Metascore
83

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

User Score
7.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 552 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, 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
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. Perhaps the guys at Treyarch haven't surpassed its predecessor's bar, but it really was too high. Nevertheless, this does not mean Call of Duty: World at War is not a very good game, it is indeed one of the best of its genre, and no shooter fan should miss it.
  3. All in all World at War delivers. It isn’t a revolution in Call of Duty gaming, but neither is it a step backwards, like some have claimed. Right now, it’s the best WWII shooter we’ve played, largely because it’s got a solid (if unoriginal) single player, some spectacular multiplayer, and oh yeah: because it’s brutal as hell.
  4. World at War is a remarkable Call of Duty title, once again, but it’s clear that more could have been done on the multiplayer side. Unlike the rest of the games in the series, Treyarch studios can’t pride themselves with this latter aspect, which has always ensured the series’ longevity.
  5. 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. 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: 72 out of 116
  2. Negative: 22 out of 116
  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 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. Jul 30, 2013
    10
    I'm giving this game a 10 just to even out the stupidly low score on this game. It's CoD4 with a World War 2 theme. The multiplayer is fun, the singleplayer has interesting moments. My real score of this game would be an 8 or a 9, but I just feel the need to even out the score that these "HURR DURR COD4 RIPOFF, SINGLEPLAYER NOT GOOD ENOUGH" morons gave it. Who the hell doesn't buy Call of Duty mainly for the multiplayer? You're playing the wrong game if you buy CoD for the singleplayer. Expand
  3. ChrisQ
    Jan 4, 2010
    9
    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. Collapse
  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 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. 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. Expand
  6. 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. 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 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 116 User Reviews