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

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 564 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: 73 out of 117
  2. Negative: 22 out of 117
  1. GustavoF.
    Feb 1, 2010
    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. Collapse
  2. Jul 30, 2013
    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
    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. Expand
  4. Mikko
    Nov 21, 2008
    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
    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. AlexN
    Dec 3, 2009
    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
  7. JamesD.
    Nov 11, 2008
    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 117 User Reviews