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 668 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

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: 63 out of 123
  2. Negative: 22 out of 123
  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. Mikko
    Nov 21, 2008
    8
    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 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! Expand
  5. 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 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
  6. 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 andCall 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. 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. Expand

See all 123 User Reviews