User Score
7.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 482 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 67 out of 482

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. Dec 20, 2010
    9
    Call of Duty is going back to World War 2 with this game and it makes a memorable return, the campaign is short but tons of fun and challenging on the harder difficulties, the graphics are great and still impressive today, the controls haven't changed from Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare because they don't need to, they are still one of the best controls out there, voice work is top notch, and multiplayer is just as good if not slightly better than Call of Duty 4, this one of the best games in the series and I would highly recomend it to any fan of the series Expand
  2. Nov 8, 2011
    3
    "Call of Duty: World at War" has everything wrong. The textures are muddy and dirty as well as the sneaky, invincible AI. The story is good, but TOO linear. Especially after playing this game on Xbox for a brief period, I realized this game isn't for the Xbox; it's not meant to be. In my opinion the PC version was better with plenty of swag, so if you really want to play this piece of junk, at least buy it on PC or Playstation. Expand
  3. Mar 12, 2013
    6
    On a technical level World at War is arguably the least accomplished of the Call of Duty titles and yet another return to World War II setting certainly meant the single player campaign could be a bit of a chore to play through. Since the now overused online multiplayer formula was still fairly fresh at the time however it was still very easy to lose days, even weeks, competing on Xbox live. As a result World at War was still a worthy purchase at the time even if it has now been truly overshadowed by better entries in the series. Expand
  4. Jun 25, 2013
    8
    The game may tread too deep into some decidedly grim territory at times, but "Call Of Duty: World At War" still makes for an impactful WWII shooter with some awesome gameplay additions to the franchise.
  5. Apr 26, 2011
    6
    Entertaining but perhaps not the best one in the series. The mechanic is equal to MW ,the campaign nice . The game gives the same feature that all the cod game has only in a ugly way that I dint expected weird not satisfying multiplayer . Also it includes the famous zombies that made treyarch famous and the only positive feature that i think that is great, also original. Such a let down for a great franchise. Expand
  6. Nov 15, 2011
    7
    Let's get things straight. The multiplayer is an absolute JOKE. Dogs are overpowered, artillery is awful coz it shakes the screen so much. Not to mention some of the useless perks and guns. The campaign has a poor story, nothing links together and the levels aren't particularly well designed. Veteran difficulty is also a joke, due to the infinite grenade-spamming AI, but is do-able. Still, zombies is fun. It's not a "GOOD" game, it's just enjoyable if you can manage to not take it seriously. This game still puzzles me in a way. It seems like 3arc have put zero effort into the multiplayer, judging from the imbalanced perks (who uses flak jacket or shades when you can have juggernaut or stopping power?), some of the stupidly under-powered weapons, the worst hit detection ever and of course, the MP40 Juggernoobs. Small wonder how most people stay serious on Modern Warfare and come on this for a mess-around. The multiplayer is poorly designed not just in balancing but there's plenty of lag as well. Where this game shows its ingenuity is in the zombie maps. Even though the original was meant to be just a mini-game, it's turned into something bigger and inspired other game developers to think more carefully before discarding the idea of a horde/survival mode. I've played all the maps on PS3 and I can tell you, they are so well designed. The windows, doors, cost of buying... everything is so strategically done and it all makes sense. Shame about the campaign which feels soulless and the pathetic online which isn't even worth complaining about, but just to have a good laugh at. Expand
  7. Nov 4, 2012
    9
    Second best Cod game ever(slightley beaten by cod 4 mw1) Campaigns great, mulitplayers epic and zombie is awesome. Cods suck now a days but the good ones will never be forgotten. Call of Duty: World at War 9.3/10
  8. Feb 8, 2014
    4
    I don't think Activision have every had a History lesson at school in their lives. This game is unbelievably inaccurate (even though it is set in a real event) and the characters are so unloveable. They could all die in warfare and I would be happy, as the game would be over. Every gun feels the same. I don't know if it's my copy of the game, but it has no save feature. WHY DO THEY EXPECT ME TO WANT TO COMPLETE THIS WHOLE **** GAME IN ONE SITTING. It would be ok if the game was any good, but it isn't. Zombies is unlockable, which again isn't a big problem, but in this case it is because, again, THERES NO SAVE FEATURE! Expand
  9. Aug 8, 2012
    8
    This was my first call of duty game, and I definitely enjoyed it, the maps were great, the connection wasn't too bad, and the general feel of it was good, and made the game very enjoyable, the game was later ruined by hackers however, and I blame Treyarch for not fixing these errors as multiplayer lobbies are still full of hackers who cannot die. The singleplayer wasn't too bad either, you took your place in the war, but that's all it felt like really, you were just a soldier, no real significance. Expand
  10. Mar 20, 2012
    6
    By far my least favourite of the 'modern' call of duty series (post COD3, that is). I never felt the campaign really took off. The story was good, but it never met the expectations I had after COD4. The multiplayer was sub-par compare to modern warfare as well, leaving zombies as the only new and redeeming feature. This game laid the groundwork for what become Black Ops, but it never really satisfies on a game level. It's merely sandwiched between multiple great games on either side, and comes out average. Expand
  11. May 26, 2013
    9
    Treyarch might be one of my favorite game company for this. This is the most bloody, exciting, and explosive Call of Duty since Finest Hour and Medal of Honor! Its just to bad this is the last WWII CoD in the franchise.
  12. Apr 14, 2011
    9
    This game for me,is easily the best in the series of Call of Duty.I've always rated Treyarch over the overated 'Inferior' Ward.Though Black Ops was a big dissappointment for me,World at War is Treyarch at their best.Great variety of locations in the campaign,& VERY glad to finally see Campaign Co-Op in a Call of Duty game! & not just 2 player,but 4 Players at that! Not to mention Zombie Mode.Its even my favourate multiplayer in all the CoD series,actually having vehicles.I know CoD 3 also had vehicles(another Treyarch CoD),but it so much better implemented in World at War,with having to wear down & destroy tanks armour for instance.What else can i say,but Great Game! More Campaign Co-Op in Call of Duty though please.after all,these are 'Squad' games,with storys of Comradary.In fact,if i'm to buy any more CoD games in future,that is the MINIMUM requirment,or No sale! Expand
  13. May 28, 2013
    7
    I like the veteran playthrough, like it. haven't play co-op, zombie, and multiplayer that much. the 7 is mainly for the satisfaction after finishing the game on veteran.
  14. Jun 16, 2013
    9
    Just picked this up again after years of modern shooters. I forgot how much I enjoyed the WW2 setting and guns. Even after all this time, it is still an amazing shooter. And who don't love popping Nazi zombie heads.
  15. Nov 19, 2013
    7
    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2) (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player) Gameplay (1/2) Visuals/Story (1/2) (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is better than the visuals, review this section as if the visuals didn’t matter)

    Accessibility/Longevity (2/2)

    (Review this section only on Accessibility if the game has no longevity) (Review this section only on longevity if the game isn’t accessible)

    Pricing (1/2)

    Wildcard (0)

    This is a guideline for how to properly review games. Many reviewers like to get a “feel” for a game, and arbitrarily give a game a score that they believe it deserves. This results in wildly different scores between different reviewers, and vastly different scores between similar games. This guideline addresses these problems and scores games fairly and consistently. This guideline also gives scores that are usually similar to the metacritic score.

    The review score is based out of 10 points. There are no “half” or 0.5 increments. It is impossible to have a score above 10 or below 0. The review score will change as the game gets new dlc, drops in price, or if more secrets are found through the game increasing its appeal.

    The scoring is split into 6 sections. The first five sections can add a possible 2 points to the final score. The first 5 sections are Single Player/Multi Player, Gameplay, Visuals/Story, Accessibility/Longevity, and Pricing.

    Notice that 3 of these sections have two parts. These particular sections will be scored based on the stronger part of the game of the two. For example, if a game has a lousy single player campaign, but an excellent multiplayer component, that section will be based solely on the multiplayer as if the single player did not exist. This allows games to be based on their own merits, as many unnecessary features are shoehorned into video games by publishers to reach a “feature quota”. Games that excel in both areas of a section don’t receive should be noted in the written review, but cannot increase the score past 2 in that section. However, it can be taken into account in the final section

    The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.
    Expand
  16. Jan 19, 2014
    0
    I didn't play this game very long, I shot one guy in the head then my screen was cluttered with a notice telling me what I had just done with points underneath, I don't want my immersion taken away by on screen numberwang. This game took a tired concept and made it worse with no efforts to do anything good with the franchise. This game was truly the final nail in the COD coffin.
  17. Sep 21, 2011
    9
    By far one of my top favorite Call of Duty games, and the best World War 2 game I've played yet. The campaign is what did it for me, the fist five minutes of the game, I was in awe of the epic game play, and battlefield that I was playing in.
  18. Jul 18, 2012
    7
    The story of this game just doesn't particularly stand out from any other FPS game, and the multiplayer doesn't live up to what was left by Infinity Ward in Modern Warfare. However, despite being an average game in the previous respects, the innovative zombies mode and the way it is incorporated into the game make this a stand out title among others.
  19. May 29, 2014
    8
    Graphics: 9.0 Sound: 9.0 Gameplay: 9.0 Fun/Story: 7.8

    A consistent and solid FPS. Great graphics and maps design. Perhaps it should be more polished to get higher score.
  20. Nov 28, 2012
    7
    This game has some good ideas such as zombies which makes ppl get hard but some of the maps are kinda gay and the tanks are overpowered . The dogs get kind of annoying and sniping doesnt exist in this game
  21. Mar 16, 2013
    8
    Call of Duty World at War is probably my favorite in the Call of Duty series (tied with Call of Duty 2) as I prefer the WW2 setting to the other settings the games have taken place in, World at War features a decent campaign which will last about 4-6 hours, but the real meat of the game comes from it's multiplayer which can give a lot of fun and replay value, It has some balancing issues and some of the maps are too big leading to times when you can't find enemies but overall these issues are not as bad of issues as some of the more recent Call of Duty games have had, I'm not sure if people still play World at War online anymore but if they do then I consider this one of the better Call of Duty games, more recent games have lost there appeal due to the annual releases in my opinion, But this was one of the last call of duty games I played and it's a good game, with solid single player campaign, fun multiplayer and the awesome co-op zombies survival mode, Whether you play alone or with a group of friends, this game can give you hours and hours of fun. Expand
  22. Apr 24, 2011
    6
    This game is fun; the campaign can be played with 3 other people with various 'death cards' enabled to make all the enemies zombies or give you temporary invincibility after getting 3 kills in short time, with competitive scoring to try and get the highest score by the end of each chapter. It makes the campaign far more interesting, but it isn't bad on its own. The zombies level is quite simple but brilliant, surviving infinite waves of increasingly hardy zombie foes in a spooky building; get enough points and you can advance to a new area and gain access to the mystery box and get a new weapon, which could be a sniper rifle or a heavy machine gun depending on your luck. You can buy decent weapons off the walls, but getting a good weapon from the box is essential to exceed round 15. The multiplayer is good old Call of Duty; although it's essentially a WW2 mod of COD4, with new killstreaks, guns and map but pretty much the same perks. With the DLC support, zombies is hard to fault. 3/5, very good. Expand
  23. Dec 31, 2013
    9
    At first I was confused as to why they returned to WWII in the Call of Duty series, but it's not a bad thing at all that they did. World at War is probably, in my opinion, the 2nd best or possibly best of the series. It remained basically the same in multiplayer, adding a few new things, but it's still very fun. The single player is pretty good, but I think the game really shines with the brand new Co-op campaign, with a scoring system, and the Nazi Zombies. I loved playing through the campaign with friends, and I loved zombies. Zombies was obviously great because of its originality and also because it's still around in the series in the new games, or at least versions of it are.

    World at War gets an 8.8/10
    Expand
  24. Jul 12, 2011
    9
    To a lot of people this may not be the best Call of Duty, but to me it is definitely one of the best. The campaign is fun, especially playing co op mode with friends. The best thing about this game though is definitely the zombie mode. The maps are great, with an amazing layout. Definitely better than the black ops zombie mode. This is a game worth getting.
  25. Oct 4, 2011
    8
    Story: 5
    Characters: 4
    Graphics: 8
    Setting: 7
    Multiplayer: 10
    Soundtrack: 6
    Audio: 10
    Gameplay: 8
    Re-Playability Value: 8
    Fun Factor: 9

    Score: 7.5/10 = B
  26. Aug 23, 2010
    6
    Modern warfare was a great game that left gamers wanting more... Unfortunately they did not get more with WAW, it was just a typical WW2 game with a crappy campaign with co-op. Multiplayer sucked where if you didn't buy the map packs it would kick you out of tons of games and the only good thing about the game was nazi zombies. I traded mine in 1 year ago. I give this fail game a 6.5
  27. Jul 1, 2013
    8
    While WW2 games are a dime a dozen on the original Xbox and Xbox 360, this game is really good. The single player game is fairly long and you play as several different soldiers in different armies. The multiplayer was really good. Maps are small, but fun. Zombies is one of the best features of this game. I actually prefer this zombies mode to the later versions because it is simpler and easier to play. The later zombie modes in Black Ops 1 and 2 become overly complex and too gimmicky with all the different power ups. Expand
  28. Aug 18, 2010
    9
    This game is awesome in many ways. Yes, it may be away from the game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, but this video game is one of the best WWII video games ever!!
  29. Oct 29, 2010
    8
    Treyarch are right on the money (if Activision aren't already on it anyway!) as this is a great installment to the CoD series and Treyarch can pat themselves on the back after a job very well done...The campaign portrays war in its true state: desperate, scary and gruesome and this is such a great part and experience and we really hope we can expect more campaigns of this nature in future games by Treyarch such as this year's Black Ops... The online has picked up on the CoD series' weaknesses. Small maps and no vehicles in previous games could sometimes leave gamers wanting more! Never fear, maps like "Seelow" are large and tanks are bound to shake up the game a bit! Finally, zombies - A great part of the game and we really do look forward to seeing them return in Black Ops! Expand
  30. Mar 17, 2013
    10
    I adore this game because it introduced zombies in which Created the COD series even futher, but really Blops 1 and 2 where mistakes. Amazing game and always will be, and always will be Mw3, Blops 1 and 2.
Metascore
84

Generally favorable reviews - based on 84 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 76 out of 84
  2. Negative: 0 out of 84
  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. 90
    Although the campaign storyline isn't nearly as engaging as the one seen in "CoD4," there should be enough memorable set pieces and intense sequences to keep you riveted throughout. The addition of a co-op mode brings a great deal of replay value to the proceedings, especially once you start throwing the death cards into the mix. Ultimately, it's the multiplayer and co-op action that will keep us coming back for more.