Metascore
84

Generally favorable reviews - based on 84 Critics What's this?

User Score
7.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 473 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Utilizing the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare engine, Call of Duty: World at War throws out the rulebook of war to transform WWII combat through a new enemy, new tactics and an uncensored experience of the climatic battles that gripped a generation. As U.S. Marines and Russian soldiers, players employ new features like cooperative gameplay, and weapons such as the flamethrower in the most chaotic and cinematically intense experience to date. Call of Duty: World at War introduces co-operative play, bringing fresh meaning to the "No One Fights Alone" mantra with up to four-players online for Xbox 360, PS3 and PC, or two-player local split-screen on consoles. Nintendo Wii will also support a unique co-op mode for two players. For the first time ever players can experience harrowing single-player missions together for greater camaraderie and tactical execution. The co-op campaign allows players to rank up and unlock perks in competitive multiplayer by completing challenges and earning experience points, adding continuous re-playability and team-based gameplay. Whether playing competitively or cooperatively – if players are online with Call of Duty: World at War – they always gain experience points. Based on a player’s experience rank and rank of the player's friends, Call of Duty: World at War scales dynamically to provide a deeper level of challenge. [Activision] Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 76 out of 84
  2. Negative: 0 out of 84
  1. 100
    Its fairly brief but dramatic and adrenaline-fuelled campaign has been greatly enhanced by the excellent co-op mode and XP incentives, while its multiplayer is every bit as good as CoD 4, making this arguably the definitive Call of Duty experience thus far.
  2. If you enjoyed Modern Warfare or FPSs in general, this is one of the higher quality shooters you'll find this year. If you're not a fan of grit and prefer your war games more sanitized, such as in Halo, then you'd do well to steer clear.
  3. There is a nice mix of action and intense moments that will leave you grabbing the controller so hard you will think it will break. Even using the various vehicles in multiplayer is a breeze.
  4. 87
    The WWII setting compounds the wearying feeling of over-familiarity, but the solid engine that powers the game ensures that it’s often the most spectacular take on the conflict yet, and one that’s certainly the most exhilarating.
  5. 85
    Call of Duty: World at War feels at times like a little brother holding the hand of the more confident Modern Warfare, but keep in mind that it definitely shares the same genes.
  6. Besides the inevitable similarities with Modern Warfare which does not deviate the game from a similar execution and even with some minor flaws is stays as a solid and convincing title with some very appealing points.
  7. Ultimately, the single player campaign is atrocious and I had a rotten time playing it. It seems to take everything that was frustrating about Modern Warfare, magnify those elements, and then leave out the interesting objectives, characters that matter, and anything that leaves a lasting impression beyond anger and disappointment.

See all 84 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 75 out of 120
  2. Negative: 26 out of 120
  1. 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. Mar 17, 2013
    10
    I adore this game because it introduced zombies in which Created the COD series even futher, but really Blops 1 and 2 where mistakes. Amazing game and always will be, and always will be Mw3, Blops 1 and 2. Expand
  3. 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
  4. Jun 25, 2013
    8
    The game may tread too deep into some decidedly grim territory at times, but "Call Of Duty: World At War" still makes for an impactful WWII shooter with some awesome gameplay additions to the franchise. Expand
  5. 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 Expand
  6. Nov 15, 2011
    7
    Let's get things straight. The multiplayer is an absolute JOKE. Dogs are overpowered, artillery is awful coz it shakes the screen so much. Not to mention some of the useless perks and guns. The campaign has a poor story, nothing links together and the levels aren't particularly well designed. Veteran difficulty is also a joke, due to the infinite grenade-spamming AI, but is do-able. Still, zombies is fun. It's not a "GOOD" game, it's just enjoyable if you can manage to not take it seriously. This game still puzzles me in a way. It seems like 3arc have put zero effort into the multiplayer, judging from the imbalanced perks (who uses flak jacket or shades when you can have juggernaut or stopping power?), some of the stupidly under-powered weapons, the worst hit detection ever and of course, the MP40 Juggernoobs. Small wonder how most people stay serious on Modern Warfare and come on this for a mess-around. The multiplayer is poorly designed not just in balancing but there's plenty of lag as well. Where this game shows its ingenuity is in the zombie maps. Even though the original was meant to be just a mini-game, it's turned into something bigger and inspired other game developers to think more carefully before discarding the idea of a horde/survival mode. I've played all the maps on PS3 and I can tell you, they are so well designed. The windows, doors, cost of buying... everything is so strategically done and it all makes sense. Shame about the campaign which feels soulless and the pathetic online which isn't even worth complaining about, but just to have a good laugh at. Expand
  7. Nov 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

See all 120 User Reviews