User Score
7.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 347 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 44 out of 347

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. BrianB.
    Jan 21, 2009
    3
    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 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
  2. BigJoe
    Oct 6, 2009
    4
    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! 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
  3. ChrisJames
    Feb 21, 2009
    1
    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.
  4. AnonymousMC
    Feb 9, 2009
    4
    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.
  5. nihilm
    Apr 15, 2009
    2
    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.
  6. MattM
    Nov 15, 2008
    3
    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. 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
  7. SteveSessler
    Dec 6, 2008
    4
    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
  8. UnhappyPerson
    Jan 10, 2009
    2
    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 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
  9. JakeM
    Jan 11, 2009
    1
    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 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
  10. NickW
    Jan 8, 2009
    0
    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 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
  11. DavidE.
    Feb 24, 2009
    4
    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 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
  12. MattJ
    Mar 24, 2009
    3
    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 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
  13. MikeL
    Mar 7, 2009
    4
    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 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
  14. Blake
    Aug 14, 2009
    3
    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 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
  15. DanielFriday
    Nov 14, 2008
    4
    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,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
    Collapse
  16. [Anonymous]
    Nov 18, 2008
    0
    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.
  17. DaveC
    May 24, 2009
    3
    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.
  18. RobinB.
    Nov 26, 2008
    4
    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!
  19. Jan 7, 2012
    0
    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.
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. 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.
  2. 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.
  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.