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. TomW.
    Jan 11, 2009
    8
    Very fun game, but not nearly as good as Call of Duty 4, there are many new great features such as the flamethrower, and Nazi Zombies, and that is exactly what the fans of Call of Duty want. The graphics are not as good as Call of Duty 4, and the game play is the same, the story is amazing, from Germans to Japanese, and its fun to knife Japanese, and try to survive the attack. As a gamer, Very fun game, but not nearly as good as Call of Duty 4, there are many new great features such as the flamethrower, and Nazi Zombies, and that is exactly what the fans of Call of Duty want. The graphics are not as good as Call of Duty 4, and the game play is the same, the story is amazing, from Germans to Japanese, and its fun to knife Japanese, and try to survive the attack. As a gamer, I would recommend this game, but like i said Call of Duty 4 is better than World at War, and World at War is better than Call of Duty 1, 2, and 3.… Expand
  2. JakeM
    Jan 11, 2009
    1
    Where do I begin... Lets start with the campaign, the one and only reason I gave it a 1 instead of the 0 I was tempting to put. Okay. The first mission was bad. "How the hell didn't the gaurds spot the Americans coming?" Was my first thought about the game, and as we all know, first impressions mean everything and the first mission was a complete let down, the graphics were terrible Where do I begin... Lets start with the campaign, the one and only reason I gave it a 1 instead of the 0 I was tempting to put. Okay. The first mission was bad. "How the hell didn't the gaurds spot the Americans coming?" Was my first thought about the game, and as we all know, first impressions mean everything and the first mission was a complete let down, the graphics were terrible even on my HDTV, and I'm being completely honest here when I say that I've seen better knife graphics on a PS2. Right, let me skip the whole campaign because I can sum it up in 3 words; Mediocre for 5 minutes. The online is the worst online I've EVER come across. When I first got knived I literally jumped out of my skin because it sounded as if I had been thwacked with one of those big hands you see at football games. There is one good thing about the online, the gun sound effects, when I eventually unlocked the Double-Barrelled Shotgun and blasted some Nazis arm off, I realized they had put some effort into the sound effects of the entire game. I must say I do agree with Zach A. in all aspects but I just beleive that Activision/Treyarch have ruined the COD series. Call of Duty 4 was such a step up from Call of Duty 3 and yet although the graphics are an improvement, Call of Duty: World at War is such a disappointment and a waste of my money. I seriously do not have the patience to nail every single flaw in the game so I leave you with this: DO NOT BUY THIS GAME.… Expand
  3. UnhappyPerson
    Jan 10, 2009
    2
    By far the most disappointing game I have ever purchased. Amazingly, this is the first COD game I have ever purchased. I was disappointed within the first 30 seconds. The entire game feels like no effort was put into it. The graphics don't impress, I don't really like the controls for sprinting (PS3), the guns and aiming are horrible, and it lacks excitement. I've tried to By far the most disappointing game I have ever purchased. Amazingly, this is the first COD game I have ever purchased. I was disappointed within the first 30 seconds. The entire game feels like no effort was put into it. The graphics don't impress, I don't really like the controls for sprinting (PS3), the guns and aiming are horrible, and it lacks excitement. I've tried to like it everytime I play it, but I can't. It's boring, offers nothing new to the shooter and WW2 genre, and comes during the time when many other excellent shooters are out. Stick to Resistance 2 instead.… Expand
  4. MatthewR.
    Jan 10, 2009
    9
    Treyarch had extremely difficult expectations to meet after the infamous call of duty 4: modern warfare became game of the year, and had won the gaming minds of millions of gamers all over the world, but i have to say that call of duty: world at war is the best first-person shooter i have ever played in my life. Although, perhaps the story mode is still extremely short, leaving it some Treyarch had extremely difficult expectations to meet after the infamous call of duty 4: modern warfare became game of the year, and had won the gaming minds of millions of gamers all over the world, but i have to say that call of duty: world at war is the best first-person shooter i have ever played in my life. Although, perhaps the story mode is still extremely short, leaving it some what overlooked, the online element in which call of duty masters has been perfected, with the addition of tanks making gameplay more realisitic and enjoyable for gamers. The slightly more controversial part of call of duty:world at war is the addition of Nacht der untoten (Nazi Zombies) which is a somewhat strange addition to call of duty:world at war showing imagination and i would say a bit of courage to add something nobody was expecting. To some up, call of duty world at war is a fantastic edition of the call of duty franchise which, i for one, will remember and cherish for years to come.… Expand
  5. NickW
    Jan 8, 2009
    0
    A major disappointment, absolutely everything has been taken from cod4 but made worse. Worse graphics, worse story, worse gameplay, worse maps, worse online, worst offline, dogs are rubbish, artillery strikes are rubbish, weapons are rubbish, maps designed for sitting only no strategy needed, even noise when 1 min left on S&D is annoying. Oh and half the maps have some glitch spots where A major disappointment, absolutely everything has been taken from cod4 but made worse. Worse graphics, worse story, worse gameplay, worse maps, worse online, worst offline, dogs are rubbish, artillery strikes are rubbish, weapons are rubbish, maps designed for sitting only no strategy needed, even noise when 1 min left on S&D is annoying. Oh and half the maps have some glitch spots where you can exit and go under the map.… Expand
  6. 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
  7. DavS.
    Jan 1, 2009
    10
    The main game is really good . I love the gameplay and the style of the mission.Well I gived a 10 for the onlinge-gameplay. If you like to play online game you will love COD5. You will play more time online with all the level to reach.And If you want more:Nazie Zombie. this ''Bonus'' game mode is unlicked at the end of the game. You can play alone or online with 3 other friend.
  8. JordanF.
    Dec 15, 2008
    6
    From the get go Treyarch billed this as the worthy successor to Infinity Ward
  9. SteveSessler
    Dec 6, 2008
    4
    Worst spawn generator on the planet. Consistently drops you infront of enemies and you get killed without so much as moving. Then you get to wait for 15 seconds again till it does exactly the same thing. After 3 times, I quit the game and am listing it to be sold
  10. RobinB.
    Nov 26, 2008
    4
    Repetitive single player, stagnant multi player based too heavily on COD 4, with all the flaws copied over. At least COD 3 had it's own character! Fictitious weapon upgrades like "red dot" sights in WWII show just how poor a copy of COD 4 this game is, COD 4 wasn't that great anyway. Buy Bad Company, the COD franchise is finished!
  11. 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
  12. JeffM.
    Nov 23, 2008
    10
    I should've seen this coming. As soon as gamers learned that Treyarch got the nod for the next COD installment, the fanboy tempers flared on all the major gaming forums. While they were bitching & whining about Infinity Ward not producing it & the "poor" decision to return to the WWII era, Treyarch quietly released one stunning still or breathtaking video after another. As a history I should've seen this coming. As soon as gamers learned that Treyarch got the nod for the next COD installment, the fanboy tempers flared on all the major gaming forums. While they were bitching & whining about Infinity Ward not producing it & the "poor" decision to return to the WWII era, Treyarch quietly released one stunning still or breathtaking video after another. As a history buff, I was privately cheering them on in their effort to get it right. And they DID get it right. Is it graphic, brutal, epic, and, at times, even cruel? Yes... but so was the war. And Treyarch's unflinching portrayal of the Japanese soldiers, the subject of so much virulent criticism, didn't cull hatred in my heart, but rather great admiration for their bravery and ferocity onthe battlefield. Critics be damned, this is one terrific FPS. If you're not a lemming, you owe it to yourself to check out COD WAW. IMHO, Treyarch did the franchise, and the warriors of that momentous conflict, proud.… Expand
  13. 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
  14. [Anonymous]
    Nov 18, 2008
    0
    Terrible, absolutely terrible. Takes Call of Duty IV and makes it even worse. If you're looking for the same shooter that you've been playing for the past 5 years, get this. If you want something new, go get Mirror's Edge.
  15. 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.
  16. DominicR.
    Nov 17, 2008
    10
    Awesome game. Not as good as Call of Duty 4 but still an amazing game. Call of Duty 4 caught everyone by surprise. So we were expecting this game to be amazing which it still is, but will not get as good reviews as CoD 4.
  17. MattM
    Nov 15, 2008
    3
    Major disappointment of the series. The campaign in this game is unbelievably dull, boring, uncreative, and unappealing on Treyarch's part. The missions start well but turn into nothing but tiring, repetitive, shootings over and over again. In fact, that's all 80% of the campaign is, mindless shooting going on for 20 mins, one small break here and there, and back to shooting. Major disappointment of the series. The campaign in this game is unbelievably dull, boring, uncreative, and unappealing on Treyarch's part. The missions start well but turn into nothing but tiring, repetitive, shootings over and over again. In fact, that's all 80% of the campaign is, mindless shooting going on for 20 mins, one small break here and there, and back to shooting. Yes, there are a few well done missions, but don't expect them to live up to the hipe of CoD4 at all. Co-op makes it more fun, but still doesn't solve the problems themselves. Aside, this game is not bug-free, and ammo does not replace itself at certain checkpoints, or even at all in some missions. This makes going through the (and often ridiculous) objectives much more difficult, as you'll have to pick up the enemy's (and weaker) guns, which are limited to at most 3 different types. On the subject of multiplayer, there isn't all much difference then CoD4's excellent multiplayer. A few new modes are added, and vehicles do make the matches more interesting, but the old fundamentals are still there. Don't get this game for just a new multiplater, stick to CoD4. If at least 4 of your friends have it, and are playing a lot, you should perhaps consider getting it then. It'll keep you entertained for 3-4months at the most, until you start to the bored the same way as in coD4. WWII fans, will love this campaign's story, but you probably won't find it worthy to even finish it.… Expand
  18. KevinW.
    Nov 15, 2008
    10
    If you enjoy the online part of call of duty, GET THIS GAME!!! Its similar to Call of Duty 4 but at the same time its different and its TIGHT!!! Trust me, this game is definitely going to keep me occupied until the next call of duty or hardcore shooter comes out.
  19. WillR.
    Nov 15, 2008
    9
    Solo play is good, if not spectacular. Co-operative play is a great addition. Multiplayer is great - some good new game-modes, lots of fun, decent connections. All in all, it's not quite as good as COD4, but it's a very good replacement, one year on!
  20. DanielFriday
    Nov 14, 2008
    4
    Take a good game made by experts, then add add usless reatards Treyarch, use sombody elses work that people love then make a rubbish effort at yet another WW2 game, yaaay the game looks decent on the skin? But NO....they have doen nothing with it apart from use other people work and look for glory....Nothing new in the game, same old same old WW2, let down on co-op, sniper /camper heaven,Take a good game made by experts, then add add usless reatards Treyarch, use sombody elses work that people love then make a rubbish effort at yet another WW2 game, yaaay the game looks decent on the skin? But NO....they have doen nothing with it apart from use other people work and look for glory....Nothing new in the game, same old same old WW2, let down on co-op, sniper /camper heaven, dredfull online server (half the time you cant connect or get lag and i mean LAG)
    we all knew Treyarch would screw up but some might think they done good but anyone who really knows will see they have only taken advatage on a infanity ward.....Bottom line bring them back for COD6, forget WW2, and bring in the real people who made this game great not the flops of Treyarch    … Expand
  21. 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.
  22. JackH
    Nov 12, 2008
    9
    This game deserves a lot more credit than it's gotten. Aside from the very first mission in the game...it's all pretty well written...more intense than CoD4 even. The differences and why it is still worth a full purchase: It really wouldn't of made sense for them to make another modern warfare game Right after CoD4...people would be even more critical saying that treyarch This game deserves a lot more credit than it's gotten. Aside from the very first mission in the game...it's all pretty well written...more intense than CoD4 even. The differences and why it is still worth a full purchase: It really wouldn't of made sense for them to make another modern warfare game Right after CoD4...people would be even more critical saying that treyarch ripped off it it too much...and they couldn't of made this game a futuristic warfare game (like the year 2100...nothing too sci fi) because that wouldn't leave much room for Infinity ward to expand on when they do call of duty 6. Yes, there are plenty of WWII shooters out there...but this is the best, by far. Everything you loved about CoD4 with more action and vehicles etc...with the exception of it's cool weapons. You owe it to yourself to get this game. if you enjoyed CoD4 don't let false premonitions keep you from this title...Buy.… Expand
  23. AJ
    Nov 12, 2008
    9
    As a fan of the WW2 genre I was thrilled to see the Call of Duty franchise return to its grass roots. As most gamers know the Call of Duty franchise is at its best in WW2 - Proved by Call of Duty 1 and Call of Duty 2. However, after having doubts about the developer Treyarch prior to receiving the game, I was unsure if Call of Duty World at War could join that list. Now all doubts have As a fan of the WW2 genre I was thrilled to see the Call of Duty franchise return to its grass roots. As most gamers know the Call of Duty franchise is at its best in WW2 - Proved by Call of Duty 1 and Call of Duty 2. However, after having doubts about the developer Treyarch prior to receiving the game, I was unsure if Call of Duty World at War could join that list. Now all doubts have gone. Got to run - to play this amazing game.… Expand
  24. 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
  25. WilliamM.
    Nov 11, 2008
    9
    From what i played of this game on the PC Beta it was very much similar to Cod 4 which i liked very much. I like some of the adjustments made such as dogs instead of helicopters. Bigger maps will also enhance the gameplay and i am very much looking forward to this game!
  26. JimD.
    Nov 11, 2008
    10
    This is a great action-packed game. A great follow-up of the game of the year Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and it served its job. The graphics are amazing, the co-op campaign, and the online multiplayer modes. A must get for every gamer out there !
  27. DavidDeRose
    Nov 4, 2008
    8
    Great game, not many flaws, except one thing. Multiplayer...the mp-40 German Machine gun with a " Black Dot" in WWII I'm sure they didn't have electronical aiming assistance. I'm History buff that studied that time era. I hope they did not implement that into the single player game.
  28. LeventeP.
    Oct 31, 2008
    10
    just like call of duty 4 but world war two which puts its over the top. The tanks also add a lot more to the game making maps a lot bigger than the ones in call of duty 4. The game also focuses a lot more on the sniping aspect which will make snipers happy.
next
Page:

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 »