WW2 was just about "revenge and to murder the enemy, not to end a war". A war is to simple murder everyone? That's not how WW2 was, that's not how any war was and is, Treyarch, you couldn't get it more wrong than that stupid statement. What's also wrong, is that in multiplayer you can play on any team with any weapon. Meaning, when playing as Russians you can just pick a Japanese or American or German weapon, it makes no sense. This is NOT like Call of Duty 4, where you can say that one team "could've imported the weapons" you think Russians were able to produce American weapons? They were national weapons, ffs! Speaking of weapons, you waste your ammo so very fast (because you won't stop shooting at the unending waves of enemies in both single- and multiplayer) that you are forced to pick up enemy weapons, like you do that in a real war! With that being said, I now come to THE WORST of the game, multiplayer. Multiplayer is so sad that it a shame to gaming. The game is just SO fast paced, that any experienced gamer will die over and over again, only the lucky noobs will get loads of kills. Hardly any experienced players will be seen in the top, because if you try to take a careful shot that would take five seconds, you have already been killed from someone behind you. You can literally die every second, sometimes you even spawn extremely close to the entire enemy team, making this even worse. Can there be any worse things about multiplayer, oh yes, there is. Dogs. The chopper of doom, from CoD 4, had been replaced by a pack of vicious dogs. First of all about the dogs, the amount of dogs used in a live shootout back in WW2 can probably be counted on one hand. Secondly, they one hit kill you. You need to waste more than a machinegun clip on them to kill them, but if they hit you, you just die. When was the last time that dogs were superior to humans armed with guns and rifles? EXACTLY. For those that want to know it, I've rated CoD4 a 0, too. Two games that are epic failures. This game is, just like CoD4, not worth your money!… Expand

Just same old run and gun mindless crap, graphics are ok sounds are lame and soooooo unrealistic its not funny. From a game that calls itself a intense ww2 experience i was very.....well not disapointed because i had no real expectations hahah. If you want ww2 go play RO not this garbage.

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.

You die before you even know what hit you. There's no point in playing the game, because as soon as you spawn you're already dead. It doesn't take munch to kill you. If a mouse farts anywhere near you, you're dead. What a waste of money. They should just create a game where you're the target at a shooting range for other people to kill. I honestly feel like I wasted my money.… Expand

Buggy c&@p! no sound... no refund... no support. I just spent the last 3 hours of my life trying to get the sound working and my computer is less than 6 months old! requirements: on board sound or better, I don't think so! I have a realtec HD on board AND a $2000 m-audio projectmix! very disappointed! consoles look better everyday.

A mod for the vastly superior CoD4. Treyarch yet again shows their lack of attention to detail and inability to make a balanced (and stable) multiplayer. Crashes, Bugs, Balancing issues, Flawed game mechanics, Broke mechanics taken from CoD4, Bugged textures on ALL maps, an auto balance that kills you to swap you. The list goes on. Trash game.

Treyarch have successfully copied call of duty 4 enough to make world at war bearable. World at War's campaign goes thus: GO GO GO SOLDIERS! FINAL PUSH! GO GO GO THIS IS IT! OH MY GOD THIS IS THE FINAL PUSH Sniping mission GO GO GO FINAL PUSH BULLETS EVERYWHERE FINAL PUSH plane mission FINAL PUSH INTO ENEMY TERRITORY THIS IS IT ULTIMATE BATTLE. etc etc. It has none of the pacing that made cod 4 so good. Call of Duty 4, made by infinity ward, the real developers of call of duty, had the perfect balance between action, set pieces, scripted segments and stealth. Just compare the first level of call of duty 4 to the first level of call of duty world at war. In call of duty, you are getting the drop on the unsuspecting crew of a ship. After the shooting starts to tire a bit, there is an excellent set piece in which the boat sinks. Call of Duty World at War starts off looking to be good. There's a nice 1st person torture scene which sets you right into the action. Your team mates slit the throats of your captors and give you a gun . "Ooh, a little stealthy action here? Taking them by surprise?" I foolishly think. "CALL IN ARTILLERY!" *BOOM* "GO GO GO!" Apparently not. I love action games, but this is no half-life, or counter-strike or even call of duty. The multiplayer is decent enough. Treyarch managed to copy almost every aspect of multiplayer successfully, and even managed to copy left 4 dead in a totally irrelevant (and boring after the first go) zombie map. If you're considering getting this, you'd better have loved the hell out of the multiplayer in cod 4, because that is world at war's only saving grace.… Expand

This game is awesome. Yet, it's really underrated. Still, people who play Call of Duty : World At War are really like CoD4 players, they hate updates. they're still alot of people who play the first version of the game. Multiplayer is great. And it's way more gory than Call of Duty 4. They say Co-op is crappy and blah blah blah. All the same crap from all the same crap people. I say Call of Duty World At War over Call of Duty 4 because of, of course, the zombie mode! That thing is sick! It's almost better than Left 4 Dead. Singleplayer is fun, but buy it for the multiplayer. I have both Call of Duty 4 AND World At War, but World At War is my favourite.… Expand

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

A stunning new addition to the Call of duty series. World at war presents WW2 in its truest form, forget the idea of a glorious battle this is men at breaking point doing whatever it takes to survive. Its brutal, gritty and haunting this will take you back to WW2 and you wont forget the trip anytime soon.

I have never played a WW2 game until this one, and I love the weapons and the epic feeling the whole game has. MP is great, Coop is alot of fun and I am hooked on zombies lol (made to level 21 so far and its freakin intense) I think too many people expected a sequel, this is a "companion" to COD 4, and just as great. Over all I think this is a great game and I will be playing it side by side with COD4 until the next game in the series is out!… Expand

Very very good game only gets an 8 simply for cramming in TO much action, all in all a very good game and a worthwhile purchase, this game really gives you an insight into the hell our troops had to go through for every inch of soil and gives me a greater respect for those men that fought.

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

The single-player campaing sucks. You just run in a tube and kill everything that comes in frot of you. You tond get inside buildings even if the door is wide open. There is just a invissible class wall. But the 8 comes because of the multiplayer. Same modes as in modern warfare, witch is good. Best WW2 multiplayer I have played so far. Love It!

Very good single player game,only too short. There is the new idea of co-op that works very well and the MP is as the cod4's , but in a new ambientations, with new weapons and skills.I like prestige classes too. In conclusion it's a must.

This is the best call of duty game ever made, I have got and played every single call of duty game ever apart from cod3 which was a disappointment and was also made by Treyarch. After Cod 3 i thought that treyarch was going to screw up again with cod world at war.. but I was wrong, I is soo fun everything about it is great especially the multiplayer. The single player is short but is a lot more "epic" than the cod 4 battlefields with tanks ambushes and the new co-op. definetly my favorite WW2 game and probably my favourite FPS ever. Good Work Treyarch!!!… Expand

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

Lean bug, memory leaks, bluescreens, directx errors due to incompatibility with other programs, borked spawn system, bugged game win / loss announcement, no record or drawfps commands, game modes ruined due to no thinking through of game mechanics e.g. artillery on HQ, shit maps, shit fps on basically same engine as cod4, external server browsers don't work because auth server wasen't thought through, config resets on bluescreen, no shader 2.0, broken animations (sprint), no linux binaries still, maps bugged e.g. invisible walls used to stop map "glitchers" block nades instead, dumb experience ratios on some gamemodes e.g. war, sound occlusion available in singleplayer but not multiplayer, single player client auth server broken unable to play zombies with friends, prestige bug, no http redirect, server disconnection if alt-tabbed for too long, no vid_restart in game and reccently announced no new patch until 7-8 weeks and stated it "might" fix listed bugs. Terrible game product of incompetent developers, do not buy.… Expand

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.

The game is pretty, but it is a ruined game. The ideas of the game types are very good, but it has ruined by spawn campers, campers, glitchers, nade-noobs, armys of spray-n-pray. Any one that wishes to jump in and have a bit of a shootoff with rifles that isn't "OMG RUN IN BASE AND SHOOT THEM AT POINT BLANK" is out of luck. This game is full of kids running around with Thompsons. Go play CoD2 if you want some actual strategic fun. The game itself is very pretty, the game types are well made and it's amazingly fun in Single Player. Not worth the $50 if you're a multiplayer-type, though.… Expand

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

I like this game. a lot of people say they dont. and I respect most opinions. its the CoD 4 Fanboys that irk me the most though. They give it crappy ratings, talk trash, and spam forums because, "IT sucks". I dont get it. what sucks? why does it suck? how can they make it better? Give at least a smidgen of feedback. and dont complain because you are 14 and cant afford it. get a job, buy CoD 5and then rate it. honestly.… Expand

Currently a 6.9, this deserves a 0 to counter-balance the anonymous 10 out of 10's. This game is exactly what the first review says: mediocre and uninspired. Buggy, poor level design, bland gameplay, boring story arch, and just plain stupid this game is Treyarch's cloned COD4, but utter Fail. Not worth it. Bottomline: OVERHYPED.

Campaign ok not great still think cod2 had the best campaign / multiplayers not bad just glad they kept there server browser and dedicated server compatability. Still prefer cod 3's multi (greating my own server was always fun [OPEN SERVER] that is not private dnt see much point in private servers apart from when ya feel like messing around with ya friends) Zombie gamemode is what kept this game selling i loved the hidden secrets and code in the maps and the additional dlc packs which carryed on the litte zombie story. Campaign : 6.5 (Coz its co-op enabled) Multiplayer : 7 (just wish ppl would stop hacking :/ but what can ya do) Zombie Co-Op : 8.7 (Due to DLC and little story) Graphics : 6 (They Need to sort it out so ppl cant just put there graphics to lowest and see through all the grass.... or atleast force it on for all clients) Overall : 8 ( Good buy if you got some friends to play zombie mode with // once ya get bored of multi and co-op campaign )… Expand

At first i thought it strange that a franchise that had advanced through time to the modern age should then skip back again. Then I thought how poor Call of Duty 3 was to its predisesors. THEN I thought, 'there is no way this will live up to the 4th installment'. Then I was proven wrong. This game makes excelent use of the CoD4's engine to recreate one of the most brutal and merciless wars our planet has ever seen. The addition of tanks and 'slightly' elevated gore deters you from going gung ho into enemy lines (but never really stops you). There's still the heart thumping, adrenaline fueled gameplay of 4 but there's much more. The sounds, the visuals, the pace and the overall feel of the game wraps you in a cucoon that has you believing for fleeting moments thatyour actually being shot at, and you truly are fighting for you're own life. You'll never feel quite the same after charging through an artillery strike (yes its idiotic but i think there's an Arnie in all of us that thinks 'i'll be fiiiiiiiine') to find yourself alive and kicking on the other side. You may even find yourself having to catch your breath on the other side when you realise that this whole time you've been holding it... One thing I will say though... ... I really HATE the dogs.… Expand

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

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

Brings next-gen graphics to their tried and true WW2 formula.Multiplayer extras are fresh and fun. Overall the singleplayer campaign is good, but the AI is less than impressive.

If you don't have COD4, get it instead. If you do, and you loved it, I recommend this game if you need more.

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.

They took a great game, re skinned it with slightly poorer graphics, and unnatural looking animations. Then they unbalanced the guns, broke the special abilities, and set it all in badly designed maps. CoD4s utter brilliance still shows through, but its obscured by Treyarch's utter amateurism. n.b. how did they manage to introduce so many new bugs to previously stable systems that they appear to have made no other changes to?… Expand

Ive tried again and again to play this game on multyplayer and my word ford lack of nasty words Its jsut frustrates me the players . there are to many cases during play where "THE GAME" its self is working against you. No matter how hard I try and ive played all the call of duties as some record of proof i don't know , no matter how hard I try the game always leave me with guys running around holding down left click . The levels are sometimes to busy to the eye with no visual rest that you cant even see your attacker or figure out what happened. There's nothing more frustrating then the player getting killed and not knowing why or how or where from. i say this all knowing what faults in my argue ment there may be but none the less I give this a zero too many times im left frustrated and want to leave my computer.… Expand

Great FPS, Excellent graphics, very real feel. The other reviewers who responded that you just die obviously don't know how to play or were in servers they shouldn't have been in. This is a top knotch WW11 game.

This Game is Terrible ! I played a lot of games but this is the first game which is still not able to play because you don't want to play it why i gave the game 1 score ? because the graphic is good nothing else !

I just bought this recently on a Steam sale. There's a wonderful game in here somewhere, but it's riddled with instability, crashes, and lacking in several key areas. While I was able to run Call of Duty 4 perfectly, World at War greeted me with crashes and bugs, and with no official fix in site, I had to troubleshoot my own problems. I was able to run the game finally, but the framerate isn't very solid, and I had to sacrifice the ability to watch cutscenes for what little stability I had. Not only that, but there are no dedicated servers for co-op or Nazi Zombies, which means any games you find for that mode will be few and laggy. I'd be happy to give this game a 7 or even an 8, but until Treyarch acts to fix all of the problems related to just running the game properly, I can't recommend this game to any PC gamers.… Expand

Wow, what a let down, graphics, gameplay, and story all feel tiring, aged with tired WWII genre gametype, and subpar graphics that make you wonder how they ended up with COD2 graphics on the COD4 engine. And the horrid sound effects... best go back to COD4, or pickup Fallout 3, or even better yet, Farcry 2.

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

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

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

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.

I don't understand why people say that it wasn't better than CoD4. Even if it isn't, why does it have to be better? The single player was shorter than CoD4's, but it still solidly maintained the epicness of all CoD series. The Japanese banzai troops who pretended to be dead soldiers. The flamethrowers and tanks who tried to blow up the house of Dimitri and Reznov. The water that flooded the entire underground tunnel. It's even better when you get to scream with your friends on microphone through Co-op mode while everybody are playing it the first time. When the campaign missions are done you can replay it countless time with the zombie mission. A very original idea which only came true on 2D flash game is now avaliable in 3D FPS. The mutiplayer is very well done as well, with all the levels and unlocks to keep yourselves busy. Overall, CoD:WaW is the perfect WW2 FPS game to play when you're down in your luck one day and can't kill a single person in Red Orchestra.… Expand

To start it off I'd like to mention how great (and dark) the atmosphere for the single player missions were. Unlike COD4, I personally found myself really pulled into the life of the characters and found the game more interesting than COD4; quite possibly due to the great cut-scenes and montages during the loading screen. The plot in the game was great most of the times, with exception to some parts being a little too extreme (where normal people would have most likely died). The graphics in the game were quite visually appeasing and the sound and music for the game was amazing as well. Some weaker points in the game I have to mention is the lack of variety in close combat attacks, as it would have been so much more interesting to have a wide variety of melee attacks instead of just a few (or the exact same counterattack when you're pinned down). Another mention of problems is the attempts at realism. This includes the stupidity of the AI at times, and certain impassable terrains that could have easily been added for more realism. The AI blocking you (as realistic as that might sound) is a pain in the ass when you're trying to dodge grenades and such. After beating the game, zombie mode was quite fun as well and also worth buying the game if you ask me. it's essentially like zombie panic (half life source zombie mod), where you hold off the zombies and barricade yourself for endless waves of nazi zombies. playing with friends make it all the better as well.… Expand

This game is just awesome. Especially the Nazi Zombies mode, which is the first party-game feeling i've felt in a while. Backed by brilliant multiplayer, a n awesome story, and detailed backgrounds, this game deserves a 10 out of 10.

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.

CoD;WaW has plenty of features, like zombies, co-op and multiplayer. Dedicated servers makes it a very enjoyable experience online. Going through the campaign with three of your buddies doesn't get much more epic than this. Definitely worth the money. Oh, and it's way better than MW2!

Indeed the AI isn't great and the weapons too accurate but the single player and multiplayer is good and it has more realism than the other Call of duty games.I liked the campaign a lot and i felt even sorry when Roebuck died.10 from me.

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.

There's a part of me that wants to score this lower because when will game designers learn to make checkpoints AFTER the speeches. It's frustrating to hear the same speech 100x when trying to pass a difficult scene - is this just meant to make you feel the pain of war more?!?! That said overall good game. I notice there are no friendly fire deaths with this which takes some of the challenge away but on the other hand i probably would have broken something out of frustration, so good call...… Expand

How well you like this game will be determined by (as with all things) your taste in gaming. If you only heard about Call of Duty when COD 4 or MW2 came out, you will most likely hate this game. On the other hand, if you have been playing COD since COD1 and you think COD1 and COD2 are some of the best games ever made like me, you will love this game. World at War revisits the WW2 setting with a souvenir from COD4, the beautiful IW Engine 4.0. The pacific front is absolutely beautiful in the engine and the single player is gripping and exciting, just like early CODs. Characters are memorable, especially your Russian sniper friend Reznov, who leads you through a 'All Ghillied Up' styled mission, only in Nazi territory. Multiplayer is lackluster to me as with all COD games as none can really compare to the scale of the Battlefield series but the singleplayer was definitely worth it's money for me. Nazi Zombies however was a lovely addition to the game and it really shows how much care Treyarch has in trying to accomplish as much in a game as possible. All in all, Treyarch was unexpectedly capable of living up to the COD name and with Infinity Ward ruined by Activision, I would not mind having Treyarch take over.… Expand

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

It has a very Good campaign, but the multiplayer...
its too much like COD4,
though i got to level 40 in a few days, making it quite easy, not like COD4.
One more thing: Underpowered Molotovs and overpowered machineguns makes the game quite unbalanced, but the rest is Pretty Good.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. definetley ten amazing graphics awsome storyline and dont get me started ZOMBIES! i love it. Multiplayer is good (9) and sound gameplay good (7). Just they shouldve put an american german campaighn instead of russain one it would be fun to use samurai swords from dead japanese soldiers overall score is 10… Expand

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, 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

1) Call of Duty Modern Warfare
2) Call of Duty + Cod UO
3) COD2

Really only 3 Call of duty games had even sense, it were this three.







6786486488446 ) All others "COD`s" by copy/paste
Period.

World at War is without doubt the best version of Call of Duty so far. It leaves the later releases, MW2, MW3, Black Ops and Black Ops 2 in it's wake. Although the game is based on COD4 the attention to detail in maps, the excellent gore level and the inclusion of dogs and artillery were far superior to all the others versions. You can see how weak the later versions are by playing MW3 or Black Ops 2. They have nothing on World at War.… Expand

The best CoD for the PC because if you are a zombie player like me then get it you can even download your own mods and Zombie maps. it is not that good for any other system but you will want it for PC

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.

this game deserves atleast 8 in my opinion..if you have played cod mw then you know what to expect from this game.but this game is amazing and its similar to modern warfare.

When it comes to WW2 games, this has to be high up on my favourites list. However, there was many aspects I found quite annoying and somewhat of a letdown. Firslty, when a Japanese soldier is banzai charging, and he runs past half a dozen of your comrades to stab you. Second, I would of liked to see a more dragged out storyline, especially on Peleilu, where the beach assault is over in about 2 minutes. The aspects I enjoyed were how brutal both campaigns were, the Russian one in particular. There was also a lot more depth in it than past WW2 COD games in the characters.
Honestly, I would like to see another WW2 COD game with some parts changed-
*AI smarter and doesn't just look at killing you only.
*The ability to fix bayonets not just pick up weapons with them fixed already.
*A longer storyline with more countries.
* Not as linear.

COD World at War was a solid game, but i would like to see a new WW2 game that goes beyond the call of duty in shooter gaming.… Expand

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)

Again, after taking the road of modern war, Call of Duty, came back at its roots, WWII, with great campaign, multiplayer, but maybe not so well filled with the aer of war, and more like the commercial shooter it began. After all, it came back at WWII and that makes happy and a little nostalgic any player who grew up with the franchise

De vuelta a la WWII pero con los elementos de MW. El juego es bastante divertido, pero después de CoD 4 es un tanto difícil volver a mediados del siglo XX.

I seriously think World At War Is very overlooked. The campaign was the best of all the COD's because its real and doesn't involve mind bad Russians, and AI. The Gameplay is smooth and silk but that's every COD. Multiplayer is fun in my opinion and ive spent days on end playing it. The weapons are fun and the maps are my favorite. Zombies though was the best. World at war has done zombies the best and has my favorite maps. So in all WAW is the best cod.… Expand