Games

Best of 2008 | 07 | 06 | 05
Advanced Search

Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed games.

Call of Duty: World at War

EMAIL PRINT ps3

7.2 User Score:

Generally favorable reviews

Based on 45 critic reviews
How did we calculate this?

Based on 123 votes
Read user comments
Rate this game >

Game Info

Publisher: Activision

Developer: Treyarch

Genre(s): First-Person Shooter

Players: 4

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 2: Big Red One Call of Duty 3 Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Call of Duty: Finest Hour

Cheat Codes & Hints: Cheat Code Central

Also On The Web: Official Website Predict this Metascore

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...

100

PSW Magazine UK

Packed with extras, World At War is a fast, frantic, exciting and emotionally draining shooter. This is how a war game should be. [Dec 2008, p.66]

100

Playstation Official Magazine Australia

The white-knuckle thrill ride of the year. [Summer 2009, p.60]

Extreme Gamer

In all its blazing glory, Call of Duty: World at War powers up with the Call of Duty 4 engine to push the boundaries of the franchise.

Read Full Review >

Game Chronicles

Treyarch has taken all their expertise with the COD engine and borrowed all of the fantastic multiplayer tech from Modern Warfare to create the ultimate military shooter, a shooter so satisfying and complete you won't care what war it is you're fighting.

Read Full Review >

ZTGameDomain

I cannot emphasize enough how great this game truly is and how much respect I have for the team to make a game that not only impresses on a technical level, but somehow manages to make playing in this overdone war fun again.

Read Full Review >

Cheat Code Central

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 >

IGN

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

Read Full Review >

Gaming Age

While Call of Duty: World at War definitely borrows heavily from it's predecessor, it still remains a damn good follow up to Modern Warfare, and well worth taking the time to check out.

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 >

Cynamite

Perfectly staged WWII shooter with impressive audio-visual quality. Nevertheless, we want a new, refreshing scenario for the sequel!

Read Full Review >

Playstation: The Official Magazine (US)

But still, even flawed, World at War is fun. [Jan 2009, p.70]

GamePro

Developer Treyarch did a fantastic job of not reinventing the wheel with World at War. Rather, they took the best elements of Modern Warfare and expanded upon them. The end product is a thrilling experience that injects some of the visceral punch back into World War II.

Read Full Review >

GameSpy

Strikingly similar to CoD4 in many ways, while offering enough variety to recommend it to anyone who might be growing tired of last year's game. 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.

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 >

PTGamers

World at War is just as solid as Modern Warfare, with interesting missions, fabulous immersion and the competent (but mostly familiar) multiplayer options. And zombies are fun!

Read Full Review >

Total Video Games

World at War also sees the implementation of four-player co-operative gameplay online, and two-player split-screen, with options for a meta-game or just regular co-op. Despite its smooth running, the co-op isn't the most effective we've seen - getting further in the game on co-op won't unlock those missions on Solo - which seems a bit backward compared to other titles.

Read Full Review >

Jolt Online Gaming UK

Even though Call of Duty 4 took the series out of World War II, developer Infinity Ward raised the bar significantly, and that has left stand-in Treyarch with a lot of work to do. In the end World at War hasn’t topped that effort, but it has at least benefited from the attempt, with the result being another really good, very comprehensive WW2 shooter.

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.

Read Full Review >

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 >

InsideGamer.nl

World at War is actually Call of Duty 4 in disguise. Not every change is an improvement, but fans of Modern Warfare will probably enjoy its follow-up just as much, given that they aren’t tired of World War 2 by now. The multiplayer remains addictive, and the online co-op mode is an awesome addition, and together they make this one of the surprises of 2008.

Read Full Review >

PSX Extreme

Call of Duty fans should still enjoy what Call of Duty: World at War has to offer. Fans of Call of Duty 2 who found themselves utterly disappointed by COD3 should absolutely love everything that World at War offers.

Read Full Review >

Game Over Online

While not on par with Infinity Ward’s Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, World at War is better than Treyarch’s last entry, Call of Duty 3.

Read Full Review >

GameSpot

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

Read Full Review >

GameZone

Call of Duty: World at War is a solid entry to the franchise, offering some pretty intense gameplay and nice new online features. However, the return to WWII means that it feels like a game you’ve played before.

Read Full Review >

NZGamer

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.

Read Full Review >

Gamers' Temple

Not quite Call of Duty 4, but a fun game nonetheless.

Read Full Review >

Playstation Universe

One of the best shooters this year, Call of Duty: World At War is an explosive and powerful cinematic experience.

Read Full Review >

Gamer 2.0

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

Read Full Review >

D+PAD Magazine

Unfortunately a large shadow in the shape of last year's game hangs heavy over everything in World at War. Admittedly the feel is excellent, the visuals and audio work strong, but any overt enthusiasm is tempered by the knowledge that in twelve months time we'll perhaps be thinking the same thing about part six: that we've seen it all before, that in itself each Call of Duty is still one of the best rollercoaster rides outside of Hollywood's summer season, that Modern Warfare did it all better.

Read Full Review >

Game Positive

While it's a shame that the campaign isn't as good as its predecessor's, World at War sticks to what made Modern Warfare great: a solid multiplayer experience that can last you months.

Read Full Review >

Giant Bomb

Call of Duty: World at War is a perfectly competent game with exciting multiplayer options and a campaign that's worth playing. But in most of the ways that actually count, last year's game was better.

Read Full Review >

GameDaily

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 >

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 >

Playstation Official Magazine UK

Compared to Modern Warfare, World at War is loud and crass. [Christmas 2008, p.100]

Video Game Talk

If you're a Call of Duty fan and were grimacing about Treyarch being involved with this installment, don't fret. World at War is a fantastic game from start to finish and the multiplayer is every bit as fun and addicting as Modern Warfare's.

Read Full Review >

Thunderbolt

Having created an excellent Russian campaign, it’ll be interesting to see where the development team heads from here.

Read Full Review >

PSM3 Magazine UK

Great online, but disappointing single-player. [Christmas 2008, p.72]

GamingExcellence

If all you’re looking for is more of the same, then Call of Duty: World at War is certainly a worthy addition to the franchise.

Read Full Review >

Game Revolution

Even though Treyarch took Dad’s precious wheels out for a less reckless spin this time around, World at War is still senselessly eating away at Call of Duty’s mileage.

Read Full Review >

GameShark

The multiplayer is as solid the series has seen yet and is capable of carrying the game, but it is disappointing to see the single player campaign waste so much potential.

Read Full Review >

DarkZero

In contrast to last year’s effort, none of the game’s high points are as memorable, and in addition, quite few gunfights start to border on routine as you get further into the game. For that reason, combined with the selection of other erratic blemishes named above, World at War is a notably less appealing game.

Read Full Review >

PS3bloggen.se

The intensity of the battles and the powerful use of sound is what makes World at War really shine, together with the impressive multiplayer options (including the amazing Nazi Zombies mode). But at the end of the day, the clichéd World War 2 setting stops this game from achieving greatness.

Read Full Review >

Play UK

The gameplay, aesthetics and presentation are solid – impressive in places, even – but we’re not about to turn a blind eye to the shamelessly crass tone. If games are ever to mature as a medium then we need to see an end to this kind of thing.

Read Full Review >

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 7.2 (out of 10) based on 123 User Votes

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

Big Joe gave it a4:
While Call of Duty 4 is one of the best games I know, World at War was an utter failure. It is basically the same as COD4 but with worse guns, same multiplayer and a boring campaign. It's not as exhilerating as CoD4. The zombie mode is decent but will eventually get boring. And the splitscreen co-operative? WHAT was treyarch thinking when they used that terrible screen layout! Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games were always better than Treyarch's. Treyarch justified that statement with this poor game. Good going, Treyarch!

Blake gave it a3:
When I bought this game I had no experience with COD4. It lags once and awhile which I finally got use to. Graphics were decent. Glitches were everywhere, in Multi-player maps and zombie maps be expecting a glitch and don't believe the leader boards. so I got board with this finally and played COD4. now I am wishing I had never bought this game. If I wouldn't had bought COD4 and found out how much better World at War could be this score would be higher. I find this score partly appropriate and partly over deserving.

MysticStrummer gave it a9:
Wow... I wonder if the people who gave this game such low scores even played it. You guys must REALLY suck. This is a great game. I know WW2 games aren't for everyone but I enjoyed this more than CoD4. I played through solo and co-op on Hardened difficulty level and had a blast. Those that say this is CoD4 re-skinned are correct for the most part, including the crappy online connection problems. Host leaves, game over. Stupid. As for realism... since when has realism been a concern for CoD fans??? It's an arcade shooter just like all the CoDs, and a damn good one. I just bought this recently and wish I had bought it sooner. Shooting Nazis never gets old, and shooting Nazi zombies is even better. You low score people are sad. What happened to the real gamers of the world? They've been replaced by whiners.

Alex C gave it a9:
What the...? There are some pretty lame reviews of this game from other people. I can understand that a 10 out of 10 would be undeserving.... but 2's and 3's? Honestly? Anyways, I'll start by saying: If you liked Call of Duty 4, you will like this. Period. Second, if you like war games you will like this. If you like online multiplayer games, you will LOVE this. I honestly feel this is the best multiplayer game ever made. It just *slightly* edges COD4 for that title... but it's very addicting. I'm sure Modern Warfare 2 will be the best game ever made... but this game is worth a pick up if you have some spare money or see it fairly inexpensive.

Dave C gave it a3:
Horrendous game, the constant respawns and laser-guided grenades makes this one of the least enjoyable games I have ever played - finishing each level brings nothing other than pure relief from the endless frustration. The graphics are very good in places, but the rest of it just isn't worth the effort.

nihil m gave it a2:
I loved CoD4, simply the best shooter ever. So when WaW was announced I was constantly thinking about it, i was so exited. But then I got it. Exactly the same as CoD4 just with worse guns. Same perks, same layout, same online modes, same everything. The only thing that's keeping me from selling it is the half decent zombie mode, but even that gets boring after 2 games. Worst in the series.

Matt J gave it a3:
I'm sorry to say this, but the game is just downright unplayable...the reason? The constant, and I mean constant cheap grenade deaths! I found myself repeating the same section hundreds of times to be killed by a rouge grenade...every damn time! I gave up after the first mission. I seriously don't get way people wet themselves so much over online play as it is, but the online play for COD 5 is almost as unplayable, yeah ok so alot of it is down to my awful skill at this game, but seriously people must be tanked up on PCP (Angel dust) while playing this! Sorry for the sloppyness of this review, but my god I'm so angry! Gahhhhhhhh.... 3 points for the graphics though!

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