Call of Duty: World at War Xbox 360
User Score
7.3 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 417 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 298 out of 417
  2. Mixed: 58 out of 417
  3. Negative: 61 out of 417

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Rhino
    Apr 20, 2011
    10
    By far my favorite Call of Duty game. The maps are wonderfully set up, the variety of weapons is great and kill streaks are set at great increments. MW2 and BO get me extremely aggravated due to camping and not having near as good of maps. The story isn't anything fantastic, but no one gets these for the story. I get the new Call of Duty every year and World at War is the only one I end up keeping and going back to time and time again.… Expand
  2. grandpajoe6191
    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. mrogers0130
    Mar 31, 2012
    9
    Takes the same great formula for gameplay from cod4, and uses the same great multiplayer. The campaign is also great following two fronts of the war that were not focused on by other ww2 games. It creates and gore filled horror of war that is not seen in any other cod, and creates a visual of a hellish experience. It took the modern eleiments from cod4 and put it into a ww2 game with little troubles. It is taking from another formula, but the formula is still almost perfect for this style of game so I don't criticize Treyarch much for this. A great experience all around… Expand
  4. SpartanEdge
    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
  5. xXRenTyrellXx
    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.
  6. CS
    Jan 30, 2009
    4
    Multiplayer is aggravating due to poor respawn mechanics and the terrible "dogs" bonus. Single-player at it's most difficult level is only difficult for how cheap you are killed. In comparison to COD4: Modern Warfare, the highest difficulty setting was extremely challenging but actually forced planned attacks. Modern Warfare is a crapshoot lottery. World at War offers a new veneer to COD4, but leaves behind the tactics of multiplayer, the urgency of the story in singleplayer, and is ultimately just another shooter. This is evidenced by the steeply declining users on the servers as well. Just buy COD 4.… Expand
  7. tror123
    Mar 14, 2009
    4
    Yeah this was really bad...a game that MOH had already put out years before it...I was expecting the same caliber cinematic feel as Modern Warfare...the fps controls were also out dated....Rainbow six bar none has the best FPS controls out in the market, including the 3rd person cover system.... I really did not like this game much after the 1st hour...Again another beautiful game with horrible gameplay...also historically the japanese were cannibals and raped their captives...if they really wanted to capture horror that would have been incredibly cinematic.… Expand
  8. Review9
    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
  9. dupplawt
    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
  10. snacko12
    Feb 5, 2012
    7
    fun, better zomibes than black ops but in 2011(not sure when you will be reading this) the hackers got a hold of it and 4/12 people are invinible, but the zombies is really great
  11. Midge115
    May 26, 2012
    10
    Call of Duty World at War is my second favorite FPS of all time. In first place? Call of Duty 3. Lately, most of the CoD games that have come out have been absolutely terrible. It seems that the series died with the horrible Modern Warfare 2, arguably the worst FPS in the past ten years with only Modern Warfare 3 to compete with that title. World at War delivers an intense, realistic WWII campaign through the eyes of the brave yet insane Soviet Red Army and through the patriotic eyes of the US Marines. The multiplayer is balanced (all except for the MP40) and is now riddled with modders, yet it is still enjoyable. The zombies easter egg is also a fun bonus, and the game was all around a fun way to spend an hour or two at night.… Expand
  12. RomecoolR
    Jul 15, 2012
    10
    Great Game like Black Ops but better. this game is a must have. It even has Zombie mode. And Multiplayer with Xbox Live. The price is even really great for the game.
  13. SeanB
    Feb 20, 2009
    6
    A game which is hampered by its continuing delusion that World War II provides a compelling setting, World at War serves up the standard fare seen in the previous games (even going so far as to have the obligatory Normandy beach landing under a different banner), with its its tightly constructed set pieces seeming painfully contrived as a result. It's not that this is a bad game, but rather, a game which is overshadowed by the far greater success of its post-modern sibling, and undercut by the plethora of prior art.… Expand
  14. RickR
    Feb 5, 2009
    5
    Single Player -Too many Grenades -inconsistent difficulty. Hard and Veteran are too similar too each other, way harder than normal and not rewarding -routinely killed by unseen enemies -game saves that start with a grenade nearby and little or no warning -frustrating and not fun Multiplayer -tons of glitches and people using them -huge advantage to higher ranked players and advanced guns -spawning is terrible. you will be respawned very close to the person you just killed (or killed you) -some unbalanced maps due to elevation changes -dogs are too powerful AND they point the enemy to your location -treyarch has taken over 3 months to patch with little to no communications Skip this game until it's patched and stick with COD4.… Expand
  15. ChrisI
    Sep 9, 2009
    7
    World at War is a competent, fun shooter. Call of Duty 4 is an excellent, well thought out, amazing example of the genre. The thing that separates Modern Warfare from World at War is how they're done, the campaign in particular. MW is an entirely original war drama, while WaW is a smarmy, we beat the Nazis, we've all been here before, cash in on history's greatest conflict. That's not to say WaW's campaign is bad. It's a fun experience from start to finish. As with MW, the multiplayer is where this game truly shines. It's marginally expanded on MW, but that's because there's no camouflages and there's 65 levels. World of War is average. Run of the mill. Because it's done nothing but re-skin Modern Warfare. In fact, this game comes off as more of a mod, than a play-it-safe wanna be. It's worth a buy.… Expand
  16. GB
    Jan 12, 2010
    9
    I am confused by the negative reaction from some MW fans - I liked the single-player campaign only slightly less than MW's (i.e. a LOT). I think that it does the right thing by mainly sticking to the core gameplay that COD can do well: gradually battling point-by-point through fierce resistance, taking cover and looking for advantageous positions. For me, MW2 has too many distracting novelties and not enough of the good stuff. I think Treyarch made a good call, though most of the online opinion seems to the contrary. Rolling about in a cumbersome tank is alright for five minutes but it's not a quality tank sim; it's just garnish. If I'd have to go white-water rafting as well, like at the end of MW2 I'd only have scored it an 8. Also, the guns are balanced so the PPSh-41 is just as satisfying to use as the P90. And the flamethrower rocks. Come on people.… Expand
  17. JiriS.
    Oct 12, 2008
    8
    Even though the game is made by Treyarch and not Infinity Ward as the previous CoD,it still knows how bring WWII to your room. Game looks pretty and it haven't change a lot since Treyarch CoD 3. If you liked it you're going to like this one also.People who have played CoD 4 won't be so excited about this but should buy it to spent some time before CoD 6.
  18. Thehamster
    Nov 22, 2008
    2
    Big, big step back from CoD4. Now, it is fun to play the missions with 3 buddies and the game does look good, but like Christian G. said....you buy it for the multiplayer and the multiplayer sucks balls! So your telling me a dog can kill you with one bite but when you shoot a guy in THE FACE he drops down into last stand and there fore becomes invinceable??? I know its a video game, but do the makers of it know? The weapons are true to life and they SUCK OUT LOUD!!! Again, you put dogs in it...lighten up on the weapon shittyness. Ahhh, screw it! I'll just play CoD4.… Expand
  19. DavidJ.
    Nov 29, 2008
    3
    Ok, i'm a COD3 and COD4 fan, but this didn't do it for me, for two mian reasons: 1) I know there was a 'transition period' from COD3 to COD4 that took a bit of getting used to, bit I got there and it was worth it, but this time I took one step back and never went forwards - the game is just not as good as COD4. But I never felt good about the game anyway - see reason 2 below. 2) The opening sequence of real footage is obscene. Yes of course, we have real clips of war promoting games before, but here we see people being executed and dumped in pits of bodies. This is real footage of executions used to promote a game, and that just doesn't feel right. I'm all for war games (play 'em and love 'em, been doing it for 25 year) and I can watch documentaries on war etc and I know the difference, but we shouldn't mix it up too much. If they were Brits or Yanks being being told to knee down with their hands tied behind their backs getting a shot in the head as a game promotion there'd be uproar, but maybe its because its Chinese civilians it's ok. Not for me. So I traded it after 24 hrs.… Expand
  20. JustinC.
    Oct 23, 2008
    8
    The online beta is the only thing out for CoD:WW as I'm typing this, but it is pretty impressing. Although it's the same old thing as CoD:4 but WW2, it still reamains good. The Perks are still there, with some of your old favorites ( Matyrdom, Juggernaut ) and even Perks for the Tanks. This game looks to be good multiplayer wise, and if they can pull of the Single Player Campaign, then this game is sure to be a hit, just like CoD4… Expand
  21. JeffreyP
    Dec 30, 2008
    6
    I borrowed this game from a friend, and it didn't take much to realize how similar this game was to Cod4. Not saying that's bad, it just made it feel like, new campaign, new guns and levels, that's it. Nothing ground breaking or amazing like Modern Warfare was. Only real thing was Nazis Zombies. It just made me feel bored after a half an hour of play. Perhaps if I was just getting an xbox, I would buy this game, but since I've pretty much beaten and gotten tired of CoD4, maybe it's time to look toward the future, literally. Bottom line if you haven't bought or played Cod4 entirely, buy it, or else play another because you might feel that sixty bucks went to recycled material.… Expand
  22. [ANONYMOUS]
    Nov 8, 2009
    3
    My friend invited me over to play this game, after playing call of duty 4 I thought it must be pretty good. Oh god, was I wrong. The graphics were bad for last gen, and the sound was not realistic at all. The online took forever to find a match, unlike in its predecessor in which it took barely any time at all. The aspect I've heard is amazing the "Nazi Zombies" was a real disappointment. If you want Call Of Duty, get 4, or WF2. Do not buy this game.… Expand
  23. DamianF
    Jan 4, 2009
    10
    I can't believe how many negative comments are on here- have we been playing the same game? I absolutely LOVE COD4, and was a little apprehensive buying this, preparing myself for disappointment, but after less than five minutes all my initial reservations dissipated completely. This game KICKS arse!! Much more brutal than Modern Warfare, and with the best lighting effects I've seen in a game so far (particularly on the first mission). BUY THIS GAME!… Collapse
  24. GavinA.
    Feb 15, 2009
    1
    This gameis a compete repetitive piece of bulls*** compared to COd 4 what the hell were treyarch thinking about this game. Well done infinity ward for not protecting their online system from cod 4. COD 2 is even better than this it just another boring war game that will entertain the masses and then onn the relase of modern warfare 2 in Q4 this year 2009 will die in the preverbial game ing hell that it is. If you share my opiniion and will stick to Cod 4 heres my gamertag GavMan92 and we will have some proper Call odf Duty online fun.… Expand
  25. ColinC
    Mar 20, 2009
    7
    A solid shooter. My biggest gripe is with the co-op though. Given a choice, I'll always play through a co-op game with a friend before even thinking of replaying by myself. But this co-op mode doesn't give you the option to play with any of the proper cutscenes, so you get none of the story. Gears of War 2 co-op and Halo did it right, letting you and a friend enjoy the story unfolding together. And yes, I know Call of Duty isn't generally big on story, but still, I like at least a little context for the action I'm about to be engaged in. Infinity Ward (not to mention the developer of Killzone 2), I hope you're reading this. Don't strip the story out of co-op modes. At the very least, give us an option to watch with cutscenes or not.… Expand
  26. [Anonymous]
    Mar 6, 2009
    7
    Anyone who calls this a bad game is lying, but sadly, so is anyone who calls it the best game of the year. It's a good game, but has quite a few flaws. First off, the single player can range from too easy to deceptively frustrating at points, and the game will rub it in your face if you are killed by a grenade or tank. Secondly, it's not very compelling to play. If you start it up, you'll play for a good while, but after that, you'll play something else. It's a bit off-and-on. Also, it's a good WWII game, but I thought we were over that when Call of Duty 4 came around. But still, the gameplay is solid, the multiplayer can be fun, and it looks very nice, even at 60 FPS. In short, it's not necessary, but it's still pretty good.… Expand
  27. BryceR.
    Aug 15, 2009
    9
    This personally is a great FPS game. The settings, graphics, weapons, gameplay are all awesome. The campaign is good and the multiplayer online is fast and fun. Nazi zombies is such a fun game to play with all your mates over! Yes this and CoD 4 are pretty much exactly the same but they are totally different in a way. Totally different maps a different story line and plus nazi zombies in CoD 5 is something to look forward to after completing the campaign. Overall i loved it!… Expand
  28. CombatWombat
    Sep 10, 2009
    9
    I'm not going to lie and say this is the best game ever but it's far better than MW which I was bored with after reaching level 10 or 11 online. I always found that MW was too focused on fast-paced action which was down more to reaction time than skill whereas WAW has guns that require something called accuracy. Another bonus is killing people who think they can play in the same way as MW and are drastically wrong.… Expand
  29. MickJagger
    Nov 11, 2008
    5
    Anytime Activision tries to slap their name on a product done better by a better developer (infinity ward) you know it is going to suck. Also, the fact there is a single review on release day speaks volumes about the kind of money grab company Activison is (Soldier of Fortune anybody). Seriously, has Activision made a quality product since the Atari? We would all be smarter to avoid this sh** and keep playing Call of Duty 4 unitl the real Call of Duty 5 is released.… Expand
  30. ChristianG.
    Nov 17, 2008
    1
    What everybody wants to play this is for the multi-player. And to say they took a step back from cod 4 is a severe understatement. The guns are absolutely horrible, you can stand in front of somebody and shoot 5 times and not hit them. It is very upsetting because I was looking forward to this game for a long time. Back to COD 4 for me.
prev
Page:

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
84 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 84 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 76 out of 84
  2. Mixed: 8 out of 84
  3. Negative: 0 out of 84
  1. GameDaily
    80
    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.
    Read full review
  2. Cheat Code Central
    92
    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.
    Read full review
  3. GameSpy
    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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »