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.

This is a great action-packed game. A great follow-up of the game of the year Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and it served its job. The graphics are amazing, the co-op campaign, and the online multiplayer modes. A must get for every gamer out there !

Probably the best WW2 game out there to date. Excellent game, very authentic, many WW2 guns to choose from. Highly realistic, Believable story, with a very fun online multiplayer. I highly recommend the game to any WW2 fan, you can even drive tanks! Plenty of add on maps, zombie features for extra fun, this is defenitly a collectors item!

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 COD games. My only hate of this game is the multiplayer. The multiplayer was fun until the hackers infested it.

just like call of duty 4 but world war two which puts its over the top. The tanks also add a lot more to the game making maps a lot bigger than the ones in call of duty 4. The game also focuses a lot more on the sniping aspect which will make snipers happy.

The game is decent. Nothing new from COD4 but online is pretty fun. My only gribe with online death match is the cheaters. Some people know how to glitch the maps and walk underneath them being totally untargetable by other players. They then proceed to shoot everyone that walks by, getting free easy kills. The developers desperately need to release a patch to fix this or I will stop playing.

This game deserves a lot more credit than it's gotten. Aside from the very first mission in the game...it's all pretty well written...more intense than CoD4 even. The differences and why it is still worth a full purchase: It really wouldn't of made sense for them to make another modern warfare game Right after CoD4...people would be even more critical saying that treyarch ripped off it it too much...and they couldn't of made this game a futuristic warfare game (like the year 2100...nothing too sci fi) because that wouldn't leave much room for Infinity ward to expand on when they do call of duty 6. Yes, there are plenty of WWII shooters out there...but this is the best, by far. Everything you loved about CoD4 with more action and vehicles etc...with the exception of it's cool weapons. You owe it to yourself to get this game. if you enjoyed CoD4 don't let false premonitions keep you from this title...Buy.… Expand

I should've seen this coming. As soon as gamers learned that Treyarch got the nod for the next COD installment, the fanboy tempers flared on all the major gaming forums. While they were bitching & whining about Infinity Ward not producing it & the "poor" decision to return to the WWII era, Treyarch quietly released one stunning still or breathtaking video after another. As a history buff, I was privately cheering them on in their effort to get it right. And they DID get it right. Is it graphic, brutal, epic, and, at times, even cruel? Yes... but so was the war. And Treyarch's unflinching portrayal of the Japanese soldiers, the subject of so much virulent criticism, didn't cull hatred in my heart, but rather great admiration for their bravery and ferocity onthe battlefield. Critics be damned, this is one terrific FPS. If you're not a lemming, you owe it to yourself to check out COD WAW. IMHO, Treyarch did the franchise, and the warriors of that momentous conflict, proud.… Expand

Great game, not many flaws, except one thing. Multiplayer...the mp-40 German Machine gun with a " Black Dot" in WWII I'm sure they didn't have electronical aiming assistance. I'm History buff that studied that time era. I hope they did not implement that into the single player game.

Treyarch had extremely difficult expectations to meet after the infamous call of duty 4: modern warfare became game of the year, and had won the gaming minds of millions of gamers all over the world, but i have to say that call of duty: world at war is the best first-person shooter i have ever played in my life. Although, perhaps the story mode is still extremely short, leaving it some what overlooked, the online element in which call of duty masters has been perfected, with the addition of tanks making gameplay more realisitic and enjoyable for gamers. The slightly more controversial part of call of duty:world at war is the addition of Nacht der untoten (Nazi Zombies) which is a somewhat strange addition to call of duty:world at war showing imagination and i would say a bit of courage to add something nobody was expecting. To some up, call of duty world at war is a fantastic edition of the call of duty franchise which, i for one, will remember and cherish for years to come.… Expand

From what i played of this game on the PC Beta it was very much similar to Cod 4 which i liked very much. I like some of the adjustments made such as dogs instead of helicopters. Bigger maps will also enhance the gameplay and i am very much looking forward to this game!

As a fan of the WW2 genre I was thrilled to see the Call of Duty franchise return to its grass roots. As most gamers know the Call of Duty franchise is at its best in WW2 - Proved by Call of Duty 1 and Call of Duty 2. However, after having doubts about the developer Treyarch prior to receiving the game, I was unsure if Call of Duty World at War could join that list. Now all doubts have gone. Got to run - to play this amazing game.… Expand

Very fun game, but not nearly as good as Call of Duty 4, there are many new great features such as the flamethrower, and Nazi Zombies, and that is exactly what the fans of Call of Duty want. The graphics are not as good as Call of Duty 4, and the game play is the same, the story is amazing, from Germans to Japanese, and its fun to knife Japanese, and try to survive the attack. As a gamer, I would recommend this game, but like i said Call of Duty 4 is better than World at War, and World at War is better than Call of Duty 1, 2, and 3.… Expand

Awesome game. Not as good as Call of Duty 4 but still an amazing game. Call of Duty 4 caught everyone by surprise. So we were expecting this game to be amazing which it still is, but will not get as good reviews as CoD 4.

World at war is a very underrated game, simply because of its predessor, cod 4 I found while cod 4 was a great game, it was too over powered World at war's campaign is intense and has loads of things to do in it Coop, suped up multiplayer, and NAZI ZOMBIES, which is exelent along with some friends The multiplayer itself seems alot more fun rather than addictive like cod 4, which I prefur Overall, dont listen to people that say that cod 4 is the better one, because this game is better in its own little ways… Expand

Even though there are countless WWII games out there, this one seems to still be interesting. Other games taking place during that era are generally monotonous, but this has some life to it. And to add some more differences to the game, the Nazi Zombies campaign surprisingly gets pretty playable.

Good game in solo mode. Had a difficult time distinguishing between friend and foe. Grenades pissed me off from start to finish. On-line Nazi Zombie play is great. Graphics - 9 : Story - 4 : Controls - 8 : Gameplay - 6

In this ordr W@W,MW2, and Black Ops. W@W is great because there isn't as much camping as in MW2 or Black Ops(which is why i quit). Plus I love the World War 2 area guns. Yes grahpics are the greatest. but, I still love it.

This is the greatest Call of Duty to date. I have played Cod 4 and let me tell you compared to this game it is terribly overhyped. World at War is Way better. The guns may not fire as fast but they do way more damage and are longer ranged than most guns in COD 4. Sargent Reznov is a truly remarkable charcter who is not only excellent with a PPSH but is just an epic charcter to begin with. The Flamethrowers are an excellent addition to an already awesome lineup of weapons and the scene where Chernov dies is truly remarkable and sad at the same time. Zombie mode is pretty fun even though I have yet to get to play the games multiplayer.The game has wonderful graphics especially the Stalingrad level, the Berlin levels, and all of the pacific levels. The AI is greatly improved from Treyarchs other titles. Meleeing does not half freeze the game like in the PS3 version of COD 4 which was really annoying. Another amazing thing is the Black Cats level which was one of the first levels I have played in a World War two game or any game for that matter that almost left me in tears of how well made it was. In my opinion this is the greatest WWII shooter ever made and quite possibly the greatest Shooter Ever made. A true Must Buy.… Expand

I have played several Call of Duty games and have enjoyed them all with the exception of this entry. My problem with the game isn't that Treyarch developed it, I have no problem with that. My biggest concern in regard to the game is just how much of a bland and boring retread it is of the World War II genre, providing nothing out of the ordinary to keep the player entertained.

This game shines in terms of production value without question, but pretty graphics, great sound and lighting only go so far to mask the average shooter underneath. The game lacks interesting characters or involving story. The campaign is short, well under 10 hours to complete, and the level design is standard for what people have come to expect out of a WWII shooter. My biggest problem with this game is just how safe Treyarch played it when developing the title. The original Modern Warfare had events that were almost larger than life, with your character escaping a capsizing ship, and a nuclear bomb scene that is arguably the most memorable thing to take place in a war themed shooter. This is why it's unfortunate that this game turned out so plain, and is ultimately a hold-over for those waiting for Modern Warfare 2.… Expand

On its own this game is fun and a nice change from all the modern fps. But following cod4 this was one of my biggest disappointments in my gaming history. It didn't innovate at all from its predecessor and is worse in ever regard. However despite being inferior to modern warfare, the winning formula is maintained and you still have a very entertaining game. This also had my favourite Zombie mode. Single player: 7/10
Zombie Mode: 9/10
Multiplayer: 8/10… Expand

The main game is really good . I love the gameplay and the style of the mission.Well I gived a 10 for the onlinge-gameplay. If you like to play online game you will love COD5. You will play more time online with all the level to reach.And If you want more:Nazie Zombie. this ''Bonus'' game mode is unlicked at the end of the game. You can play alone or online with 3 other friend.

If you love the laggy online gameplay that peer to peer offers then this game is for you. Stats update infrequently. Graphics and sound are worse than COD4. No camo upgrades for weapons. I would give this game maybe a 7 if Activision used dedicated servers. Not really a bad game, you just have to hope the game host has a good connection.

Treyarch showed us what is it like to copy from another developing team (in terms of multiplayer and most of the game itself ! ) lets start with the bad things 1st:
pretty much the same gameplay as CoD4 (unless this is your 1st call of duty then that statement wont bother you as much). Short story line (you better be buying this game for the multiplayer). and some annoying bugs in both single and multiplayer, I.E. not giving me a knife kill when i had the drop on the person, even though i heard the "stabing" sound and pretty sure that the body was in my whole screen so there wasnt anyway for me to miss!! but then allowing the other person to turn around and either knife me or shoot me while my "cooldown" for my knife and shooting was still in effect! thus getting killed for being able to sneak up on someone and strike 1st (yea that doesnt make any sence!!) and I dont know if you guys notice that on the 1st Russian mission, that whole mission was pretty much copied from the move: Enemy Behind the Gates (which isnt much of a bad thing since i liked that movie, but it goes into one of my "COME - ON!!" moments)also, the single-player AI is quite stupid... there are points in the game where I am actually depending on my "teammates" to give me cover while I go up and continue the mission, but most of the time they are just stairing at a wall, or looking at their feet, not really doing much other then getting themselfs killed (this is more so on the "Burn 'em Out" mission, where you only have a flame-thrower and a prayer not to get shot by a sniper). I think its kinda funny that I COULD DEPEND ON my teammates in COD4 but not in this game, there where many times I got shot in the back because I thought it was clear because my squadmates cleared out a room but didnt shoot anything >.< and it seemed that Treyarch didnt have as much imagination as Infinity Ward, which is prolly the reason why Infinity Ward is making CoD:Modern Warfare 2 and not Treyarch (thank god!)

and now to the good things about CoD5: 1st thing I gotta say is I loved the music, in all modes of the game, It got me engaged into the game there are even points in the game to where I actually stop playing just to listen to the music lol. if I had to pick which side I liked more durring the single-player was when i am with the Russians, Mainly because the American side had all those annonying BONZAI charges, and it seemed that the Russian story-line was actually something to look foward too.... Even though I liked Kiefer Sutherland A.K.A. "Corporal Roebuck" voice acting on the American side, I just dreaded going to the American side... and you know why if you read my comments above. Even though the Multiplayer can be annoying with the bugs and other stuff that goes on while playing, Its actually fun to play. Just like COD4 I enjoyed the multiplayer in this game... even though some weapon upgrades arnt historic and some weapons are a little overpowered knowing what bullets they use... I.E. MP40 uses 9mm rounds, 9mm is small, not much for stoping power but since its small you can carry alot of ammo. but in this game they seem to be packin .45s in their magazines (which by the way a Tommy Gun uses, and some of know how heavy that gun actually is) the funny thing is MP40 is much stronger then most other guns in that game... while in real-life MP40 was a good gun but not as great what Treyarch thinks it should be... Ahhhh there we go, trying to say nice thing about this hard... because every good thing about this game is up to the beholder, its whatever you make it out to be... but I will tell you this, even though CoD4 is a much better game then this, I will still be playing this game for a long while, or at least til COD: Modern Warfare 2 comes out… Expand

I can summarize CoD:WAW in a couple of words:copy cat of CoD4.Online is fun but no new modes and almost the same perks from the previous game.The only good thing about the is the co-op,which works fine and has very little lag.Oh and Mattew R. your wrong.CoD4 wasn't Game of the Year of 2007.Suprisingly so,Bioshock was the official Game of the Year.It won more Game of the Year awards than CoD4 and Halo 3.And it also won the main Game of the Year award which is given in the VGA's by SpikeTV.… Expand

While Call of Duty 4 is one of the best games I know, World at War was an utter failure. It is basically the same as COD4 but with worse guns, same multiplayer and a boring campaign. It's not as exhilerating as CoD4. The zombie mode is decent but will eventually get boring. And the splitscreen co-operative? WHAT was treyarch thinking when they used that terrible screen layout! Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games were always better than Treyarch's. Treyarch justified that statement with this poor game. Good going, Treyarch!… Expand

The worst game I own on the PS3! DO NOT BUY! In no way is this the follow on from Call of Duty 4. Treyarch are ruining the Call of Duty franchise buy returning to the WW2 era. The story is boring, the graphics are appaling even on my HDTV with a HDMI. The online is frantic and untactical. Also they copied the perks from COD4. PLEASE BRING BACK INFINITY WARD.

I have finished the COD 5 single player campaign now and it was really painful as it is so amazingly boring.

I was never a big fan of COD 1-3 but COD 4 was a real masterpice and that is why I bought COD 5 which has really nothing in common with its predecessor.

I loved CoD4, simply the best shooter ever. So when WaW was announced I was constantly thinking about it, i was so exited. But then I got it. Exactly the same as CoD4 just with worse guns. Same perks, same layout, same online modes, same everything. The only thing that's keeping me from selling it is the half decent zombie mode, but even that gets boring after 2 games. Worst in the series.

Major disappointment of the series. The campaign in this game is unbelievably dull, boring, uncreative, and unappealing on Treyarch's part. The missions start well but turn into nothing but tiring, repetitive, shootings over and over again. In fact, that's all 80% of the campaign is, mindless shooting going on for 20 mins, one small break here and there, and back to shooting. Yes, there are a few well done missions, but don't expect them to live up to the hipe of CoD4 at all. Co-op makes it more fun, but still doesn't solve the problems themselves. Aside, this game is not bug-free, and ammo does not replace itself at certain checkpoints, or even at all in some missions. This makes going through the (and often ridiculous) objectives much more difficult, as you'll have to pick up the enemy's (and weaker) guns, which are limited to at most 3 different types. On the subject of multiplayer, there isn't all much difference then CoD4's excellent multiplayer. A few new modes are added, and vehicles do make the matches more interesting, but the old fundamentals are still there. Don't get this game for just a new multiplater, stick to CoD4. If at least 4 of your friends have it, and are playing a lot, you should perhaps consider getting it then. It'll keep you entertained for 3-4months at the most, until you start to the bored the same way as in coD4. WWII fans, will love this campaign's story, but you probably won't find it worthy to even finish it.… Expand

Solo play is good, if not spectacular. Co-operative play is a great addition. Multiplayer is great - some good new game-modes, lots of fun, decent connections. All in all, it's not quite as good as COD4, but it's a very good replacement, one year on!

Given that this game was billed as COD4 set in WWII, it is surprising how far short of that mark this game falls. While this is an improvement over Treyarch's previous attempt; it still falls well short of the mark set by COD2 & COD4. While there is a sense of achievement in finishing a level, the main part missing is any sense of FUN. The set-piece battles are largely uninspiring & unmemorable; the difficulty curve is very uneven between the Soviet & US missions; several levels are immensely frustrating in parts thanks a lot to enemy AI that can pinpoint a grenade at your feet when they can't see you, will ignore your squad mates to shoot you and never stop to reload; combined with squad mates that will ignore enemies next to them - this leads to repetitious death if you face more than a few enemies at a time. If you want a good single-player FPS, you will be better off looking elsewhere.… Expand

Worst spawn generator on the planet. Consistently drops you infront of enemies and you get killed without so much as moving. Then you get to wait for 15 seconds again till it does exactly the same thing. After 3 times, I quit the game and am listing it to be sold

By far the most disappointing game I have ever purchased. Amazingly, this is the first COD game I have ever purchased. I was disappointed within the first 30 seconds. The entire game feels like no effort was put into it. The graphics don't impress, I don't really like the controls for sprinting (PS3), the guns and aiming are horrible, and it lacks excitement. I've tried to like it everytime I play it, but I can't. It's boring, offers nothing new to the shooter and WW2 genre, and comes during the time when many other excellent shooters are out. Stick to Resistance 2 instead.… Expand

Where do I begin... Lets start with the campaign, the one and only reason I gave it a 1 instead of the 0 I was tempting to put. Okay. The first mission was bad. "How the hell didn't the gaurds spot the Americans coming?" Was my first thought about the game, and as we all know, first impressions mean everything and the first mission was a complete let down, the graphics were terrible even on my HDTV, and I'm being completely honest here when I say that I've seen better knife graphics on a PS2. Right, let me skip the whole campaign because I can sum it up in 3 words; Mediocre for 5 minutes. The online is the worst online I've EVER come across. When I first got knived I literally jumped out of my skin because it sounded as if I had been thwacked with one of those big hands you see at football games. There is one good thing about the online, the gun sound effects, when I eventually unlocked the Double-Barrelled Shotgun and blasted some Nazis arm off, I realized they had put some effort into the sound effects of the entire game. I must say I do agree with Zach A. in all aspects but I just beleive that Activision/Treyarch have ruined the COD series. Call of Duty 4 was such a step up from Call of Duty 3 and yet although the graphics are an improvement, Call of Duty: World at War is such a disappointment and a waste of my money. I seriously do not have the patience to nail every single flaw in the game so I leave you with this: DO NOT BUY THIS GAME.… Expand

I enjoyed the game well sort of, it keep me entertained for a while. i havnt played cod4 online but i enjoyed COD WW online, it wasnt realistic at all with it's silly weapon upgrades eg. red dot targeting in a ww2 game but it was fun, unless the host had a shit connection which became increasingly frequent, i did also enjoy the single player campaign but didnt notice quiet a few flaws which did upset me a little as if no care was taken into making this game, dont get me wrong i enjoyed the game i just felt like it could have been just so much better with a little more effort. im not gonna write a full page im just going to skip to the points, it feels like the AI are scripted which is because they are, which is dissapointing becasue if you die and try again its exactly the same as before, they AI also hav a habit of just targeting you the main player, as if its a one man war, and your fellow soilders just suck, theres no other word for it, maybe thats why they just target you????? but honestly the game is fun despite it flaws, the graphics are decent not ground breaking or out of this world but good enough, it is a brutal game, violent but then the guns are silly. sniper rifles kill with one shot almost regardles of where you shot the person, and the same gun without a scope it takes 2 shots, i am a ww2 fan but im struggling find anything new, they are all just slight variations of the one recipe and it's become quiet boring, the gameplays just completely linear, the AI are scripted and stupid but they can be incredibly accurate at the same time, i feel these game producers are just becoming lazy they dont care anymore as if no matter what crap they put out it will sell because there is nothing else, the huge amouts of space on blu ray discs and awsome power of the ps3 arent gettting used by the slightest. i still did enjoy this game, BUT rent before yu buy becasue the campiagns short and the multiplayer is well no other word than silly tho i enjoyed it, others may not. i could go on about the banzias melee attackes and the sometimes very repative gameplay etc etc. but i did enjoy this game because compared to other ww2 games, as it does bring some new aspects and is quiet fun and entertaining but still very much the same everywhere else. to conclude, MY OPINON IS THAT this is a great game, but far from a fantastic game.… Expand

A major disappointment, absolutely everything has been taken from cod4 but made worse. Worse graphics, worse story, worse gameplay, worse maps, worse online, worst offline, dogs are rubbish, artillery strikes are rubbish, weapons are rubbish, maps designed for sitting only no strategy needed, even noise when 1 min left on S&D is annoying. Oh and half the maps have some glitch spots where you can exit and go under the map.… Expand

On one level it's World War 2 all over again, and the multiplayer has a it in common with COD4, without COD 4's distinctive graphical style.

But you know what? I have been playing mp for several hours now and having a bang-up time, while the single player has left me emotionally exhausted. It's the first WW2 game I have played that - as well as being frantic - feels slightly sickening. You are asked to do some awful awful things, and it makes you face the reality of that.

All in all a very solid game. I wish I hadn't played all the other WW2 games though!… Expand

I am amazed that this game was marketed as a WW2 game. It is not a WW2 game. It is COD4 re-skinned. The maps are beautiful. The best I've ever seen. Weapons are not country-specific, so forget any type of tactical realism. No time was spent at all making new perks, so there is no freshness there. A-historic weapon sights are a huge immersion killer. All in all, the game is an insult to anyone who knows anything about WW2. If you are expecting a WW2 experience, go elsewhere. If you want COD4 reskinned with nothing new, then this is your game. What a shame. this could have been the best WW2 game ever, had there been any effort put into making it original and true to the genre. This game smacks of a "slap it together cheaply and let's see how it does" mindset. I'm amazed that the game received such high scores, and those same high scores are a mark on how low the standards are for gaming nowadays.… Expand

I'm sorry to say this, but the game is just downright unplayable...the reason? The constant, and I mean constant cheap grenade deaths! I found myself repeating the same section hundreds of times to be killed by a rouge grenade...every damn time! I gave up after the first mission. I seriously don't get way people wet themselves so much over online play as it is, but the online play for COD 5 is almost as unplayable, yeah ok so alot of it is down to my awful skill at this game, but seriously people must be tanked up on PCP (Angel dust) while playing this! Sorry for the sloppyness of this review, but my god I'm so angry! Gahhhhhhhh.... 3 points for the graphics though!… Expand

Solo is average at best. I had to force myself to finish it. Nazi zombies is good until you play with someone who glitches and ruins it for you. Multiplayer is beyond frustrating. The lag is horrendous. Weapons aren't that great. Bolt-actions aren't as powerful as they should be. Submachine guns are way over-powered. Not realistic at all. The maps aren't nearly as good as COD4. The perks are fairly useless. I loved COD4 but I've already moved on from this garbage game.… Expand

its no COD4 but it is a pretty fun game the best part is the end of it when you unlock the zombie mini game but i think that people are going to expect COD4 quality games every time now but the first one was something new which made it really good and they don't realize that it was made by an entirely different section of activision

What the...? There are some pretty lame reviews of this game from other people. I can understand that a 10 out of 10 would be undeserving.... but 2's and 3's? Honestly? Anyways, I'll start by saying: If you liked Call of Duty 4, you will like this. Period. Second, if you like war games you will like this. If you like online multiplayer games, you will LOVE this. I honestly feel this is the best multiplayer game ever made. It just *slightly* edges COD4 for that title... but it's very addicting. I'm sure Modern Warfare 2 will be the best game ever made... but this game is worth a pick up if you have some spare money or see it fairly inexpensive.… Expand

When I bought this game I had no experience with COD4. It lags once and awhile which I finally got use to. Graphics were decent. Glitches were everywhere, in Multi-player maps and zombie maps be expecting a glitch and don't believe the leader boards. so I got board with this finally and played COD4. now I am wishing I had never bought this game. If I wouldn't had bought COD4 and found out how much better World at War could be this score would be higher. I find this score partly appropriate and partly over deserving.… Expand

Mediocre level design, graphics that look like a step down from Call of Duty 4 instead of a step up, inconsistent aiming, and teenager-like-I'm-Better-Than-Call-of-Duty-4-Please-Believe-Me! ruin this game. What am I refering to with the teenager-like crap that Treyarch pulls? CoD4 fans wanted dogs in multiplayer, so Treyarch puts dogs in there. CoD4 has Level 55 has the highest, CoD5 has Level 65! CoD4's perks allow for some interesting combos, CoD5 has more perks! WTF Treyarch. WTF Activision. Let Infinity Ward handle the CoD series and lay-off Treyarch.… Expand

Fairly good graphics but upon closer inspections of some buildings the textures remind me of games from 5 years ago. Definitely a step backwards for the franchise. The weapons sounds are very poor and the MP has somehow become more arcade-like. Skip this one.

Take a good game made by experts, then add add usless reatards Treyarch, use sombody elses work that people love then make a rubbish effort at yet another WW2 game, yaaay the game looks decent on the skin? But NO....they have doen nothing with it apart from use other people work and look for glory....Nothing new in the game, same old same old WW2, let down on co-op, sniper /camper heaven, dredfull online server (half the time you cant connect or get lag and i mean LAG)
we all knew Treyarch would screw up but some might think they done good but anyone who really knows will see they have only taken advatage on a infanity ward.....Bottom line bring them back for COD6, forget WW2, and bring in the real people who made this game great not the flops of Treyarch… Expand

Terrible, absolutely terrible. Takes Call of Duty IV and makes it even worse. If you're looking for the same shooter that you've been playing for the past 5 years, get this. If you want something new, go get Mirror's Edge.

From the get go Treyarch billed this as the worthy successor to Infinity Ward

Shockingly bad, one of the worst online games i've ever played. The weapons are awful, the fire from the hip is broken and the visuals look like they've had treacle thrown all over them. This wouldn't have impressed me on PS2.

Horrendous game, the constant respawns and laser-guided grenades makes this one of the least enjoyable games I have ever played - finishing each level brings nothing other than pure relief from the endless frustration. The graphics are very good in places, but the rest of it just isn't worth the effort.

Where do I start? Well, the campaign is an amazing triumph of gaming engineering, and how Treyarch and Activision have put this story mode together is marvellous! There are faults in the campaign, which, give them their due is unavoidable. Some minor faults that are unavoidable are the ridiculous glitches with characters and how they can merge into a wall and glitch so badly that you cannot carry on in your conquest of Europe. The face is, Activision/Treyarch, you could iron out these faults I believe. I'll start with the Pacific side of the campaign now, with these pathetic (OK, maybe that did happen in real life) Banzai Chargers that in one hit put you down on the floor like a sack of steaming turds. I'm sure everyone feels this way when I say; "JUST DIE YOU DAMN BANZAIS!". The only way you are ever going to clear these out of your path of destruction is to Flamethrower the buggers! There are many other annoying aspects of the campaign, but I do not have the time, nor the energy to type my fingers down until they are bleeding and oozing stubby clumps attached to my hands! Settle down reader. The online is a trecherous and unforgiving pile of useless boring crap. If any fan of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare would agree, that would probably the best FPS game that I have ever come across, but then came Call of Duty: World at War. With this came the same gameplay and huge maps, unrealistic melee attacks, over powered, but surprisingly under powered sub-machine guns, gastly and an unlimited combination of perks and weapon choice, out of proportion characters compared to the maps, incredibly rabid dogs, the unexplainable concept of attack dogs that might as well be flying, under powered rifle, weirdly put together bolt-acion rifles when you attach a sniper scope that somehow makes these guns one hit kill to the torso and head when they take two torso shots if you attach the bayonet or grenade launcher. Take a little breather... ANYWAY! I'll start on the kniving now. It sounds like someone is thwacking you over the back of the head with a plank of drift wood wrapped in a cotton sheet. To be honest, it makes me crap my pants sometimes when some cheeky punk sneeks up behind me and "pounds me to death with cotton wrapped drift wood", and it gets increasingly annoying. Bouncing Betty's are even more annoying due to the fact that they are more persistently used and insanely destructive to the human virtual body. My theory is that if you trigger one - Bouncing Betty - and it jumps up and explodes, lie down as quickly as possible to avoid its nuclear asplosion. Perks. The "Second Chance" perk which is exactly the same as Last Stand from Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, has an added extra which allows you to revive any other user of Second Chance on your team. Ingenius, but rather silly. Hallelujah for Martydom, and the explosion range being reduced! There you see, I did have a good point about the online... Tanks, awesome and tremendous addition. The uselessness of a Molotov Cocktail, I am really unable to comprehend. Sticky Grenades suck as much as the Molotov's. Every Rifle on this game, are rendered useless if you have attached a Flash Hider or Supressor. The M1 Garand rifle, ordinarily takes around three shots the finish an enemy off, but when the sniper scope is attached, then it's one hit kill. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! I feel that there are far too many challenges in the fifth episode of the Call of Duty series. And if this is Treyarch's/Activision's idea of "occupying" the player with an impossibly large amount of challenges to complete, THEN THEY ARE BADLY MISTAKEN! Right then, my neck and eyes hurt. My finger tips are sore because my anger and disappointment towards Call of Duty: World at War has forced me to literally mash the buttons in to type this comment. In my opinion, this game is such a flop and bores me so horribly, that I would be able to purge vomit through my eyes and ears. I know thousands will disagree, so be it! Thanks very much!… Expand

Repetitive single player, stagnant multi player based too heavily on COD 4, with all the flaws copied over. At least COD 3 had it's own character! Fictitious weapon upgrades like "red dot" sights in WWII show just how poor a copy of COD 4 this game is, COD 4 wasn't that great anyway. Buy Bad Company, the COD franchise is finished!

This game didn't live up to the high expectations of it there was a few flaws. firstly the campaign was mildly enjoyable a bit repetitive but good. probably the best aspect of the game nazi zombies was very enjoyable and a good teamwork builder. The multi player wasn't that good the maps weren't well designed the game play didn't have the high experience modern warfare had.

The campaign is trash, they did a terrible job with the plot line and character development. The mulitplayer and been eternally ruined with the MP40, the only reason this game is not a 4 is because Nazi Zombies are alone worth 60 dollars.

Unlike Modern Warfare 2, you get World at War for its campaign, which it excelled in. The graphics are something of a Call of Duty selling point, Infinity Ward has been making great looking shooters for years now, and Treyarch hasnt been up to the standards of their older and more experienced brother in the franchise, but this game is still a great looking game.The gameplay is something that everyone knows and loves, and the story is the classic World War 2 story that Call of Duty worked on for years. But beyond all that, this is still a great game, and i never really was able to play all of older ww2 games, so i didnt mind the setting. The campaign is easily that shinny part of this game, but you cant forget what really made this game and Treyarch so famous, Nazi Zombies. This is the first time a COD game went into the undead setting, and it worked really well and made this game a must have back in the day because finding out how far you could get and what strategy to use to stay alive was exciting and adrenaline boosting. Mulitplayer, while nothing to be ashamed about, became outdated quickly after Infinity Ward made it so amazing in both of their Modern Warfare games. Is it bad? No, it is still a great multiplayer and the ideas are refreshing after playing so much MW multiplayer. This game would have become one of the best in the COD series if it wasnt for Modern Warfare, but that dosnt mean that it isnt good. This game is really cheap now at any retailer, so it isnt a waste of ur time or money, pick up a copy on your way to get Black ops, thats wat i did and i dont regret it.… Expand

I really love COD: World at War. I personally find the WWII setting much more interesting than the Modern Warfare equivalent. I prefer the online matches, too. The bare bones nature of it appeals to me. No heartbeat sensors, death streaks or game ending nuclear bombs... Just you, a gun, a few mines and maybe a pack of rabid attack dogs. FPS heaven! The single player campaign is descent, but doesn't hit the same highs as the likes of Modern Warfare 2, BUT... You can play the entire thing in two player co-op which more than makes up for it. Going through the missions with a buddy in tow is hellaciously good fun. Ultimately, this is probably the best multiplayer FPS that I have ever played... Which is high praise indeed!… Expand

This game was really not good, the story wasn't good at all, the offline and online multiplayer wasnt that great, Black Ops, Mw2, and Cod4 are all way better, the one good thing about this game is that Zombies was super fun!

The single-player is decently long and interesting though it didn't have many OMG moments. I didn't play the multiplayer. "Nazi Zombies" is great fun especially with friends or random people of the internet. The graphics looked a bit grainy but the lighting was good

Call of Duty: World at War lacks gameplay and graphics comparing to other CoD titles. Yes it has it's own good sides and WW2 theme can appeal some people. After playing Modern Warfare-titles this game feels like playing almost a PS2 title. Not that it's all bad - I like older platforms. The game offers some nice modes (co-op zombies is addictive and fun, you can play campaign also co-op) and online gameplay works good. Singleplayer is just like in almost every shooter game - repeatitive with not really interesting persons - fast-paced action with a few (not interesting) plot twists. So basicly, this title is OK shooter, with a few good sides and lots of things you see in every other shooter. I would recommend this is you really like shooters (or co-op games), but not otherwise.… Expand

Let me get this out...I...HATE zombies. hate it. so, other than that. Really good game. Best story mode of any cod I think and the multiplayer is pretty good aswell. Just feels good and has good lasting appeal.

I hate this game, it's the worst call of duty of all time the multiplayer sucks and so does the campaign. there are only 2 good things about this game. 1: support. 2: zombies. Just play the other cods and skip this one.

Honestly the reason why lots of people put this a low number was because cod 4 was a REALLY good game and this isn't as good as cod 4 BUT its still great. From the great guns in multiplayer to the amazing zombie co-op this game has a great potential . OK the single player is short and a little average with pretty dumb ai (to the point that a Japanese soldier would run past all my teammates and come for me) but the co-op and multiplayer are where this game shines .

Story: 5 ai:3,5 plot:7,5 notes: ai are dumb but the plot isn't the Normandy beach for the thousandth time!!! it's the fall of Berlin and stuff like that! Overall don't buy this game just for the single player. Co-op: 9 ai: 3,5 plot: 7,5 note: Same as the 1 player just with a friend!The Nazi zombies are the heart of co-op without it it wouldn't be the same!

multiplayer: 9 if any new patches for the glitches if not 8 replay-ability : 9,5 fun: 7,5 note: this would in my opinion be better than cod 4 multiplayer if treyarch stopped the hackers and glitchers .

OVERALL: 9 note: this game is really fun a must buy for the ww2 fans and for cod 4 fans really good work treyarch!!!… Expand

This is the best Call of Duty ever made, better than Modern Warfare 1. And that actually sounds kind of drastic, so let me explain why.

First off, this game has quite possibly the best Campaign ever. Not only is this game returning to the roots of Call of Duty, which is very nice, but it's actually going out of it's way to feature a different setting for it's Campaign missions! I don't remember the Pacific Campaign or the Russian push towards Germany being done in previous CoD games, so that's a big plus. And this Campaign has Reznov, the best character to come out of the franchise. Also, the Co-op was a nice addition to the game, as it lets you run through the Campaign with friends or online strangers, so that was very nice of Treyarch to add in. As for the Zombies... it's Zombies. It's a very fun mode to play, especially with friends. The multiplayer takes what CoD 4 did right and improved it. Not only are the perks done much better (Besides second chance **** that perk)), but the guns and the maps are also improved upon. You will not fight an overpowered or underpowered gun in this game, besides the MP40. The tanks were also a nice addition too.

But I still haven't explained why I think WaW is better than CoD 4. My reasoning is that while Modern Warfare 1 had a very solid Campaign as well as a very solid Multiplayer... that was it. CoD 4 had two solid modes to play around in, WaW had 4. So there's where I stand. This game is much better due to power in numbers.

So, all in all, this game gets a 9 for solid gametypes all across the board. The hiccoughs in the multiplayer bump it down a little, but only a little. This is still a wonderful game and my personal favorite in the CoD franchise.… Expand

My personal favorite COD that features World War 2.
The campaign is amazing, co-op zombies is awesome and you get bayonettes with which you can stab people!
Multiplayer is the reason this game got a 9/10. The maps are great but the weapons are boring.
In general great game.

My favorite CoD by far... I love the campaign, because it shows me how things in WW2 worked. The american campaign is not that exciting, but if you say that the russian campaign sucks, you are retarded. The multiplayer is just like CoD4: Great maps, medium quantity of weapons and it's really balanced. The zombies were the most awesome things, 'cause nobody would ever expect that from a CoD game.

I reckon this was the last truly great campaign the CoD franchise made. This game draws you into the horrible events that occurred during the Second World War. The way this game makes you feel is that you can die at anytime and you are always expecting to be shot at out of nowhere. What makes this different to all the other CoD's is that you aren't a one man army in this game and you have to hide and take cover if you want to live. If you play like the way you play in Black ops or MW3 you will certainly get your face shot off instantly by the enemy. The online play to was also fun but was improved upon by Black Ops.… Expand

My favourite Call of Duty game. The simplicity of CoD4 plus the awesome maps and WW2 atmosphere makes for a very, very fun MP game. It may not be addictive as, say, MW2, but the fun factor more than makes up for that.