Call of Duty: World at War

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

Buy it for the multiplayer.

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]

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]

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

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

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]

Just another pretty good game.

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.

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]