Call of Duty: World at War

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

IGN

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

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.

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.

Cynamite

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

GameSpot

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

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.

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.

Gamers' Temple

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

Playstation Universe

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

Gamer 2.0

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thunderbolt

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]