User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 473 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 66 out of 473

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. Nov 8, 2011
    "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
  2. Feb 8, 2014
    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
  3. Nov 13, 2010
    Without a doubt, the worst Call of Duty game made to date. This is where things in the COD franchise started to collapse. COD games since WaW have been horrible such as Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops. While MW2 is not quite as horrible but still, same as Black Ops which is only a tab bit better than Waw. The Multiplayer is filled with campers. The multiplayer is also as unbalanced as you can expect from COD to date. The Campaign is as beyond retarded (which what you can except from Call of Duty). I've never played a game that's so bad, that I wanted to die. I'm dead serious. Expand
  4. Nov 10, 2011
    Terrible gameplay, terrible multiplayer, terrible interface. Nothing like Call of Duty 4. I shelved this game quickly and moved back to Call of Duty 4.
  5. Jan 15, 2012
    Excellent single player and the multiplayer WAS good in its time. No longer though. Every lobby has hackers running around with "god mode" enabled and Tryarch will not do anything about it.
  6. Jan 19, 2014
    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.
  7. FredL.
    Dec 11, 2008
    Treyarch failed again, as a die hard COD 1 fan, I see this newest game in the series as a huge disappointment. But first, GOOD: Graphics are pretty, Japanese traps are actually frightening and fun to fight through. The bayonet is easily the most entertaining way to beat the game. BAD: The multiplayer is feeble, just like COD4 before it. It feels behind the times and stale compared to recent multiplayer games. I find myself wishing that it was more like Battlefield: Bad Company styled multiplayer. The single player is dry and failed miserably to keep me enthralled. It's hard to imagine screwing up a game's story based on one of the most compelling periods of military history. They managed to bore me and make me hate the NPC teammates. They became little more then ammo repositories and spare weapons on my trek through the pacific and eastern Europe. My biggest complaint is the coop mode. First off, whoever thought up how they did the splitscreen needs to be fired and banned from the game industry. There is at least 1/4 of each side of my tv that is dead and wasted space. I can see how they wanted to offset the screens to reduce confusion between player 1 and 2, but really it just makes the players screen's even smaller and more confused. Add that to the fact that I played coop my first time through, and made it to the 2nd to last mission. My friend and I decided to take a break, and when we turned it back on it didn't even save my progress. I would expect to be able to continue from where I left off. OVERALL: Graphics are pretty, but since when do graphics alone make a game? Story is terrible, gameplay is nothing new, and I feel like this game would have been better a couple years ago. I'm very glad I rented it, I can't imagine paying full price for this. Collapse

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.