Call of Duty: World at War Image
Metascore
83

Generally favorable reviews - based on 36 Critic Reviews What's this?

User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 964 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,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
Buy On

Trailer

Play Sound
Please enter your birth date to watch this video:
You are not allowed to view this material at this time.
Call of Duty: World at War Map Pack 2 Trailer
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 36
  2. Negative: 0 out of 36
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 90
    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.
  4. 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.
  5. Gamers.at
    84
    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]
  6. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    60
    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]

See all 36 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 83 out of 154
  2. Negative: 24 out of 154
  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
  2. Sep 13, 2014
    10
    Hail to the WW2 veterans with Treyarch.
    Very excellent campaign in the video game history,though containing some glitches and sometimes
    Hail to the WW2 veterans with Treyarch.
    Very excellent campaign in the video game history,though containing some glitches and sometimes functions with bad optimization.
    The best figured war feeling shooter game which makes the relentless war fighting and the fragility of individual lives on the battle ground that beyonds human tolerence.THIS GAME MAKES YOU HATE THE WARS.
    Expand
  3. Aug 4, 2019
    9
    Игра мне понравилась. Много чего крутого - сюжет, графика, геймплей, и тк.д. Минусы заключаются в техническом характере.Игра мне понравилась. Много чего крутого - сюжет, графика, геймплей, и тк.д. Минусы заключаются в техническом характере.
  4. CM
    Dec 27, 2009
    8
    Campaign ok not great still think cod2 had the best campaign / multiplayers not bad just glad they kept there server browser and dedicated Campaign ok not great still think cod2 had the best campaign / multiplayers not bad just glad they kept there server browser and dedicated server compatability. Still prefer cod 3's multi (greating my own server was always fun [OPEN SERVER] that is not private dnt see much point in private servers apart from when ya feel like messing around with ya friends) Zombie gamemode is what kept this game selling i loved the hidden secrets and code in the maps and the additional dlc packs which carryed on the litte zombie story. Campaign : 6.5 (Coz its co-op enabled) Multiplayer : 7 (just wish ppl would stop hacking :/ but what can ya do) Zombie Co-Op : 8.7 (Due to DLC and little story) Graphics : 6 (They Need to sort it out so ppl cant just put there graphics to lowest and see through all the grass.... or atleast force it on for all clients) Overall : 8 ( Good buy if you got some friends to play zombie mode with // once ya get bored of multi and co-op campaign ) Expand
  5. 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
  6. Sep 7, 2018
    5
    Un jeu moyen sur tout les plans.
    Tout ce qui faisait le charme et le fun d'un Call of Duty semble avoir disparu ici.
    peut être parce que
    Un jeu moyen sur tout les plans.
    Tout ce qui faisait le charme et le fun d'un Call of Duty semble avoir disparu ici.
    peut être parce que c'est un genre vieillissant, peut être parce que le jeu est tout simplement mal pensé.
    Les maps sont ratées, trop de chemins, d'allées, de passages les rendent indigeste, empêche totalement l'aspect stratégique des déplacements, tant les ennemis peuvent arriver de partout, à tout moment.
    Les armes ne semblent pas vraiment différentes les unes des autres, un peu comme si seul le skin changeait, en main, on y prend que très peu de plaisir.

    Bref, ce jeu est malheureusement à éviter. Ils ont voulu bien faire, mais c'est raté.
    Expand
  7. 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

See all 154 User Reviews