User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 72 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 54 out of 72
  2. Negative: 11 out of 72

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. Sep 6, 2010
    While lacking some of the better features of the 360/PS3 versions, it still features a surprisingly good single player, with brilliant online play. Yes, the Wii version is inferior, but it's still a great FPS, if not as good as other first person games on Wii, like Red Steel 2 and Metroid Prime 3. A really fun and addictive game, but not as good as the other versions.
  2. May 19, 2012
    The greatest first-person shooter I have played. The campaign is engaging, with absolutely grand and accurate cutscenes. The historical accuracy of this game is quite nice. Probably still one of the greatest Call of duty games ever.
  3. Aug 26, 2012
    Call of duty world at war for the wii prooves that a hardcore fps is possible on the wii. Unfortunately, it fails to deliver on its promise. First off, the game does not feature zombies, online co-op, warplane turret mission, tank maps, voice chat, objective based mp modes, and less multiplayer maps. The singleplayer is the same story, and the game is brutal. The AI is intelligent, the sound is good, the controls are decent, but the framerate is inconsistent. The multiplayer is fun, but is so basic that i doubt it'll spawn much of a community. The class system of the other versions is fully intact, and the challenges are still in place, and there is a full ranking system. But there are no objective based modes, no clans, no dlc, and no special feel to it. The game doesn't have much of any lag whatsoever. The graphics of the game are stunning, alot of textures look good, and the models are decent. Call of duty World at War on wii is a successfull experiment, but falls flat and is a bit of a dissapointment. The squadmate co-op is a nice bonus, but can't make up for what else the game does wrong. It's a good rental though Expand
  4. Nov 4, 2010
    I liked the story but I couldn't get over how bad the graphics were. It looked like they took the Xbox360 game and dropped the graphics to where it's barely playable but able to work on the Wii. I'm sorry Wii-mote lovers but I feel like I have more control with a mouse or two analog sticks. If you like FPS's then do yourself a favor and get Goldeneye because it's a billion times better.
  5. Feb 12, 2012
    Eh, not very good. Pretty boring after awhile and the online is terrible. The only good thing about this game is the single player campaign. There story is also pretty good.
  6. Nov 4, 2013
    Another fantastic CoD game for the Wii. Would be 10/10, but it did have a few very annoying "sticking points" (i.e. parts that were for me almost impossible to beat, and all of them pretty early on in the game) and I liked the control setup for CoD 3 better. Great campaign storyline, and even has an online mode for players who are into multiplayer.
  7. May 5, 2014
    World at War was released in 2008 to universal acclaim. I, on the other hand, at long last, lay my hands on it in 2014, on a game I was confident would bring me more joy than Red Steel (dead serious, it ain't half bad), as I have been reading a lot of good about it on the Internet.

    World at War comes as a… bag mixed of single- and multi-player campaigns. As of the day I'm writing this
    review, Nintendo is about to shut down their wi-fi connectivity. Due to obvious reasons, I don't wanna tease myself with something that'll be taken away from me for keeps, so I skip the multiplayer mode. Anyhow, the Wii has never been known to have a top-notch online play, so why bother with it, right? Let's erase what is left to the displeasure of its fans. Although multiplayer, easily, constitutes like a good half of this product, and "Wi-fi connectivity" proudly announces the cover, never more will you be able to enjoy it. Poof, vanished into thin air.

    So, what is the single-player campaign like? Right off the bat, if this is the future, or rather the present, of first person shooters, then do count me out. Granted, old school shooters couldn't boast of epic storylines but they, at least, would give you some freedom. Maps were yours to explore, or so I remember. In WaW, you have none of this freedom. The game is scripted and fixed beyond belief. Devs err on the side of caution not to let you roam free. You're being led by the hand at all times. Oh, you wanna take a stroll to the left. Not a bright idea - a felled tree blocks your path. To the right you can't go either, a boulder won't let you pass this time around. Mind you, there's a background for you to admire,. This forest, with all certainty, goes somewhere; only, where remains shrouded in mystery.

    Cause them devs know good that all you wanna do in a game like this is jog straight ahead. And all the potential of the fps genre is tapped when you hide away behind some cover, lying in wait for the enemy to reload. Then charge and hope you'll be a quick enough runner and gunner to make a pitiful attempt at shooting your enemy. Or, alternatively, wait and have your squad mates, actually, complete the whole game on your behalf. Then… it goes full circle, until the very end, with so little variation that the tank level strikes you as being from a different game. The outcome is that, thanks to some control freaks who made this game, you get an experience even more linear than the original Red Steel. I'll say it like I mean it, it is a simplified, if not simplistic, fps game. I recall playing the first installment to the Call of Duty franchise, and compared with it, World at War feels tenfold as linear.

    So I heard someone in the audience say that the original Medal of Honor games were predictable as well, if not more, and generic, for that matter. Rationalize all you want, there was something to the first two MoHs that in WaW is gone missing. If only its programmers had the guts to let some fresh air in, the game could benefit from it, cause by the looks of it, they can't seem to take it in stride. The storyline gotta be so down to earth from beginning to end. MoH, in contrast to WaW, was tongue-in-cheek, almost like cabaret, which doesn't exactly mean that it could not take itself seriously.

    It has become a stock phrase as far as this console is concerned - WaW is "graphically appealing for a Wii game." That said, on a bigger flat screen TV, textures are as blurred and muddy and bland… and what not that it gets you thinking. I myself have been thinking, which isn't every day, and what I came up with is that the Wii limitations as a piece of sh… hardware are no excuse for this game's looking far worse than the Call of Duty classic, still less of an eyesore that WaW, which came out five years later.

    The AI deserves an honorable mention. To say it leaves much to be desired won't do it justice. Enemy soldiers have a strong inclination to get stuck in a rut every so often and squat as if it were a PE class, as if they believed would overcome an obstacle in front of themselves by performing an infinite number of squats. Sometimes, they stand motionless, without any intent to attack you. It's a sad view to look at. But what can you do? You saw it, you would agree. A wise thing to do under such circumstances is reset the level, start over and take it like a man.

    All things considered, my take on this game could have been different, if I had the opportunity to test its multiplayer component. Is it worth playing? Yes, as a curiosity, as a herald of the advent of more linear, repetitive and frustrating gameplay, as a demonstration what a game can become when stripped of its online multiplayer, which it heavily relies on. I won't grade it. Since I'm in no position to evaluate the online, and since the offline part leaves me with mixed feelings, I can only recommend this game, if you find it at a reasonable price.
  8. Dec 21, 2011
    this is one great game that shows the wii is able to host cod title the controlls are good the online is good and the campaign is simply amazing it is a must have title on the wii

Generally favorable reviews - based on 19 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 17 out of 19
  2. Negative: 0 out of 19
  1. Arguably the best WWII game ever. Simply put, if you like first-person shooters this is absolutely essential.
  2. If you're looking for a great FPS on the Wii, Call of Duty: World at War definitely fits the bill. With its impressive graphics, cinematic and brutal storytelling, varied missions, and excellent multiplayer offerings, this is a must play title for mature Wii gamers.
  3. I can find fault with anything.