Call of Duty: World at War

 PlayStation 3
User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 557 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 375 out of 557
  2. Mixed: 125 out of 557
  3. Negative: 57 out of 557
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Nickabon
    Oct 19, 2010
    7
    Good game in solo mode. Had a difficult time distinguishing between friend and foe. Grenades pissed me off from start to finish. On-line Nazi Zombie play is great. Graphics - 9 : Story - 4 : Controls - 8 : Gameplay - 6
  2. Palp
    Jul 16, 2011
    6
    I have played several Call of Duty games and have enjoyed them all with the exception of this entry. My problem with the game isn't that Treyarch developed it, I have no problem with that. My biggest concern in regard to the game is just how much of a bland and boring retread it is of the World War II genre, providing nothing out of the ordinary to keep the player entertained.

    This game    I have played several Call of Duty games and have enjoyed them all with the exception of this entry. My problem with the game isn't that Treyarch developed it, I have no problem with that. My biggest concern in regard to the game is just how much of a bland and boring retread it is of the World War II genre, providing nothing out of the ordinary to keep the player entertained.

    This game shines in terms of production value without question, but pretty graphics, great sound and lighting only go so far to mask the average shooter underneath. The game lacks interesting characters or involving story. The campaign is short, well under 10 hours to complete, and the level design is standard for what people have come to expect out of a WWII shooter. My biggest problem with this game is just how safe Treyarch played it when developing the title. The original Modern Warfare had events that were almost larger than life, with your character escaping a capsizing ship, and a nuclear bomb scene that is arguably the most memorable thing to take place in a war themed shooter. This is why it's unfortunate that this game turned out so plain, and is ultimately a hold-over for those waiting for Modern Warfare 2.    … Expand
  3. jbully95
    Oct 8, 2012
    7
    I reckon this was the last truly great campaign the CoD franchise made. This game draws you into the horrible events that occurred during the Second World War. The way this game makes you feel is that you can die at anytime and you are always expecting to be shot at out of nowhere. What makes this different to all the other CoD's is that you aren't a one man army in this game and you haveI reckon this was the last truly great campaign the CoD franchise made. This game draws you into the horrible events that occurred during the Second World War. The way this game makes you feel is that you can die at anytime and you are always expecting to be shot at out of nowhere. What makes this different to all the other CoD's is that you aren't a one man army in this game and you have to hide and take cover if you want to live. If you play like the way you play in Black ops or MW3 you will certainly get your face shot off instantly by the enemy. The online play to was also fun but was improved upon by Black Ops.… Expand
  4. octobersky92
    Feb 7, 2012
    5
    Thought the campaign was good, not great. The graphics were good. Yes it is the same copy and paste game but thats the same with all COD games. My only hate of this game is the multiplayer. The multiplayer was fun until the hackers infested it.
  5. Andy92
    Oct 28, 2010
    6
    This game didn't live up to the high expectations of it there was a few flaws. firstly the campaign was mildly enjoyable a bit repetitive but good. probably the best aspect of the game nazi zombies was very enjoyable and a good teamwork builder. The multi player wasn't that good the maps weren't well designed the game play didn't have the high experience modern warfare had.
  6. JustinA.
    Feb 4, 2009
    5
    The game is decent. Nothing new from COD4 but online is pretty fun. My only gribe with online death match is the cheaters. Some people know how to glitch the maps and walk underneath them being totally untargetable by other players. They then proceed to shoot everyone that walks by, getting free easy kills. The developers desperately need to release a patch to fix this or I will stop playing.
  7. GoldenBoyReview
    Dec 18, 2012
    7
    On its own this game is fun and a nice change from all the modern fps. But following cod4 this was one of my biggest disappointments in my gaming history. It didn't innovate at all from its predecessor and is worse in ever regard. However despite being inferior to modern warfare, the winning formula is maintained and you still have a very entertaining game. This also had my favouriteOn its own this game is fun and a nice change from all the modern fps. But following cod4 this was one of my biggest disappointments in my gaming history. It didn't innovate at all from its predecessor and is worse in ever regard. However despite being inferior to modern warfare, the winning formula is maintained and you still have a very entertaining game. This also had my favourite Zombie mode. Single player: 7/10
    Zombie Mode: 9/10
    Multiplayer: 8/10    … Expand
  8. TonyS.
    Nov 18, 2008
    5
    If you love the laggy online gameplay that peer to peer offers then this game is for you. Stats update infrequently. Graphics and sound are worse than COD4. No camo upgrades for weapons. I would give this game maybe a 7 if Activision used dedicated servers. Not really a bad game, you just have to hope the game host has a good connection.
  9. joshs
    Jun 28, 2009
    7
    its no COD4 but it is a pretty fun game the best part is the end of it when you unlock the zombie mini game but i think that people are going to expect COD4 quality games every time now but the first one was something new which made it really good and they don't realize that it was made by an entirely different section of activision
  10. RavenWolfx
    Nov 11, 2008
    5
    Mediocre level design, graphics that look like a step down from Call of Duty 4 instead of a step up, inconsistent aiming, and teenager-like-I'm-Better-Than-Call-of-Duty-4-Please-Believe-Me! ruin this game. What am I refering to with the teenager-like crap that Treyarch pulls? CoD4 fans wanted dogs in multiplayer, so Treyarch puts dogs in there. CoD4 has Level 55 has the highest, CoD5Mediocre level design, graphics that look like a step down from Call of Duty 4 instead of a step up, inconsistent aiming, and teenager-like-I'm-Better-Than-Call-of-Duty-4-Please-Believe-Me! ruin this game. What am I refering to with the teenager-like crap that Treyarch pulls? CoD4 fans wanted dogs in multiplayer, so Treyarch puts dogs in there. CoD4 has Level 55 has the highest, CoD5 has Level 65! CoD4's perks allow for some interesting combos, CoD5 has more perks! WTF Treyarch. WTF Activision. Let Infinity Ward handle the CoD series and lay-off Treyarch.… Expand
  11. JeffC.
    Nov 13, 2008
    7
    Fairly good graphics but upon closer inspections of some buildings the textures remind me of games from 5 years ago. Definitely a step backwards for the franchise. The weapons sounds are very poor and the MP has somehow become more arcade-like. Skip this one.
  12. JordanF.
    Dec 15, 2008
    6
    From the get go Treyarch billed this as the worthy successor to Infinity Ward
  13. jb
    Jan 16, 2009
    5
    Shockingly bad, one of the worst online games i've ever played. The weapons are awful, the fire from the hip is broken and the visuals look like they've had treacle thrown all over them. This wouldn't have impressed me on PS2.
  14. ZachA.
    Nov 24, 2008
    5
    Where do I start? Well, the campaign is an amazing triumph of gaming engineering, and how Treyarch and Activision have put this story mode together is marvellous! There are faults in the campaign, which, give them their due is unavoidable. Some minor faults that are unavoidable are the ridiculous glitches with characters and how they can merge into a wall and glitch so badly that you Where do I start? Well, the campaign is an amazing triumph of gaming engineering, and how Treyarch and Activision have put this story mode together is marvellous! There are faults in the campaign, which, give them their due is unavoidable. Some minor faults that are unavoidable are the ridiculous glitches with characters and how they can merge into a wall and glitch so badly that you cannot carry on in your conquest of Europe. The face is, Activision/Treyarch, you could iron out these faults I believe. I'll start with the Pacific side of the campaign now, with these pathetic (OK, maybe that did happen in real life) Banzai Chargers that in one hit put you down on the floor like a sack of steaming turds. I'm sure everyone feels this way when I say; "JUST DIE YOU DAMN BANZAIS!". The only way you are ever going to clear these out of your path of destruction is to Flamethrower the buggers! There are many other annoying aspects of the campaign, but I do not have the time, nor the energy to type my fingers down until they are bleeding and oozing stubby clumps attached to my hands! Settle down reader. The online is a trecherous and unforgiving pile of useless boring crap. If any fan of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare would agree, that would probably the best FPS game that I have ever come across, but then came Call of Duty: World at War. With this came the same gameplay and huge maps, unrealistic melee attacks, over powered, but surprisingly under powered sub-machine guns, gastly and an unlimited combination of perks and weapon choice, out of proportion characters compared to the maps, incredibly rabid dogs, the unexplainable concept of attack dogs that might as well be flying, under powered rifle, weirdly put together bolt-acion rifles when you attach a sniper scope that somehow makes these guns one hit kill to the torso and head when they take two torso shots if you attach the bayonet or grenade launcher. Take a little breather... ANYWAY! I'll start on the kniving now. It sounds like someone is thwacking you over the back of the head with a plank of drift wood wrapped in a cotton sheet. To be honest, it makes me crap my pants sometimes when some cheeky punk sneeks up behind me and "pounds me to death with cotton wrapped drift wood", and it gets increasingly annoying. Bouncing Betty's are even more annoying due to the fact that they are more persistently used and insanely destructive to the human virtual body. My theory is that if you trigger one - Bouncing Betty - and it jumps up and explodes, lie down as quickly as possible to avoid its nuclear asplosion. Perks. The "Second Chance" perk which is exactly the same as Last Stand from Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, has an added extra which allows you to revive any other user of Second Chance on your team. Ingenius, but rather silly. Hallelujah for Martydom, and the explosion range being reduced! There you see, I did have a good point about the online... Tanks, awesome and tremendous addition. The uselessness of a Molotov Cocktail, I am really unable to comprehend. Sticky Grenades suck as much as the Molotov's. Every Rifle on this game, are rendered useless if you have attached a Flash Hider or Supressor. The M1 Garand rifle, ordinarily takes around three shots the finish an enemy off, but when the sniper scope is attached, then it's one hit kill. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! I feel that there are far too many challenges in the fifth episode of the Call of Duty series. And if this is Treyarch's/Activision's idea of "occupying" the player with an impossibly large amount of challenges to complete, THEN THEY ARE BADLY MISTAKEN! Right then, my neck and eyes hurt. My finger tips are sore because my anger and disappointment towards Call of Duty: World at War has forced me to literally mash the buttons in to type this comment. In my opinion, this game is such a flop and bores me so horribly, that I would be able to purge vomit through my eyes and ears. I know thousands will disagree, so be it! Thanks very much!… Expand
  15. Beg4Mersee
    Sep 20, 2010
    7
    The campaign is trash, they did a terrible job with the plot line and character development. The mulitplayer and been eternally ruined with the MP40, the only reason this game is not a 4 is because Nazi Zombies are alone worth 60 dollars.
  16. blisss
    Jun 10, 2011
    6
    This game was really not good, the story wasn't good at all, the offline and online multiplayer wasnt that great, Black Ops, Mw2, and Cod4 are all way better, the one good thing about this game is that Zombies was super fun!
  17. Wulfbeat
    Dec 13, 2011
    6
    Call of Duty: World at War lacks gameplay and graphics comparing to other CoD titles. Yes it has it's own good sides and WW2 theme can appeal some people. After playing Modern Warfare-titles this game feels like playing almost a PS2 title. Not that it's all bad - I like older platforms. The game offers some nice modes (co-op zombies is addictive and fun, you can play campaign also co-op)Call of Duty: World at War lacks gameplay and graphics comparing to other CoD titles. Yes it has it's own good sides and WW2 theme can appeal some people. After playing Modern Warfare-titles this game feels like playing almost a PS2 title. Not that it's all bad - I like older platforms. The game offers some nice modes (co-op zombies is addictive and fun, you can play campaign also co-op) and online gameplay works good. Singleplayer is just like in almost every shooter game - repeatitive with not really interesting persons - fast-paced action with a few (not interesting) plot twists. So basicly, this title is OK shooter, with a few good sides and lots of things you see in every other shooter. I would recommend this is you really like shooters (or co-op games), but not otherwise.… Expand
  18. SJ-ULTI-Reiews
    Sep 27, 2013
    6
    the gameplay in this game is great, but unfortunitely the story mode is very lacking and boring. The graphics look dated but still good. The Nazi zombies mode is awesome but only one map is free and the rest are $10, multiplayer is fun but i only played it in 2-player split screen. Overall this is a decent game, it can be really fun at times but that dosint make up for the lackluster storythe gameplay in this game is great, but unfortunitely the story mode is very lacking and boring. The graphics look dated but still good. The Nazi zombies mode is awesome but only one map is free and the rest are $10, multiplayer is fun but i only played it in 2-player split screen. Overall this is a decent game, it can be really fun at times but that dosint make up for the lackluster story mode, only buy it if its $8 or cheaper otherwise youd be wasting your money.… Expand
  19. NateSteve
    Oct 29, 2013
    6
    Not too epic but really awesome, has great missions and has NAZI ZOMBIES mode, but the zombies are creepy, not to epic game, even though, the final mission isn't really cool, just run to the base and put the flag.
  20. AvxrageJoe
    Jul 3, 2015
    5
    World at War has good campaign, but terrible multiplayer. Never bought this game for myself, just lent it from my friend. I didn't play this game when it came out so I may not have gotten the full MP experience.

    (Played this around 2010-2011)
  21. Jyadaus
    Jan 24, 2020
    7
    Even the last two parts of the game make this game great. "The Heart of the Reich" and "Downfall" was best missions i ever played on CoD series. You can feel the atmosphere great.
  22. PixelGamer115
    Oct 24, 2020
    7
    - Campaign: 9/10
    - Zombies: 5/10
    - Multiplayer: 4/10

    .....................
  23. GODvaria
    Feb 1, 2021
    7
    В принципе,это сюжет старых колд на новом движке.Смотрелось годно.
  24. AnonymousMC
    Oct 17, 2009
    7
    Treyarch showed us what is it like to copy from another developing team (in terms of multiplayer and most of the game itself ! ) lets start with the bad things 1st: pretty much the same gameplay as CoD4 (unless this is your 1st call of duty then that statement wont bother you as much). Short story line (you better be buying this game for the multiplayer). and some annoying bugs inTreyarch showed us what is it like to copy from another developing team (in terms of multiplayer and most of the game itself ! ) lets start with the bad things 1st: pretty much the same gameplay as CoD4 (unless this is your 1st call of duty then that statement wont bother you as much). Short story line (you better be buying this game for the multiplayer). and some annoying bugs in both single and multiplayer, I.E. not giving me a knife kill when i had the drop on the person, even though i heard the "stabing" sound and pretty sure that the body was in my whole screen so there wasnt anyway for me to miss!! but then allowing the other person to turn around and either knife me or shoot me while my "cooldown" for my knife and shooting was still in effect! thus getting killed for being able to sneak up on someone and strike 1st (yea that doesnt make any sence!!) and I dont know if you guys notice that on the 1st Russian mission, that whole mission was pretty much copied from the move: Enemy Behind the Gates (which isnt much of a bad thing since i liked that movie, but it goes into one of my "COME - ON!!" moments)also, the single-player AI is quite stupid... there are points in the game where I am actually depending on my "teammates" to give me cover while I go up and continue the mission, but most of the time they are just stairing at a wall, or looking at their feet, not really doing much other then getting themselfs killed (this is more so on the "Burn 'em Out" mission, where you only have a flame-thrower and a prayer not to get shot by a sniper). I think its kinda funny that I COULD DEPEND ON my teammates in COD4 but not in this game, there where many times I got shot in the back because I thought it was clear because my squadmates cleared out a room but didnt shoot anything >.< and it seemed that Treyarch didnt have as much imagination as Infinity Ward, which is prolly the reason why Infinity Ward is making CoD:Modern Warfare 2 and not Treyarch (thank god!) and now to the good things about CoD5: 1st thing I gotta say is I loved the music, in all modes of the game, It got me engaged into the game there are even points in the game to where I actually stop playing just to listen to the music lol. if I had to pick which side I liked more durring the single-player was when i am with the Russians, Mainly because the American side had all those annonying BONZAI charges, and it seemed that the Russian story-line was actually something to look foward too.... Even though I liked Kiefer Sutherland A.K.A. "Corporal Roebuck" voice acting on the American side, I just dreaded going to the American side... and you know why if you read my comments above. Even though the Multiplayer can be annoying with the bugs and other stuff that goes on while playing, Its actually fun to play. Just like COD4 I enjoyed the multiplayer in this game... even though some weapon upgrades arnt historic and some weapons are a little overpowered knowing what bullets they use... I.E. MP40 uses 9mm rounds, 9mm is small, not much for stoping power but since its small you can carry alot of ammo. but in this game they seem to be packin .45s in their magazines (which by the way a Tommy Gun uses, and some of know how heavy that gun actually is) the funny thing is MP40 is much stronger then most other guns in that game... while in real-life MP40 was a good gun but not as great what Treyarch thinks it should be... Ahhhh there we go, trying to say nice thing about this hard... because every good thing about this game is up to the beholder, its whatever you make it out to be... but I will tell you this, even though CoD4 is a much better game then this, I will still be playing this game for a long while, or at least til COD: Modern Warfare 2 comes out… Expand
  25. AnonymousMC
    Nov 20, 2008
    6
    Given that this game was billed as COD4 set in WWII, it is surprising how far short of that mark this game falls. While this is an improvement over Treyarch's previous attempt; it still falls well short of the mark set by COD2 & COD4. While there is a sense of achievement in finishing a level, the main part missing is any sense of FUN. The set-piece battles are largely uninspiring &Given that this game was billed as COD4 set in WWII, it is surprising how far short of that mark this game falls. While this is an improvement over Treyarch's previous attempt; it still falls well short of the mark set by COD2 & COD4. While there is a sense of achievement in finishing a level, the main part missing is any sense of FUN. The set-piece battles are largely uninspiring & unmemorable; the difficulty curve is very uneven between the Soviet & US missions; several levels are immensely frustrating in parts thanks a lot to enemy AI that can pinpoint a grenade at your feet when they can't see you, will ignore your squad mates to shoot you and never stop to reload; combined with squad mates that will ignore enemies next to them - this leads to repetitious death if you face more than a few enemies at a time. If you want a good single-player FPS, you will be better off looking elsewhere.… Expand
  26. timmeho
    Jan 5, 2009
    7
    I enjoyed the game well sort of, it keep me entertained for a while. i havnt played cod4 online but i enjoyed COD WW online, it wasnt realistic at all with it's silly weapon upgrades eg. red dot targeting in a ww2 game but it was fun, unless the host had a shit connection which became increasingly frequent, i did also enjoy the single player campaign but didnt notice quiet a few I enjoyed the game well sort of, it keep me entertained for a while. i havnt played cod4 online but i enjoyed COD WW online, it wasnt realistic at all with it's silly weapon upgrades eg. red dot targeting in a ww2 game but it was fun, unless the host had a shit connection which became increasingly frequent, i did also enjoy the single player campaign but didnt notice quiet a few flaws which did upset me a little as if no care was taken into making this game, dont get me wrong i enjoyed the game i just felt like it could have been just so much better with a little more effort. im not gonna write a full page im just going to skip to the points, it feels like the AI are scripted which is because they are, which is dissapointing becasue if you die and try again its exactly the same as before, they AI also hav a habit of just targeting you the main player, as if its a one man war, and your fellow soilders just suck, theres no other word for it, maybe thats why they just target you????? but honestly the game is fun despite it flaws, the graphics are decent not ground breaking or out of this world but good enough, it is a brutal game, violent but then the guns are silly. sniper rifles kill with one shot almost regardles of where you shot the person, and the same gun without a scope it takes 2 shots, i am a ww2 fan but im struggling find anything new, they are all just slight variations of the one recipe and it's become quiet boring, the gameplays just completely linear, the AI are scripted and stupid but they can be incredibly accurate at the same time, i feel these game producers are just becoming lazy they dont care anymore as if no matter what crap they put out it will sell because there is nothing else, the huge amouts of space on blu ray discs and awsome power of the ps3 arent gettting used by the slightest. i still did enjoy this game, BUT rent before yu buy becasue the campiagns short and the multiplayer is well no other word than silly tho i enjoyed it, others may not. i could go on about the banzias melee attackes and the sometimes very repative gameplay etc etc. but i did enjoy this game because compared to other ww2 games, as it does bring some new aspects and is quiet fun and entertaining but still very much the same everywhere else. to conclude, MY OPINON IS THAT this is a great game, but far from a fantastic game.… Expand
  27. AndyClimax
    Oct 2, 2014
    7
    After the revelation that was Modern Warfare, Call of Duty took a step back and re-entered the all too stale and familiar (in 2008 anyway) scenery of WWII. Good enough to pass the time, but inferior to every CoD before it bar 3.
  28. Nel
    Feb 11, 2017
    7
    A new installment of the call of duty serie. This one does better than many future games of the serie. The full experience it fully you will need to play online, however with all the new versions of this serie, there is a lack of people playing it in 2017.
  29. ownagealan
    Jun 13, 2016
    7
    Call of Duty World at War is a good game. However there are some things I would like to criticize about. Number one, when you go on the Soviet campaign, Reznov seems to be too over confident and this game exaggerates sometimes, mostly in the Soviet campaign. For example, they exagerate we out number the Germans 10:1, and it is not true. The Soviets were losing troops and they have to holdCall of Duty World at War is a good game. However there are some things I would like to criticize about. Number one, when you go on the Soviet campaign, Reznov seems to be too over confident and this game exaggerates sometimes, mostly in the Soviet campaign. For example, they exagerate we out number the Germans 10:1, and it is not true. The Soviets were losing troops and they have to hold Moscow until reinforcements come from the far east. It seems most of the people play this game liked the Soviet campaign rather than the American campaign. But in Call of Duty 1, the cutscence in the ending basically says we are like brothers and we both fought for the same things. But in Call of Duty World at War, the American Campaign , the soldiers mostly wanted to go home while the Soviets mostly act tough and wanted to enjoy Russia's embrace. The gameplay is excellent and this game doesn't suck, I have a great time playing it.… Expand
  30. atyoukha
    Aug 12, 2022
    6
    The game play is good and so is the music that syncs well as you play along. But the game itself is nothing new.
  31. ratkingseb
    Sep 13, 2022
    6
    a decent cod game, ties into black ops but sometimes can be a little annoying
  32. FrankCreeper
    Jul 28, 2023
    7
    Compared to its predecessor is very amazing of this series has improved the gameplay is cool and story is very original and unique compared on another fps games of his years

Awards & Rankings

20
#20 Best PS3 Game of 2008
11
#11 Most Discussed PS3 Game of 2008
64
#64 Most Shared PS3 Game of 2008

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
85

Generally favorable reviews - based on 45 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 41 out of 45
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 45
  3. Negative: 0 out of 45
  1. GameDaily
    80
    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
  2. Cheat Code Central
    92
    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
  3. GameZone
    85
    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
See all critic reviews »