Call of Duty: World at War Image
Metascore
83

Generally favorable reviews - based on 36 Critics What's this?

User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 705 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Utilizing the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare engine, Call of Duty: World at War throws out the rulebook of war to transform WWII combat through a new enemy, new tactics and an uncensored experience of the climatic battles that gripped a generation. As U.S. Marines and Russian soldiers,Utilizing the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare engine, Call of Duty: World at War throws out the rulebook of war to transform WWII combat through a new enemy, new tactics and an uncensored experience of the climatic battles that gripped a generation. As U.S. Marines and Russian soldiers, players employ new features like cooperative gameplay, and weapons such as the flamethrower in the most chaotic and cinematically intense experience to date. Call of Duty: World at War introduces co-operative play, bringing fresh meaning to the "No One Fights Alone" mantra with up to four-players online for Xbox 360, PS3 and PC, or two-player local split-screen on consoles. Nintendo Wii will also support a unique co-op mode for two players. For the first time ever players can experience harrowing single-player missions together for greater camaraderie and tactical execution. The co-op campaign allows players to rank up and unlock perks in competitive multiplayer by completing challenges and earning experience points, adding continuous re-playability and team-based gameplay. Whether playing competitively or cooperatively – if players are online with Call of Duty: World at War – they always gain experience points. Based on a player’s experience rank and rank of the player's friends, Call of Duty: World at War scales dynamically to provide a deeper level of challenge. [Activision] Expand
Buy On

Trailer

Please enter your birth date to continue:
You are not allowed to view this material at this time.
Autoplay: On | Off
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. The single-player campaign involves a riveting and emotional story, and the inclusion of co-op is fantastic. The game itself however is heavily weighted towards multiplayer, as was its predecessor.
  3. 90
    The single-player isn't as compelling as Modern Warfare but it's still worth playing nonetheless; the best part though is that there's a deep and satisfying multiplayer component waiting for you when you're done.
  4. Graphics are brilliant, and the new Koop – mode offers a fantastic chance, to accomplish difficult missions together. The single player-campaign isn’t able to satisfy the gamer’s needs.
  5. Gamers.at
    84
    World at War won’t disappoint anyone, just as long as they don’t expect it to fully revive the glory of its predecessor. [Issue#17]
  6. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    60
    Returning to WWII is not a bad idea as many may think. There are a lot of stories not yet told. Unfortunately heavy scripting, suicidal AI, and lack of fresh ideas ruin the overall impression. [Issue#173]

See all 36 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 64 out of 126
  2. Negative: 22 out of 126
  1. GustavoF.
    Feb 1, 2010
    10
    The big deal about this game was: Modern Warfare made gamers so spoiled about Call of Duty series that if a game on FPS genre isn't The big deal about this game was: Modern Warfare made gamers so spoiled about Call of Duty series that if a game on FPS genre isn't hardcore ground-breaking, it's called "mediocre". What? Big Red One was mediocre. Finest Hour was mediocre. NDS versions are mediocre. World at War is a great game. But how much can you improve over WWII? You can't lie on history. Most people can't even describe what else they were expecting from this title. Just stick with Modern Warfare's if you like, the world is big enough for everyone. Expand
  2. Feb 18, 2014
    10
    A great campaign, amazingly designed multi-player and very fun zombie mode. You can drive tanks in multi-player and there are infinite customA great campaign, amazingly designed multi-player and very fun zombie mode. You can drive tanks in multi-player and there are infinite custom zombie maps to download. Amazing and historically accurate campaign. This is one of the best Call of Duties ever and you will not regret making this purchase. All 4 Zombie maps are included if you buy it off of steam (not sure about hard copy). Expand
  3. NickC.
    Nov 29, 2008
    9
    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, 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! Expand
  4. Paul
    Nov 14, 2008
    8
    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 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. Expand
  5. Rem
    Apr 23, 2016
    6
    World at War for its time, looked to return the franchise back to its WW2 roots almost a year after its most critically acclaimed entry ever.World at War for its time, looked to return the franchise back to its WW2 roots almost a year after its most critically acclaimed entry ever. Despite the use of the much loved IW 3.0 engine, which enabled smooth 60 fps despite all the ruckus on screen happening at once, the 5th entry into the mainstream franchise couldn't be much more carbon copy. If you want the best explanation of how much of its campaign and multiplayer goes, it's basically a World War 2 skin with bland setpieces and competent era based armaments. Scarcely throughout its 3 (yes I mean THREE) hour campaign did I feel ever feel adrenaline rush. Waw foreshadows what the other COD campaigns would emulate: following this one NPC to the next firing range until you clear it of enemies. The only standouts I could recall were an AC140 copycat mission and a copycat All Ghillied Up mission, albeit both of them being a lower quality. The rest of the brief missions were slogs through explosions and gunfire of killing enemies in front of you and blowing up an artillery gun. No characters ever make you want to remember them since you only get three hours to hear them spout orders and take infinite bullets to their invincible NPC bodies. Luckily, the multiplayer is still the classic COD formula with its twist coming from its weaponry. Fewer automatic weapons entails more tense gunfights, but other that, not much is really elevated or improved.
    The only reason people ever remember WaW is the zombies mode, which is arguably the biggest reason much of the Black Ops series still has relevance. It's incredibly satisfying, tense, and addicting. Joining up with four other players, you fight the undead and stay alive as long as possible. Defeat is inevitable but playing before you reach there is an undeniable blast. Technically WaW for 2008 was very good. Utilizing the engine of COD4 has only helped it with smooth gameplay and the gore manages to pack a punch to every shot.
    Fans who claim that a return to WaW should be mindful that not everything brought back from the past manages to be successful. If the franchise ever comes back to its roots, it should do so by undergoing an identity change. Flashy, scripted setpieces and linear gameplay would only sour the trip back. WaW encompasses everything that haters of this franchise love to poke at: linear campaign, big and constant explosions, characters you can't care about, and identical gameplay. Zombies is its only savior and the only reason this entry isn't looked upon with total disdain.
    Expand
  6. 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
    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
  7. JamesD.
    Nov 11, 2008
    0
    Wow, what a let down, graphics, gameplay, and story all feel tiring, aged with tired WWII genre gametype, and subpar graphics that make you 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. Collapse

See all 126 User Reviews