User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 427 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 46 out of 427
Buy On

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. 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 TIGHT!!! Trust me, this game is definitely going to keep me occupied until the next call of duty or hardcore shooter comes out.
  2. Nov 16, 2010
    10
    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!
  3. JimD.
    Nov 11, 2008
    10
    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 !
  4. LeventeP.
    Oct 31, 2008
    10
    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.
  5. JackH
    Nov 12, 2008
    9
    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 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
  6. JeffM.
    Nov 23, 2008
    10
    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 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
  7. DavidDeRose
    Nov 4, 2008
    8
    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.
  8. MatthewR.
    Jan 10, 2009
    9
    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 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
  9. WilliamM.
    Nov 11, 2008
    9
    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!
  10. AJ
    Nov 12, 2008
    9
    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 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
  11. DominicR.
    Nov 17, 2008
    10
    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.
  12. Aug 22, 2010
    9
    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
    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
  13. Sep 27, 2010
    9
    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.
  14. Mar 31, 2012
    8
    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,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
  15. Jun 22, 2012
    10
    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.
  16. Dec 28, 2012
    10
    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.
  17. Jan 3, 2014
    8
    Treyarch did a job well done here. While some might not like how WaW took the engine from MW1, I personally think it is acceptable and make the game better. The campaign is set in World war 2 and is boring at some points. WaW carried over MW1's multiplayer basically copying but adding tweaks and making changes but is still the fine Call of Duty experience. The true pride of the game isTreyarch did a job well done here. While some might not like how WaW took the engine from MW1, I personally think it is acceptable and make the game better. The campaign is set in World war 2 and is boring at some points. WaW carried over MW1's multiplayer basically copying but adding tweaks and making changes but is still the fine Call of Duty experience. The true pride of the game is the Co-op mode. This is the best Co-op to ever be released within a COD game. The package came a total of 3 Co-op set modes. (1) You could do a Co-op campaign mode to play together with. (2) You could have a competitive Co-op mode to rack up points against others. (3) The legendary Nazi Zombies mode and one of the best Co-op experiences this generation. Nazi Zombies packs you in a map with up to four players, and you survive an unlimited number of rounds. You may think it's just another dumb survival Co-op experience, but it really stands out from the unity required from each player. You can ditch the group and try to survive on your own, or you can keep with them and try to survive as a pack. New Treyarch COD games just don't have that original zombie survival feel also compared to this game. In reality, from its definite Co-op experience, this could be the second best game in the franchise, and is a game that should have deep interest for FPS Co-op fans. Expand
  18. Mar 8, 2014
    9
    In my opinion, this is definitely the best looking Call of Duty game I have ever seen, the game was fun, gritty and perfectly represented the anarchy of war, particularly on veteran difficulty which made me feel like I was actually there.
  19. 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 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 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. Expand
  20. Nov 30, 2010
    10
    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.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
  21. TomW.
    Jan 11, 2009
    8
    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, 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
  22. Nov 19, 2010
    10
    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.
  23. WillR.
    Nov 15, 2008
    9
    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!
  24. Dec 15, 2010
    8
    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 somethingUnlike 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
  25. Aug 17, 2011
    8
    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
  26. May 27, 2012
    9
    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.
  27. Nov 7, 2016
    10
    This game was truly awesome. Some many hours (days) logged into multiplayer. Hackers eventually ruined it though sadly. I hope CoD gets the hint from the FPSers out there that we want to go back to WW1/WW2. I really hope BF1 destroys CoDIF in sales. Maybe remaster this work of art at least? Please?
  28. DavS.
    Jan 1, 2009
    10
    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.
  29. MarkT.
    Feb 13, 2009
    8
    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
    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
  30. AlexC
    Jul 21, 2009
    9
    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 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
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.