Metascore
85

Generally favorable reviews - based on 45 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 41 out of 45
  2. Negative: 0 out of 45
  1. 92
    This is a solid, confident shooter with plenty to offer the casual and hardcore alike.
  2. World at War brings proven Call of Duty mechanics back to WWII with great success.
  3. Call of Duty: World at War is a solid entry to the franchise, offering some pretty intense gameplay and nice new online features. However, the return to WWII means that it feels like a game you’ve played before.
  4. Treyarch did a remarkable job of breathing new life into the WWII shooter. They followed the conventions outlined by Infinity Ward to a tee and, as a result, created a shooter that is every bit as good as last year's entry. Of course, there isn't a whole lot of innovation this time around, but the increased Multiplayer options, new settings, and great enemy A.I. should more than satisfy all but the most jaded Infinity Ward fanboys.
  5. World at War finally gives us a reason to visit the Pacific Theater with its fun cooperative and multiplayer modes. But the “been there, done that” single-player missions and overall derivative tone keep this very good game from achieving the greatness of its predecessor.
  6. 90
    Strikingly similar to CoD4 in many ways, while offering enough variety to recommend it to anyone who might be growing tired of last year's game. Although the campaign storyline isn't nearly as engaging as the one seen in CoD4, there should be enough memorable set pieces and intense sequences to keep you riveted throughout.
  7. 90
    Developer Treyarch did a fantastic job of not reinventing the wheel with World at War. Rather, they took the best elements of Modern Warfare and expanded upon them. The end product is a thrilling experience that injects some of the visceral punch back into World War II.
  8. While Call of Duty: World at War definitely borrows heavily from it's predecessor, it still remains a damn good follow up to Modern Warfare, and well worth taking the time to check out.
  9. Even though Treyarch took Dad’s precious wheels out for a less reckless spin this time around, World at War is still senselessly eating away at Call of Duty’s mileage.
  10. Treyarch has taken all their expertise with the COD engine and borrowed all of the fantastic multiplayer tech from Modern Warfare to create the ultimate military shooter, a shooter so satisfying and complete you won't care what war it is you're fighting.
  11. 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.
  12. While not on par with Infinity Ward’s Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, World at War is better than Treyarch’s last entry, Call of Duty 3.
  13. The multiplayer is as solid the series has seen yet and is capable of carrying the game, but it is disappointing to see the single player campaign waste so much potential.
  14. Treyarch has taken just enough from COD4 to make World At War a broad success, but it remains firmly in its shadow. [Christmas 2008, p.90]
  15. 93
    I cannot emphasize enough how great this game truly is and how much respect I have for the team to make a game that not only impresses on a technical level, but somehow manages to make playing in this overdone war fun again.
  16. A stunning game that doesn't miss a beat from start to finish and includes one of the most feature packed multiplayer components of any game released this year.
  17. World at War is a great new entry in the epic saga. The new Call of Duty just misses the inspiration that Infinity Ward brings to every project, and which Treyarch still aspires to. This new game offers everything we were waiting for, and has better value in its co-op campaign.
  18. Not quite Call of Duty 4, but a fun game nonetheless.
  19. Having created an excellent Russian campaign, it’ll be interesting to see where the development team heads from here.
  20. Compared to Modern Warfare, World at War is loud and crass. [Christmas 2008, p.100]
  21. Following the work of Infinity Ward with "Modern Warfare", Treyarch has made a good work following those steps as close as possible, while adding elements of their own. The grim scenario of the Russian campaign is a clear highlight and a triumph for the studio, and the same could be said of the four player cooperative mode. However, we miss more evolution on the graphics engine, and some elements added to the multiplayer experience don't convince us.
  22. 85
    Call of Duty: World at War feels at times like a little brother holding the hand of the more confident Modern Warfare, but keep in mind that it definitely shares the same genes.
  23. 68
    The gameplay, aesthetics and presentation are solid – impressive in places, even – but we’re not about to turn a blind eye to the shamelessly crass tone. If games are ever to mature as a medium then we need to see an end to this kind of thing.
  24. World at War also sees the implementation of four-player co-operative gameplay online, and two-player split-screen, with options for a meta-game or just regular co-op. Despite its smooth running, the co-op isn't the most effective we've seen - getting further in the game on co-op won't unlock those missions on Solo - which seems a bit backward compared to other titles.
  25. Call of Duty fans should still enjoy what Call of Duty: World at War has to offer. Fans of Call of Duty 2 who found themselves utterly disappointed by COD3 should absolutely love everything that World at War offers.
  26. Call of Duty: World At War needs better character development and more "oh my God" moments. However, it's still a terrific first-person shooter. The combat is tight, the presentation shines and the multiplayer, particularly Nazi Zombie mode and co-op campaign, will keep you blasting enemy soldiers for weeks.
  27. Treyarch has made vast improvements from their COD 3 work and delivered a solid product.
  28. Great online, but disappointing single-player. [Christmas 2008, p.72]
  29. Even though Call of Duty 4 took the series out of World War II, developer Infinity Ward raised the bar significantly, and that has left stand-in Treyarch with a lot of work to do. In the end World at War hasn’t topped that effort, but it has at least benefited from the attempt, with the result being another really good, very comprehensive WW2 shooter.
  30. In all its blazing glory, Call of Duty: World at War powers up with the Call of Duty 4 engine to push the boundaries of the franchise.
  31. In contrast to last year’s effort, none of the game’s high points are as memorable, and in addition, quite few gunfights start to border on routine as you get further into the game. For that reason, combined with the selection of other erratic blemishes named above, World at War is a notably less appealing game.
  32. If all you’re looking for is more of the same, then Call of Duty: World at War is certainly a worthy addition to the franchise.
  33. 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.
  34. But still, even flawed, World at War is fun. [Jan 2009, p.70]
  35. The white-knuckle thrill ride of the year. [Summer 2009, p.60]
  36. World at War is actually Call of Duty 4 in disguise. Not every change is an improvement, but fans of Modern Warfare will probably enjoy its follow-up just as much, given that they aren’t tired of World War 2 by now. The multiplayer remains addictive, and the online co-op mode is an awesome addition, and together they make this one of the surprises of 2008.
  37. Call of Duty: World at War is a perfectly competent game with exciting multiplayer options and a campaign that's worth playing. But in most of the ways that actually count, last year's game was better.
  38. One of the best shooters this year, Call of Duty: World At War is an explosive and powerful cinematic experience.
  39. Perfectly staged WWII shooter with impressive audio-visual quality. Nevertheless, we want a new, refreshing scenario for the sequel!
  40. Unfortunately a large shadow in the shape of last year's game hangs heavy over everything in World at War. Admittedly the feel is excellent, the visuals and audio work strong, but any overt enthusiasm is tempered by the knowledge that in twelve months time we'll perhaps be thinking the same thing about part six: that we've seen it all before, that in itself each Call of Duty is still one of the best rollercoaster rides outside of Hollywood's summer season, that Modern Warfare did it all better.
  41. If you're a Call of Duty fan and were grimacing about Treyarch being involved with this installment, don't fret. World at War is a fantastic game from start to finish and the multiplayer is every bit as fun and addicting as Modern Warfare's.
  42. World at War is just as solid as Modern Warfare, with interesting missions, fabulous immersion and the competent (but mostly familiar) multiplayer options. And zombies are fun!
  43. The intensity of the battles and the powerful use of sound is what makes World at War really shine, together with the impressive multiplayer options (including the amazing Nazi Zombies mode). But at the end of the day, the clichéd World War 2 setting stops this game from achieving greatness.
  44. Packed with extras, World At War is a fast, frantic, exciting and emotionally draining shooter. This is how a war game should be. [Dec 2008, p.66]
  45. While it's a shame that the campaign isn't as good as its predecessor's, World at War sticks to what made Modern Warfare great: a solid multiplayer experience that can last you months.
User Score
7.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 338 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 51 out of 84
  2. Negative: 19 out of 84
  1. MysticStrummer
    Aug 2, 2009
    9
    Wow... I wonder if the people who gave this game such low scores even played it. You guys must REALLY suck. This is a great game. I know WW2 Wow... I wonder if the people who gave this game such low scores even played it. You guys must REALLY suck. This is a great game. I know WW2 games aren't for everyone but I enjoyed this more than CoD4. I played through solo and co-op on Hardened difficulty level and had a blast. Those that say this is CoD4 re-skinned are correct for the most part, including the crappy online connection problems. Host leaves, game over. Stupid. As for realism... since when has realism been a concern for CoD fans??? It's an arcade shooter just like all the CoDs, and a damn good one. I just bought this recently and wish I had bought it sooner. Shooting Nazis never gets old, and shooting Nazi zombies is even better. You low score people are sad. What happened to the real gamers of the world? They've been replaced by whiners. Full Review »
  2. KevinW.
    Nov 15, 2008
    10
    If you enjoy the online part of call of duty, GET THIS GAME!!! Its similar to Call of Duty 4 but at the same time its different and its If you enjoy the online part of call of duty, GET THIS GAME!!! Its similar to Call of Duty 4 but at the same time its different and its TIGHT!!! Trust me, this game is definitely going to keep me occupied until the next call of duty or hardcore shooter comes out. Full Review »
  3. Feb 7, 2012
    5
    Thought the campaign was good, not great. The graphics were good. Yes it is the same copy and paste game but thats the same with all CODThought the campaign was good, not great. The graphics were good. Yes it is the same copy and paste game but thats the same with all COD games. My only hate of this game is the multiplayer. The multiplayer was fun until the hackers infested it. Full Review »