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

Mixed or average reviews- based on 418 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 299 out of 418
  2. Mixed: 58 out of 418
  3. Negative: 61 out of 418

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!… Expand
  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.
  31. ShayL.
    Nov 21, 2008
    9
    This game stands out! Yes its ww2, yes it has some of the same things Call of Duty 4 ! "even the same engine", yes the campaign is short. BUT it
  32. DonK.
    Nov 23, 2008
    8
    Its a good game and all, pretty solid but not up to par with COD4. The tanks add some new flavor, but none of the things that needed changing from previous COD games got fixed. Its worth getting just for a new spin on killing people.
  33. RavenWolfx
    Oct 15, 2008
    5
    Now keep in mind I am basing this solely on the Beta, but I am extremely disappointed in Treyarch. Do you remember CoD3? How it was sorta fun? Well, take the fun out, take CoD4's graphic engine and ruin it, take perks and mess them up, take WWII weapons and make them shoot like a .22, and somehow make the respawns worse than CoD4 and you get CoD5. What I mean about the guns is that every single weapon has nearly zero recoil. A great example is the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). This rifle fires a 30.06 round that is capable of taking down a deer from a hundred yards or more, and it has some decent kick. In CoD5, the BAR takes 3+ bullets to kill someone with Stopping Power on, with very minimal kick. And it fires slowly. Again, this is just on the Beta, but I'm not buying this game.… Expand
  34. ErikE.
    Oct 17, 2008
    4
    If Call of Duty 2 and 4 didn't exist (and I suppose Infinity Ward at all), this would be considered an okay game. What makes it bad is that despite having double the time to develop it (compared to COD3), Treyarch still can't add anything really exciting to the genre. The single additon of some usable vehicles (tanks) in the level callled Round House is probably the most interesting addition. This is accompanied by the ability to specify a vehicle perk. The maps Makin, War Castle and Round House are nowhere near as good as COD4 maps. Although Round House is the best of the bunch. Makin is an awful nighttime map that is essentially flat and small. War Castle is just too small and awkward without too much replay variety. The weapons sounds are muffled and unsatisfying. Shooting a BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) should feel powerful but it sounds like a pea shooter. The bullets don't seem to do much damage so you still run through clip after clip on even the machine guns. EA just doesn't get it. This is an Infinity Ward creation and no other developers can do it justice. I am definitely glad I'm only beta testing the multiplayer and didn't pay $60 for this. Wait for Call of Duty 6 (the REAL Call of Duty 5, most likely to be developed by Infinity Ward).… Expand
  35. ChrisM
    Dec 15, 2008
    8
    Trust me when I say.... I hate Treyarch! Every time Infinity ward create a flawless success, treyarch piggyback the success, make a horrible game and install doubt in the minds of all call of duty fans. So this review came after a lot of thought.... Trey arch finally made a good game.... quite good. Sure it lacks the polish of an Infinity ward installment and sure it rehashes on old ground (WW2) but it does it right this time. Alot of fun, technically impressive and ferocious audio make for one of this years best titles. (PS. Change the lo-cal next time treyarch.... no more WW2. now it really has been done to death).… Expand
  36. DanaR
    Dec 29, 2008
    8
    Pacific missions were great but found the russian missions were very similar to Enemy at the gates story line....anyone think the developers just ripped off this story line rather than come up with an original idea themselves! Flamethrower is great fun though!
  37. CoreyR.
    Dec 5, 2008
    1
    The game got really frustrating fast, the unrealistic detail and the cartoon characteristics about it. The weapons detail great, the maps are ok, but the actual players are garbage. And what really grind my gears were the perks and the sprees (artillery and dogs). The idea for the dog was outrageous, get rid of the dogs and tanks, and have tank support and a 7 man kill spree. I am on online player and don't really bout the store but really big on the online game play and it SUCKED. COD5 seemed like a cheat spin of COD4, Treyarch are just trying to make money of you. Don… Expand
  38. NexiousP.
    Dec 8, 2008
    10
    Don't listen to all the people crying about how Infinity Ward didn't make this game and that Treyarch didn't add anything. First off, most of them are comparing this game to COD 3.. which makes they think they haven't even played the game. It runs on the COD4 engine and doesn't look anything like COD3. The graphics are improved over COD4 and Treyarch has added a lot of little changes. Like the ability to revive a teammate in MP. The solo campaign is great and in my opinion better than COD4 (which I loved). Who gets tired of killing Nazis? Bottom line... buy this game. If you liked COD4, if you like FPS than you will like this game.… Expand
  39. LorenzoC
    Oct 18, 2009
    9
    Call of Duty world at War is the best Second World War Play, it have a very intresting and concern campaign with the new japanese front, it's very intresting the possibility of do the cooperative campaign online and offline, the local multiplayer is fun, the multiplayer on internet is one of the best multiplayer in all game, because there aren't many connesion problems, there are many maps and arms (is very fun you can add at the arms many bonus and improvements) and the last map pack can position Cod WaW in the top of multiplayer games. The grafic is the best of all war games, the possibility of have damage product by explosion and army in the body is very realistic, other than damage also the arm and maps grafic are good, i hope treyarch in the future game add the destroiable ground in all the maps. I think also have a good succes nazi zombies, with also two ggod
    map packs and new obiectives. So i think Call of Duty 5 can have more than 90 %.    … Expand
  40. ChrisMcTear
    Jan 2, 2009
    5
    Call of duty world at war single player was lots of fun. But the multi player sucked. It has all of the same perks as COD4. The multi player is the exact same as COD4 but with tanks that make it no fun. It is a wast of money i now just play COD4 instead of it.
  41. AH.
    Jan 26, 2009
    6
    The single player story failed to grab me. The visuals were impressive, but nothing about the game had me hooked. The multiplayer was good, but offered little improvement upon COD:4. I'll stick with Modern Warfare.
  42. SS
    Feb 27, 2009
    1
    Call of Duty World at War is disappointing compared to it's predecessor: Call of Duty Modern Warfare.Most of the weapons have been used in countless times other first person shooter games. Also there is no option to save in Split-Screen co-op. Save your money and play Call of Duty 4.
  43. JohnH
    Mar 12, 2009
    6
    After spending almost a year enjoying CoD:4, I had high expectations for this game. As a long time Infinity Ward fan, I do not believe that Treyarch was able to deliver the goods with this game. I feel that all of the elements that made Modern Warfare an excellent shooter were recycled and put into a mediocre game that has the face of the famous CoD franchise, but nothing more. It's like Activision saw a golden nugget in the toilet and in a rushed attempted to do it again, they got a spew of diarrhea.… Expand
  44. robertn
    May 21, 2009
    5
    The first thing that really ticked me off on this game is the sound. the sound sucks. Most games don't even have to try and you can have decent sound. A few games stand out with excellent sound like Dead Space. Even fewer have BAD sound. this game does. its lame, but the guns sound like paint ball guns. and its ruins the game for me. Shooting old WW2 is so much fun. The M1, the Tompson. MP40. classic guns, with great destintive sounds to them. Call of 2 did it perfectly, call of duty 3 was worse but not this bad. The strange thing, the same company that made this game and COD3 did worse this time around. The game play is good. not as good at 2 or 4, but still good. The graphics are pretty craptacluar, if you look at 4 which is at times photo realistic. My friends told me, you were disappointed in COD3, the same company made this one, don't get it. well I waited till I found it for 25 bucks, and I have to say I am still a little disappointed. Its worth a play through, and some online matches. but this is the last call of duty I swear I will ever buy from this developer.… Expand
  45. AustinM
    Jun 12, 2009
    9
    This game was great, I'd say this game isn't worth more than $40 bucks though, which is the price i payed for it. I really have never seen a WWII game this intense, all the previous Call of Duty's never got it right I thought, this one got the violence and intensity down. The graphics are quite impressive, and very little glicthing every occured. The sounds in this game could be better, but still good. Better than Big Red One's gun sounds. The Length isn't great either, but has good replay value, four difficulties, co-op mode, and Nazi Zombies. Which makes up for the short 6-8 hour campaign. There's a lot of weapons in this game, and the flamethrower is a great edition. This game is great fun, some annoying things though are the grenades, you'll get killed by them more than half the time, and everytime I see one I have to run for my life, or take the risk of throwing it back. The grenades in Call of Duty 3, weren't dangerous at all, even on Hard. The A.I. are actually quite useful, they kill guys, and don't get in your way as much as previous Call of Duty's. I recommend this game, and it's a blast to play with buddies, and don't let the negatives change your mind about it. But Modern Warfare 2 is going to come out and everyone will be over this one, but this will satisfy your Call of Duty hunger until then. There's also a graphic content filter, I played with the graphic content off, and they blur the graphic stuff in the cutscenes, take out all of the language, and take away the blood completely, so this is an okay game for your kids to play as long as you leave off the graphic stuff.… Expand
  46. RowanF
    Jun 4, 2009
    6
    Had this come out all on it's lonesome without COD: 4 behind it, it would have been a truly revolutionary, amazing, perfect war game, finally ditching the same uninteresting, uninspiring sections of the war pervious games have stuck to, and for the first time actualy managing to capture an epic slice of the action. However, as it is, all Treyarch have done is rip off COD: 4, which completely invalidates the game for me. Sure, you've put WW2 games back on the map, but that's not because you're good game developers with any good ideas or imagination, it's simply because you can get away with stealing ideas from Infinity Ward because you're both working under the same franchise. The mulitplayer, the idea of perks, the split character campaign, the graphic stlye, the gameplay style, the airborn level, even the bloody loading screens are all COMPLETE copies of COD: 4. The only thing Treyarch have actualy done on their own is fix a few tiny issues from the first game. Ok, so I have to admit that they did a magnificent job of copying it, but it's still is realy just COD: 4 under a different heading, and to be honest, COD: 4 is a much better game. If you havent palyed COD: 4 yet, stop even considering buying WAW and go and get COD: 4 now. If you have played COD: 4 then I suppose that this will supply you with a bit more of the action you loved, but you just can't escape the feeling that you've been here before.… Expand
  47. JoshuaE
    Jul 28, 2009
    5
    Call of duty 4, was an amazingly well built game from the graphics to the game play, to the setting were amazing, but from the switch to WW2 Treyarch has changed very little of this only fixing a few things that were slightly bad on call of duty 4, please for anyone looking to buy a good game for your console buy Call of duty 4, only buy WAW if your truly bored of call of duty 4 and looking for something else to keep you occupied while you wait for Modern Warfare 2, which hopefully will be an amazing game.… Expand
  48. KyleM.
    Aug 12, 2009
    10
    Call Of Duty 4 was considered perfect: World at War took Moden Warfare's few flaws and fixed them, as well as delving deeper into techincal aspects such as sound. Despite a campaign that can be frustrating, World at War is the best Call of Duty to date.
  49. chrish.
    Aug 14, 2009
    10
    This is one of the best first person shooters of all time. Call of Duty 4 had better gameplay and graphics, but the WW2 game is a more interesting play for me. i cant wait for Call of Duty 6
  50. DanB.
    Nov 11, 2008
    10
    Treyarch knocked it out of the park with this one, despite all the naysayers, giving us a game that stands up with the best of Infinity Ward's efforts. This is the best WW2 shooter to date!
  51. BrennanC.
    Nov 12, 2008
    10
    So far I think the game is great, I just wish they had moved forward from CoD4 Modern Warfare, instead of backward to WWII... I give it a 10 because I think it's a lot better than Grand Theft Auto IV, even though I don't think GTA IV deserved a 10.
  52. JDL.
    Nov 14, 2008
    7
    Solid game, but it suffers from feeling like more of the same...I guess that's a problem with WWII games these days. Flamethrower is great fun, graphics are equally sharp, and the multiplayer is awesome - in fact the multiplayer alone deserves 10/10, but because this is a judgment of the entire game I stick with 7. Fans of the series will not be disappointed.
  53. MattM
    Nov 15, 2008
    3
    Major disappointment of the series. The campaign in this game is unbelievably dull, boring, uncreative, and unappealing on Treyarch's part. The missions start well but turn into nothing but tiring, repetitive, shootings over and over again. In fact, that's all 80% of the campaign is, mindless shooting going on for 20 mins, one small break here and there, and back to shooting. Yes, there are a few well done missions, but don't expect them to live up to the hipe of CoD4 at all. Co-op makes it more fun, but still doesn't solve the problems themselves. Aside, this game is not bug-free, and ammo does not replace itself at certain checkpoints, or even at all in some missions. This makes going through the (and often ridiculous) objectives much more difficult, as you'll have to pick up the enemy's (and weaker) guns, which are limited to at most 3 different types. On the subject of multiplayer, there isn't all much difference then CoD4's excellent multiplayer. A few new modes are added, and vehicles do make the matches more interesting, but the old fundamentals are still there. Don't get this game for just a new multiplater, stick to CoD4. If at least 4 of your friends have it, and are playing a lot, you should perhaps consider getting it then. It'll keep you entertained for 3-4months at the most, until you start to the bored the same way as in coD4. WWII fans, will love this campaign's story, but you probably won't find it worthy to even finish it.… Expand
  54. retardJackson
    Nov 17, 2008
    10
    I loved this game from the moment I started playing when I saw the guys throat get cut, to all the action pact mission, sniping. It was great. I recommend this game to anyone who loves fps. amazing graphics. I also love how its similar to the other call of duty's. Big fan of this game.
  55. JeffL
    Nov 19, 2008
    6
    CoD4's new paint job is a disappointment. Single player is boring, multiplayer maps are poorly designed and lack that re-playability that CoD4 nailed, the weapons are alright but seem to function with less mastery, and the multiplayer tanks are a poor addition. Every once in a while awesome multiplayer gaming moments reach the surface, but it seems to originate not from the designers of the current game but from the ones whose work we have already been enjoying non-stop for over the past year . Overall, the game just feels more clunky and less inspiring... leaving a bad taste in ones mouth.… Expand
  56. PekkaP.
    Nov 19, 2008
    1
    The multiplayer is a total rip-off of Call of Duty 4. Why should we pay twice for the same game? Also, It's not even close as good as Cod4. Unfortunately there are tons of idiots who will buy this game anyway. I didn't, I borrowed it because my friend was sick of playing it after a few hours. This sucks. I hope this doesn't lead to a trend where developers just copy successful games and sell it with a new name.… Expand
  57. DaveC.
    Nov 20, 2008
    0
    When a company release IMPROVE the game nope just change it back to a WW2 game that ive played a 1000 times and worsen the spawn good job treyarch maybe u should spend more than 30 mins to edit a game from last year and ship it as a new game. DO NOT BUY.
  58. OshizL.
    Nov 22, 2008
    0
    I can't believe treyarch have done it again. Have none of these people played it on veteran? It's unacceptable that when you are playing on the hardest level you die, not out of lack of taking cover or aiming skill etc. but from appalling clipping issues... too many times in cod3 and now 5, I've crouched at a sandbag / box / whatever, preparing to run to the next piece of cover, only to be caught out by the magic splinter of doom that even ants could climb over, let alone humans, let alone soldiers charged on adrenaline. cod2 and 4 don't suffer from these problems. After the tiny twig problem, there is the awful friendly AI. too often in 3, and now in 5, I would be crouched at the corner of some cover aiming out only to discover I had been pushed out into the open by my fellow soldiers, who are seemingly made of impregnable lead and steroids which no opportunity to push them out to take fire for you when hemmed in. cod2 and 4 don't suffer from these problems. Infinity ward must be holding out on treyarch or something, because I heard this was going to use the cod4 engine. I didn't imagine they just meant the graphics engine! whatever. they don't care anyway, they got my money... but I'll be selling this to some half-wit as soon as i've frustratingly dragged myself to the end of this labourious campaign. Treyarch, you have managed to compound the disgrace that was 3 with this latest effort, you can count on 1 less customer in future.… Expand
  59. ScottP
    Nov 24, 2008
    8
    Don't let all these people fool you, this game is good. The main complaints that people seem to have about the game is that it is very similar to last year's game. This is somewhat true, but what they don't realize is that it is different, in all the right ways. The storyline, although not as epic, does pull on your emotional side giving you the feeling of actually being a part of this war. CoD4 gave a more separated feeling, but not in a bad way. The game does go back to WW2, but pulls off the best WW2 experience to date. Another complaint is that the multiplayer is worse than last year. People, you have to realize that when CoD4 came out, all of these same issues were being flamed in the forums. Give it some time, the game will be patched and all of your multiplayer woes will be at an end. So, ignore the CoD4 fanboys and go out and pick this one up. The multiplayer is better than CoD4 (minus a few bugs that WILL be fixed) and new perks and achievements in game help make this one hell of a shooter. This is a great xmas present for the FPS fan on your list!… Expand
  60. johnnieb.
    Dec 18, 2008
    1
    This game is incredibly poor. Without the Nazi zombie mode (which is awesome, but not as good as L4D) and the epic end cutscene, I would hate everything about this game. My real score is a 6/10 but the 1 evens it out with these terrible high rated reviews. Obviously they haven't tried veteran.
  61. SpencerM.
    Dec 23, 2008
    9
    Call of duty world at war is a very good game it has great graphics and wonderfull detail. but i think that treyarch should have put 4-6 more months into it by fixing glitchs (like the all known glitch on castle to get underground) i personally love the game but i think that infinity ward should have sent some of their people over there and helped them out it would of helped them both. another thing that really makes me mad is the fact that IT TAKES MORE BULLETS TO KILL A DOG THAN A PERSON ONLINE it should be easier to kill a dog than kill a person.....besides everything that i have said above its a very good game i look forward to playing it when i get home everyday. if they could just make a patch here and there it would be perfect (more maps and more guns Treyarch).… Expand
  62. JeremyP.
    Dec 27, 2008
    6
    Welll i found out many different dissapointing things in this game. Firstly, if you play hardend or veteran, like the producer said is that the enemies dont stop coming unles you advandce. So in the end, alll it is is a red light, green light game dodging the enemy fire
  63. NickS
    Dec 31, 2008
    0
    A complete step backwards from COD4 in every way... I hear about strategy??? there is none the maps are so big and you could get shot from anywhere so its pot luck, on cod4 they were at least designed so that enemies could come from certain directions and you could actually use some strategy to decide how to deal with them and vice versa. Tanks are a terrible addition and every time I see one I just have to hide and stop having fun(everyone just rushes for them at start). Dogs the same, back against a wall and shoot them and stop having fun(and 1 bite kills you?). Spawning into dogs and enemies is frequent and frustrating. Guns are clunky and most feel like they have some sort of bullet lag. Graphics LOOK slightly worse/more unscaled than previous game even though technically(native resolution) there not. Go offline to story... 1000GS in about 6-7 hours is stupid(no competitive online achievements) even with that veteran mode with its bad friendly AI always getting in your way and the constant grenades and the horribly scripted enemies that a 3 year old could script a more creative game than that(spawn here, go there etc x10 on most maps, bar the occasional slightly more interesting cod4 rip off mission), and then push up to cause the trigger point in which the same thing happens: some enemies stop spawning, some start, and your silly AI buddies push up (again a 3 year old could write a better script than that). Enemies wont try and be smart and flank you, there scripted to stand in there spots shooting you. So overall if you havnt played or the previous game didn't exist this game would get about a 7, but since absolutely everything has been unimproved and made worse than previous, it has to get a big fat 0. Lazy work treyarch. [PS: Last stand was the noobiest perk in cod4 and now it lasts a minute and you can be recovered... lol?]… Expand
  64. HagenM.
    Dec 4, 2008
    4
    I've always had a resentment for Treyarch's attempts at making COD games. However, after seeing this game get decent-good reviews I decided to at least try the game for myself. I went in starting to enjoy the game, only to experience an incomplete hodge-podge of bad game design choices. First and foremost, the AI in this game is terrible. Treyarch simplym made the game harder not by increasing the AI, but by making them throw more grenades on each difficulty level. You'll spend 95% of your time dying from 10+ grenades being placed on every direction of you. The AI also only seems to aim at you, your team AI is retarded, and they seem to always get you killed by standing in the way of cover. The online also has flaws. the hugest being the fact that there is still no filter system in matchmaking. You'll start out with extremely terrible guns only to be paired up with high ranked players who have the best guns in the game. Perks are still here (The only mistake made in COD$), which is stupid. I gave Treyarch another chance, this is strike three. Big Red One, COD3, and now COD:WaW. You're out Treyarch.… Expand
  65. TrevorG.
    Dec 5, 2008
    10
    Game is awesome. Don't listen to all the nay sayers. The story is great, I'd say the single player is just as good if not better than COD 4. And multiplayer kicks a$$. The dogs are greats and the shells are better than air strikes. If you liked COD4 or FPS at all you owe it to yourself to pick this game up. "use the story of End War and the graphics and online game play on COD4 and make a COD5 or 6(whatever you call it) Call of Duty: World War 3" And a note to the guy who wrote the above...you don't know what you're talking about. The story from Endwar? That story sucked. P.s. Learn to spell. P.s.s. The tanks in COD5 aren't that hard to kill. It's pretty balanced against the bazookas and charges.… Expand
  66. [anonymous]
    Dec 27, 2009
    10
    The best single player campeign in the entire francize, really good sound and graphics like all the others, and Nazi Zombies is the best DLC ever. FYI I haven't played any multiplayer.
  67. JonK
    Mar 28, 2009
    9
    Absolutely unbelievable game that grabs the gamer by the throat and doesn't let go until the Russian Flag is flying! I haven;t had this much fun with a game in a long time. I thought CoD4 was a masterpiece but my 'heart' has always belonged to WW2 and this game excels at bringing the gamer the sights and sounds of it convincingly! From the Japs shooting from tree tops, to them hiding in the grass preparing a BANZAI charge, this game has it all. Of note is the unbelievable Flamethrower effect that is stunning to look at! I was a little afraid when I heard that Treyarch was going to do this game. Only because of the HUGE SHOES that would need to be filled from Infinity Wards CoD. But Treyarch handled it and did it quite convincingly. Again, a great game that will have you playing it again, and again.… Expand
  68. GarryL
    May 11, 2009
    9
    I have played every Call of Duty and plenty of FPS games, and regarding World at War I would have to agree with the critics as opposed to the user rating. I believe it has a solid single-player campaign, COD games usually lack a story but the action more than makes up for it. The graphics and effects are excellent, and the multi-player and co-op modes add a large amount of replay value. COD4 was also great, but the degree of low expectations by COD4 fans is not very fair, it seems many people refused to give World at War an unbiased review, in the same fashion as a xbox360 fan would give killzone 2 flak for no reason. There were glitches at launch and the campaign is frustrating at a few points. Give this game a chance, it's pretty fun.… Expand
  69. SpencerH.
    Nov 11, 2008
    9
    For the limited time that I played this game I was VERY impressed. Although the multiplayer is very similar to Call of Duty 4, there were some instance where I felt the awesomeness of being back in WWII.
  70. MannyD.
    Nov 11, 2008
    10
    This game rocks! Treyarch totally redeemed itself with game. WWII never looked so good. I'm hooked on the zombie level. Multiplayer is awesome! Release the hounds!!!
  71. JoeP.
    Nov 19, 2008
    9
    Great game, as good as i thought itd be after cod4. The only people hating the game lack the skill to play so they run back to cod4 so they can spray and throw random grenades all they want again.
  72. DavidA.
    Nov 21, 2008
    10
    As a huge fan of COD4 multiplayer I can say that I enjoy COD WAW even better. The gameplay is a lot more interesting with the tanks. There is not one map that is worth skipping. The game lends itself to more strategy and teamwork with more hiding spots, more interesting terrain, and better respawn points that put you right in the action rather than on the other side of the map. I give this one a 10 All the way.… Expand
  73. ApocalypseBrown
    Nov 22, 2008
    8
    There has been a lot of rubbish written about this game, mainly by reviewers with hidden agendas or little brats who often wee their pants and cry for mummy (The hamster a prime example). The fact is this is really COD4.5, a slight improvement but a better game for it. Single player is intense, especially the night forest section which I found very authentic. But it lacks the adrenaline rush of COD4 set-pieces, but thankfully WOW hasn't any racist/xenophobic undertones to it, which instantly makes this better than 4. The real gameplay as in all COD is in the multi-player, which again is very familiar but still very badass! Dogs, custom weapon sets, and now there's tanks too so what more do you want? Also WOW is bloodier, grittier, and is designed well enough to force players to use strategy in warfare rather than camp out in black spots constantly like in 4. Add Nazi zombies after clocking the game, WOW is a very, very good game, just not a radically different one.… Expand
  74. Gazcomsat
    Nov 26, 2008
    7
    I can't say I didn't enjoy this game because I did, I just found it frustrating and truthfully, not a huge amount of fun to play. I finished the game in just over 8 hours on the "hardened" level but still found most levels far too easy. Why not play it on "veteran" level you ask? Well, I tried but frankly found it incredibly frustrating and almost unplayable. The main reason for this is that virtually every time I died, it was as the result of a grenade exploding rather than enemy fire. You might think that being on the top floor of a derelict building with no enemy in site would keep you relatively safe from grenade attacks until you find 4 at your feet with barely enough time to throw one of them back! God only knows where they came from and with it being incredibly difficult to manouever passed barrels, concrete and broken furniture with grenade after grenade raining down on you with little chance of out-running any of them, it can be very tiresome. I like a challenge but I think Treyarch have just taken the easy option of increasing the grenade count rather than including more enemies or alternatively, making them harder to kill. I still play the majority of levels on COD 4 a year on because they are challenging yet fun. With COD 5 however I really can't see me returning anytime soon.… Collapse
  75. FredL.
    Dec 11, 2008
    3
    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.… Expand
  76. FredL.
    Dec 11, 2008
    3
    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.… Expand
  77. EirikX.
    Dec 16, 2008
    9
    I never played Call of Duty 4, and I love this game. Multiplayer is a lot of fun and very addicting. It's funny. Some CoD4 players say they think this game is too much like Modern Warfare. I thought CoD4 was too much like CoD2, so that's why I didn't buy it. I guess People like to skip a CoD or two before moving on in the series.
  78. RichP
    Dec 28, 2008
    1
    COD 4 isn't perfect, but it is still the best first person shooter I have ever played. Infinity Ward developed compelling story lines, interesting characters, effective pace, realistic weaponry, and made the playing experience consistently entertaining. Though perks had their critcs, multiplayer play was outstanding, with beautiful level design. COD 5 is shares a franchise title and a graphics engine with its predecesor, and little else. Recall that Treyarch also developed the vapid and uninspired COD 3, though defenders were quick to point out, with some justification, that Treyarch had less time to develop COD 3 than Infinity Ward had to develop COD 4. Fair enough. This time, Infinity Ward had 2 years of development time, envionments set in a familiar WWII context, and a successful graphics engine with a few enhancements to start with. And still, Treyarch failed miserably. COD 5 single player is all but unplayable on veteran. The incessant grenade storms and relentless swarm of spawning enemies defined by terrible AI, who only have eyes for you, and are all world-class marksmen, compete with the mind-mumbingly boring level design to earn your ire. I earned 1000 points in COD 4, with over 8000 kills online and a 2:1 kill to death ratio. I played only 7 chapters of COD 5 and gave the disc to a friend. Don't waste your money and reward the amateurs at Treyarch. They don't deserve your support.… Expand
  79. JakeS
    Nov 28, 2009
    9
    I very much believe that Treyarch borrowed heavily from Call of Duty 4, but why mess with near-perfection? Would you have rather had Treyarch construct a completely new and different experience, at the chance of sure failure due to the flawlessness of its predecessor? Personally, I think they made a wise decision in implementing the CoD 4 multiplayer, using the same engine, and basically throwing a WWII paint job ontop of it. I can honestly say this game kept me engaged for a YEAR. Yes, I bought this game and didn't buy another game until Modern Warfare 2 came out, so if you are a WWII aficiando BUY THIS GAME. Even though the campaign is mostly awful save for a few interesting levels, like Vendetta and the Tank levels, you WILL love the Nazi Zombie and Multiplayer for much time to come. Treyarch added a huge amount of DLC (for a price, of course) that will keep you in it for a while!… Expand
  80. Rob274
    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!!
  81. JMitch
    Nov 13, 2010
    0
    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
  82. Troz3
    Sep 30, 2010
    10
    This game is simply brilliant. The campaign is the best of the series, Modern Warfare included. Why? Because even though it's not it's own original story it tells the story of world war 2 brilliantly through great cutscenes and in game dialog. The characters are fleshed, and the voice acting and guns feel very authentic. Mission design is incredible, the Japanese missions are brilliant, with me feeling as if these people were really willing this much to die for their country. Gameplay is funner than MW and MW2, and Nazi Zombies is a fun way to kick back and reward you after beating the game. The final Russian missions are also brilliant.… Expand
  83. CorsairReviews
    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
  84. BurningDesire
    Feb 20, 2011
    7
    I enjoyed the single player campaign even though it suffers from the usuall treyach taint, it was still an enjoyable romp. The hit register sucks a big fat one which is to be expected see developer. online was a pain with the indestructible tanks the the poor weapon balance and bad hit register. But zombies makes up for a lot of the mp faults. certainly worth a weekend hire but not a lot of replay value… Expand
  85. TheQuietGamer
    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
  86. Watermelon789
    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
  87. CursedKnight187
    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.
  88. drlowdon
    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
  89. Jezamiah
    Jul 21, 2012
    9
    I thought this game was great! It was my first CoD so i may be a bit biased but people need to stop comparing CoD 4 to every other Cod game. Cod 4 was great during its time period but other games have moved on and stepped up so we can't judge the next versions by it.
    Besides all that i commend Treyarch for going back to WW2 as many FPS these days tend to stray away from that area. I felt     that Zombies was a brilliant feature and one which has gone on to become on the most popular features of CoD. Of course the game wasn't perfect and there were some glitches and perhaps some gun and perk balancing issues (MP40, Juggernaut) but on the whole it's a fun game to play. And if you can find an un-modded lobby you should have some fun in the tanks and just playing in general.… Expand
  90. bighead6000
    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.
  91. KingerSays
    Aug 17, 2011
    10
    Let's put it this way: i felt like crying when this game was killed by hackers. By far it was the best Call of Duty game, and you know what? Haters gawn' hate.
  92. CarsonRGB
    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
  93. sinadoom
    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
  94. mathgod9
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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.
  95. Ordish
    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.
  96. bored123
    Jan 3, 2012
    8
    great game but the multiplayer is full of hackers and people flying around with unlimited health so dont get this game for the multipIayer. I cant describe the single player as i havent played it through. The best part of the game is the zombies,you play through waves defeating zombies that come through baricades,unfortunately if you want more zombie maps you have to buy them from the xbox live marketplace but overall great graphics and great gameplay! Used to be a great game before it got taken over by hackers, would be good if treyarch got rid of them.… Expand
  97. CountNachos
    Jan 15, 2012
    4
    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.
  98. Magic
    Feb 20, 2012
    6
    And yet again we see another generic shooter. This, is actually the best CoD game out there. I enjoyed it... For a while. After finishing the campaign there was nothing more to do. Yeah, there is Nazi Zombies, but it's crap to play it alone. The online? Oh man, don't get me started at that BORE...
  99. OnAnarchy
    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
  100. watithink123
    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
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 »