Call of Duty: World at War

1. GustavoF.

   Feb 1, 2010

   10

   The big deal about this game was: Modern Warfare made gamers so spoiled about Call of Duty series that if a game on FPS genre isn't The big deal about this game was: Modern Warfare made gamers so spoiled about Call of Duty series that if a game on FPS genre isn't hardcore ground-breaking, it's called "mediocre". What? Big Red One was mediocre. Finest Hour was mediocre. NDS versions are mediocre. World at War is a great game. But how much can you improve over WWII? You can't lie on history. Most people can't even describe what else they were expecting from this title. Just stick with Modern Warfare's if you like, the world is big enough for everyone.… Expand

   • 6 of 7 users found this helpful
2. Aprt123

   Jan 14, 2016

   10

   In the words of the famous Daithi De Nogla, "This game is [freaking] YEEE!!" He has inspired us all to not get this game when he got a teddyIn the words of the famous Daithi De Nogla, "This game is [freaking] YEEE!!" He has inspired us all to not get this game when he got a teddy bear! We love you, Nogla! Rating the game 10 because I love the content the YouTubers I watch post of this… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
4. NickC.

   Nov 29, 2008

   9

   So far its awesome. I love the gameplay, I loved call of duty 4s engine, I love the coop, this game is where its at as far as FPS. One thing, So far its awesome. I love the gameplay, I loved call of duty 4s engine, I love the coop, this game is where its at as far as FPS. One thing, the reason i didnt give it a 10.. Too many WW2 games already. Lets let it rest. Be creative!… Expand

   • 1 of 1 users found this helpful
5. CaptainChaos

   Nov 20, 2010

   8

   There's a part of me that wants to score this lower because when will game designers learn to make checkpoints AFTER the speeches. It'sThere's a part of me that wants to score this lower because when will game designers learn to make checkpoints AFTER the speeches. It's frustrating to hear the same speech 100x when trying to pass a difficult scene - is this just meant to make you feel the pain of war more?!?! That said overall good game. I notice there are no friendly fire deaths with this which takes some of the challenge away but on the other hand i probably would have broken something out of frustration, so good call...… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
6. MikeM

   Feb 4, 2009

   7

   I was very impressed by COD:4 Modern Warfare and of course when people started saying that COD:5 World at War was going to be just like COD:4 I was very impressed by COD:4 Modern Warfare and of course when people started saying that COD:5 World at War was going to be just like COD:4 except in WWII, I thought I should give it a try. They're not even related as far as I'm concerned. The single player is frustratingly difficult even on normal difficulty only because the enemy AI will throw grenades like the war is ending tomorrow. The first level I played there was one part that took me 14 tries to complete because I had to avoid five grenade blasts every time in a very small area. It's constant, every level after that it's more grenades. More often than not it's not gunfire killing you, it's dogs, grenades, tank-fire or banzai attackers. Treyarch made the game like every Nazi and Japanese soldier was a grenade spamming jerk waiting to get a cheap kill on you. In multiplayer, the weapons are way, way too accurate, you can snipe with a machine gun and even a sub-machine gun can best a rifle at 100 feet. The entire multiplayer system is taken directly from COD:4 except they replaced the helicopter with the excessively broken dog strike. One minute of dogs attacking you, sometimes three at a time, a particularly awful glitch in the programming allows them to attack you through walls, the floor, sandbags and the ceiling. They also have very poor hit detection from bullets and melee. I've seen a dog attack that lasted for 10 minutes because every person on the enemy team had one. Also rank means nothing in multiplayer because some servers will give you 8000 exp per kill, which allows you to max your rank in one game. The single player is bad, the multiplayer is fun most of the time. The graphics are good but what game doesn't have good graphics these days. The voice acting is made up of some of the worst stereotypes I've ever heard and they all speak English, poorly. Seriously, worst stereotypical English voice acting ever. Worth a look if you can get one for free, I wish I would've waited until it hit a more reasonable price of $30 US.… Expand

   • 0 of 1 users found this helpful
7. muzmuz

   Jul 18, 2016

   5

   A year older than COD4, but a less appealing title. On top of its bad performance for an old game, World at War offers an unattractiveA year older than COD4, but a less appealing title. On top of its bad performance for an old game, World at War offers an unattractive storyline and a gameplay that may more or less feel a little older than the first in the MW saga, even though it is actually the other way around.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
8. JamesD.

   Nov 11, 2008

   0

   Wow, what a let down, graphics, gameplay, and story all feel tiring, aged with tired WWII genre gametype, and subpar graphics that make you Wow, what a let down, graphics, gameplay, and story all feel tiring, aged with tired WWII genre gametype, and subpar graphics that make you wonder how they ended up with COD2 graphics on the COD4 engine. And the horrid sound effects... best go back to COD4, or pickup Fallout 3, or even better yet, Farcry 2.… Expand

   • 0 of 4 users found this helpful

See all 144 User Reviews