Games

Best of 2008 | 07 | 06 | 05
Advanced Search

Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed games.

Call of Duty: World at War

EMAIL PRINT pc

7.0 User Score:

Generally favorable reviews

Based on 36 critic reviews
How did we calculate this?

Based on 220 votes
Read user comments
Rate this game >

Game Info

Publisher: Activision

Developer: Treyarch

Genre(s): First-Person Shooter

Players: 18

ESRB Rating: M (Mature)

Release Date: November 11, 2008

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]

Also On Metacritic

GAMES: Call of Duty Call of Duty 2 Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Call of Duty: United Offensive

Cheat Codes & Hints: Cheat Code Central

Also On The Web: Official Website

What The Critics Said

All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...

Cheat Code Central

Treyarch came back this year with an excellent addition to the franchise. Many gamers may look at this game with an "I've been there, done that" attitude. I am here to tell you that this is the best WWII effort so far, as well as the best game in the franchise.

Read Full Review >

Game Chronicles

Call of Duty World at War is an amazingly fun and addictive game all around. You couldn’t ask for a better FPS value.

Read Full Review >

IGN

This is a solid, confident shooter with plenty to offer the casual and hardcore alike.

Read Full Review >

GamingTrend

The game is definitely an incremental step forward for the series, and not a revolutionary one.

Read Full Review >

VideoGamer

A stunning game that doesn't miss a beat from start to finish and includes one of the most feature packed multiplayer components of any game released this year.

Read Full Review >

Gameplanet

The single-player campaign involves a riveting and emotional story, and the inclusion of co-op is fantastic. The game itself however is heavily weighted towards multiplayer, as was its predecessor.

Read Full Review >

BigPond GameArena

Overall Call of Duty World at War is a great game with some great ideas, but it feels too familiar to be a real must have title.

Read Full Review >

GamePro

The single-player isn't as compelling as Modern Warfare but it's still worth playing nonetheless; the best part though is that there's a deep and satisfying multiplayer component waiting for you when you're done.

Read Full Review >

GameSpy

It's certainly not the bar-raiser that "Modern Combat" was, especially in the solo campaigns. But with the new co-op play and the rest of the multiplayer content, World of War turns out to be an extremely entertaining and faithful addition to the Call of Duty family.

Read Full Review >

Games Radar (in-house)

All in all World at War delivers. It isn’t a revolution in Call of Duty gaming, but neither is it a step backwards, like some have claimed. Right now, it’s the best WWII shooter we’ve played, largely because it’s got a solid (if unoriginal) single player, some spectacular multiplayer, and oh yeah: because it’s brutal as hell.

Read Full Review >

Vandal Online

Perhaps the guys at Treyarch haven't surpassed its predecessor's bar, but it really was too high. Nevertheless, this does not mean Call of Duty: World at War is not a very good game, it is indeed one of the best of its genre, and no shooter fan should miss it.

Read Full Review >

GamingExcellence

A bit of an odd duck. It combines the new, successful multiplayer system of Modern Warfare with the old, familiar setting of World War II. Though WWII games are a dime a dozen, Call of Duty is still at the top for a reason. The campaign is varied and exciting, and can be played with up to three friends.

Read Full Review >

Game Informer

World at War finally gives us a reason to visit the Pacific Theater with its fun cooperative and multiplayer modes. But the “been there, done that” single-player missions and overall derivative tone keep this very good game from achieving the greatness of its predecessor. [Jan 2009, p.64]

3DJuegos

World at War is a great new entry in the epic saga. The new Call of Duty just misses the inspiration that Infinity Ward brings to every project, and which Treyarch still aspires to. This new game offers everything we were waiting for, and has better value in its co-op campaign.

Read Full Review >

IGN UK

Although World at War too often feels like a refit, it’s a refit of one of the greatest games of the current generation - and one that’s, by and large, been confidently handled by Treyarch.

Read Full Review >

GameStar

Call of Duty: World at War goes back to the battlefields of World War 2. The game delivers well staged nonstop action and looks good, but the missions are barely connected, just like in the first three games of the series. It's still a good, maybe even a very good FPS, but not fit to hold a candle to its predecessor.

Read Full Review >

GameSpot

World at War brings proven Call of Duty mechanics back to WWII with great success.

Read Full Review >

GameZone

Overall the game feels a bit short but is not only a very tasty bit of eye candy, and a treat for the ears as well, but a briskly paced action-adventure that should please fans of WWII first-person shooters.

Read Full Review >

Computer Games Online RO

World at War is a remarkable Call of Duty title, once again, but it’s clear that more could have been done on the multiplayer side. Unlike the rest of the games in the series, Treyarch studios can’t pride themselves with this latter aspect, which has always ensured the series’ longevity.

Read Full Review >

GamingXP

Graphics are brilliant, and the new Koop – mode offers a fantastic chance, to accomplish difficult missions together. The single player-campaign isn’t able to satisfy the gamer’s needs.

Read Full Review >

Gamers.at

World at War won’t disappoint anyone, just as long as they don’t expect it to fully revive the glory of its predecessor. [Issue#17]

Gamer 2.0

Treyarch has made vast improvements from their COD 3 work and delivered a solid product.

Read Full Review >

PC Zone UK

While World at War isn't original and has moments lacking in inspiration (the tank section, ugh) it has refined the linear World War II shooter template as much as perhaps it can be. [Jan 2009, p.60]

Total PC Gaming

Shocking, chaotic and uberviolent. For those who can take it, there's a fine game lurking despite the flaws. [Issue#14, p.45]

2404.org

Buy it for the multiplayer.

Read Full Review >

Play (Poland)

Stalingrad, Berlin, Thompsons and Mausers... This timeworn, if eternal setting is explored yet again in even more epic rendition. This game has everything that is expected from such an distinguished series, but after Modern Warfare it's a step back not only in time. [Jan 2009]

Meristation

Following the work of Infinity Ward with "Modern Warfare", Treyarch has made a good work following those steps as close as possible, while adding elements of their own. The grim scenario of the Russian campaign is a clear highlight and a triumph for the studio, and the same could be said of the four player cooperative mode. However, we miss more evolution on the graphics engine, and some elements added to the multiplayer experience don't convince us.

Read Full Review >

PC PowerPlay

Despite some concerns, the game is certainly not a bad one; it's no Call of Duty 3, by any stretch of the imagination – and Treyarch is definitely back in good form. The action is top notch, and the multiplayer will certainly keep people occupied for some time. [Christmas 2008, p.75]

PC Format

It's a slick shooter, but the ultra-generic Japan campaign makes it feel very much the cut price CoD4 remake. [Jan 2009, p.94]

PC Gamer UK

Lavish, but retrograde and unbalanced. [Christmas 2008, p.96]

MEGamers

World at War is nothing but a mutated bastard child of its immortal predecessor.

Read Full Review >

PC Gamer

In fact, World at War is a deeply symmetrical reapplication of CoD4's brilliant design, though executed with noticeably less polish. [Jan 2009, p.44]

Thunderbolt

Just another pretty good game.

Read Full Review >

Absolute Games

By changing the setting in Call of Duty 4, Infinity Ward saved the series from stagnation. World at War is a step back. WWII has been done to death, and even the Pacific campaign feels like a retread of Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault.

Read Full Review >

LEVEL (Czech Republic)

Returning to WWII is not a bad idea as many may think. There are a lot of stories not yet told. Unfortunately heavy scripting, suicidal AI, and lack of fresh ideas ruin the overall impression. [Issue#173]

Edge Magazine

Treyarch has taken just enough from COD4 to make World At War a broad success, but it remains firmly in its shadow. [Christmas 2008, p.90]

What Our Users Said

The average user rating for this game is 7.0 (out of 10) based on 220 User Votes

Note: User votes are NOT included in the Metascore calculation.

Tony L gave it a9:
Not a bad game at all. There are many map packs/patches now all for free. I spent over 200hrs on multiplayer and to me is more enjoyable than CoD4 multiplayer. This game isn't as much as a noob game as CoD4. You knife slower in succession, can't jump continually, reload slower, etc.

[Anonymous] gave it a3:
So many bugs that it is just unbelievable and makes the game either impossible to play because the console will spam you error messages or you end up being unable to reinstall unless you reinstall windows, etc. (Yes, I tryed reinstalling the game, fixing registries, upgrading and downgrading the drivers, etc. but only reinstalling windows seem to have worked and yet I still got the issue that some textures cannot be found...) About the gameplay itself... Some say it's a copy of cod4, I'd say a copy of the battlefield series with even worse upgrades. If you use the grenade launcher with fireworks, you can kill anyone in sight (even those wearing protection agaisnt explosive). you can also lob those anywhere on the map without being seen just by looking the 'red dots' once someone gets his 3 kills. Yes, it lacks all the vehicules of battlefield but it's almost the same. COD was different by being a player vs player gameplay but now it's not. Why would you buy a half biased game with lots of bugs when there's better out there doing the same thing. Weapons are not army/nation based. This is a big down point since it doesn't matter which army you end up as since you can take any weapon you want... Usually ends being 4-5 weapons used whatever map it is. Even the bolt actions are rather useless since in softcore they,ll take 2-3 hits to kill and in hardcore it's 1 hit but almost all other weapons can 1 hit (semiauto rifles, bar, dp28, etc.) if you set them right. The tanks also have 3rd person view which makes it so easy to play as them and almost impossible to sneak on them. Dogs are somewhat easy to kill but they 1 hit and if your team is bad you will end being stuck in the spawn being struck by artillery and a spam of dogs. The only good thing which is also a bad thing... is that the community of cod2 has moved to cod5 (and 4). The wrong part about it is that cod2 has almost as good graphics but its gameplay is more unique then the package of random ideas half made and loaded with bugs that is cod5. would have gave it a 0 if it wasn't from how many players are online to play with and that it wasn't a ww2 game. Is there no alternative of gameplay with a strong community still left out there??? Why can't we simply have a good old wwII game with infantry and without the random weapons. Oh yea... betties can be planted in solid concrete and still detect pressure? (they're easy to counter but still is lame)

Resubian M gave it a7:
I had CoD4 for quite a while before I bought this. I bought it because I was sick of CoD4's multiplayer: Crouch with an overly accurate m4 or run and gun with a piss poor accuracy mp5. World at War's guns are a huge refreshment: there are lot's of balanced SMG's to use, rather than just the MP5 and the P90. The round drum attachments are innovative, as well as the second chance ability. They could have done a better job on vehicles. Another thing that drew me to WaW is the multiplayer maps. They're all absolutely fantastic. On CoD4 I felt like every map was a complete M4 over-balanced spray fest. On WaW, a single person can take out several members of the other team if they use the map to their advantage. Overall, I think Treyarch just wanted to put the best WWII game out there. Obviously, WaW is the best WW2 shooter out there now, and CoD4 is arguably the best modern shooter, so I think they accomplished what they set out to do. I honestly don't like single player on any game, but WaW's SP does get a bit repetitive. Nazi Zombie is an epic win: you'll see when Der Riese comes out for the PC, it's jaw-dropping on the PS3.

K L gave it a4:
I just bought this recently on a Steam sale. There's a wonderful game in here somewhere, but it's riddled with instability, crashes, and lacking in several key areas. While I was able to run Call of Duty 4 perfectly, World at War greeted me with crashes and bugs, and with no official fix in site, I had to troubleshoot my own problems. I was able to run the game finally, but the framerate isn't very solid, and I had to sacrifice the ability to watch cutscenes for what little stability I had. Not only that, but there are no dedicated servers for co-op or Nazi Zombies, which means any games you find for that mode will be few and laggy. I'd be happy to give this game a 7 or even an 8, but until Treyarch acts to fix all of the problems related to just running the game properly, I can't recommend this game to any PC gamers.

Alexander W. gave it a1:
This Game is Terrible ! I played a lot of games but this is the first game which is still not able to play because you don't want to play it why i gave the game 1 score ? because the graphic is good nothing else !

marc P gave it a10:
This game is awesome. Yet, it's really underrated. Still, people who play Call of Duty : World At War are really like CoD4 players, they hate updates. they're still alot of people who play the first version of the game. Multiplayer is great. And it's way more gory than Call of Duty 4. They say Co-op is crappy and blah blah blah. All the same crap from all the same crap people. I say Call of Duty World At War over Call of Duty 4 because of, of course, the zombie mode! That thing is sick! It's almost better than Left 4 Dead. Singleplayer is fun, but buy it for the multiplayer. I have both Call of Duty 4 AND World At War, but World At War is my favourite.

Jack P. gave it a3:
Treyarch have successfully copied call of duty 4 enough to make world at war bearable. World at War's campaign goes thus: GO GO GO SOLDIERS! FINAL PUSH! GO GO GO THIS IS IT! OH MY GOD THIS IS THE FINAL PUSH Sniping mission GO GO GO FINAL PUSH BULLETS EVERYWHERE FINAL PUSH plane mission FINAL PUSH INTO ENEMY TERRITORY THIS IS IT ULTIMATE BATTLE. etc etc. It has none of the pacing that made cod 4 so good. Call of Duty 4, made by infinity ward, the real developers of call of duty, had the perfect balance between action, set pieces, scripted segments and stealth. Just compare the first level of call of duty 4 to the first level of call of duty world at war. In call of duty, you are getting the drop on the unsuspecting crew of a ship. After the shooting starts to tire a bit, there is an excellent set piece in which the boat sinks. Call of Duty World at War starts off looking to be good. There's a nice 1st person torture scene which sets you right into the action. Your team mates slit the throats of your captors and give you a gun . "Ooh, a little stealthy action here? Taking them by surprise?" I foolishly think. "CALL IN ARTILLERY!" *BOOM* "GO GO GO!" Apparently not. I love action games, but this is no half-life, or counter-strike or even call of duty. The multiplayer is decent enough. Treyarch managed to copy almost every aspect of multiplayer successfully, and even managed to copy left 4 dead in a totally irrelevant (and boring after the first go) zombie map. If you're considering getting this, you'd better have loved the hell out of the multiplayer in cod 4, because that is world at war's only saving grace.

Games

Sony

Microsoft

Nintendo

Other Platforms

Upcoming &Recent Releases

Call of Duty: World at War

Game Info

Summary

Also On Metacritic

What The Critics Said

What Our Users Said

Upcoming &
Recent Releases