Call of Duty: World at War

 Xbox 360
User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 733 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 492 out of 733
  2. Mixed: 160 out of 733
  3. Negative: 81 out of 733
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. CountNachos
    Jan 15, 2012
    4
    Excellent single player and the multiplayer WAS good in its time. No longer though. Every lobby has hackers running around with "god mode" enabled and Tryarch will not do anything about it.
  2. PolisKanin
    Feb 8, 2014
    4
    I don't think Activision have every had a History lesson at school in their lives. This game is unbelievably inaccurate (even though it is set in a real event) and the characters are so unloveable. They could all die in warfare and I would be happy, as the game would be over. Every gun feels the same. I don't know if it's my copy of the game, but it has no save feature. WHY DO THEY EXPECTI don't think Activision have every had a History lesson at school in their lives. This game is unbelievably inaccurate (even though it is set in a real event) and the characters are so unloveable. They could all die in warfare and I would be happy, as the game would be over. Every gun feels the same. I don't know if it's my copy of the game, but it has no save feature. WHY DO THEY EXPECT ME TO WANT TO COMPLETE THIS WHOLE **** GAME IN ONE SITTING. It would be ok if the game was any good, but it isn't. Zombies is unlockable, which again isn't a big problem, but in this case it is because, again, THERES NO SAVE FEATURE!… Expand
  3. grandpajoe6191
    Nov 8, 2011
    3
    "Call of Duty: World at War" has everything wrong. The textures are muddy and dirty as well as the sneaky, invincible AI. The story is good, but TOO linear. Especially after playing this game on Xbox for a brief period, I realized this game isn't for the Xbox; it's not meant to be. In my opinion the PC version was better with plenty of swag, so if you really want to play this piece of"Call of Duty: World at War" has everything wrong. The textures are muddy and dirty as well as the sneaky, invincible AI. The story is good, but TOO linear. Especially after playing this game on Xbox for a brief period, I realized this game isn't for the Xbox; it's not meant to be. In my opinion the PC version was better with plenty of swag, so if you really want to play this piece of junk, at least buy it on PC or Playstation.… Expand
  4. CS
    Jan 30, 2009
    4
    Multiplayer is aggravating due to poor respawn mechanics and the terrible "dogs" bonus. Single-player at it's most difficult level is only difficult for how cheap you are killed. In comparison to COD4: Modern Warfare, the highest difficulty setting was extremely challenging but actually forced planned attacks. Modern Warfare is a crapshoot lottery. World at War offers a new veneer to Multiplayer is aggravating due to poor respawn mechanics and the terrible "dogs" bonus. Single-player at it's most difficult level is only difficult for how cheap you are killed. In comparison to COD4: Modern Warfare, the highest difficulty setting was extremely challenging but actually forced planned attacks. Modern Warfare is a crapshoot lottery. World at War offers a new veneer to COD4, but leaves behind the tactics of multiplayer, the urgency of the story in singleplayer, and is ultimately just another shooter. This is evidenced by the steeply declining users on the servers as well. Just buy COD 4.… Expand
  5. tror123
    Mar 14, 2009
    4
    Yeah this was really bad...a game that MOH had already put out years before it...I was expecting the same caliber cinematic feel as Modern Warfare...the fps controls were also out dated....Rainbow six bar none has the best FPS controls out in the market, including the 3rd person cover system.... I really did not like this game much after the 1st hour...Again another beautiful game with Yeah this was really bad...a game that MOH had already put out years before it...I was expecting the same caliber cinematic feel as Modern Warfare...the fps controls were also out dated....Rainbow six bar none has the best FPS controls out in the market, including the 3rd person cover system.... I really did not like this game much after the 1st hour...Again another beautiful game with horrible gameplay...also historically the japanese were cannibals and raped their captives...if they really wanted to capture horror that would have been incredibly cinematic.… Expand
  6. GavinA.
    Feb 15, 2009
    1
    This gameis a compete repetitive piece of bulls*** compared to COd 4 what the hell were treyarch thinking about this game. Well done infinity ward for not protecting their online system from cod 4. COD 2 is even better than this it just another boring war game that will entertain the masses and then onn the relase of modern warfare 2 in Q4 this year 2009 will die in the preverbial game This gameis a compete repetitive piece of bulls*** compared to COd 4 what the hell were treyarch thinking about this game. Well done infinity ward for not protecting their online system from cod 4. COD 2 is even better than this it just another boring war game that will entertain the masses and then onn the relase of modern warfare 2 in Q4 this year 2009 will die in the preverbial game ing hell that it is. If you share my opiniion and will stick to Cod 4 heres my gamertag GavMan92 and we will have some proper Call odf Duty online fun.… Expand
  7. SS
    Feb 27, 2009
    1
    Call of Duty World at War is disappointing compared to it's predecessor: Call of Duty Modern Warfare.Most of the weapons have been used in countless times other first person shooter games. Also there is no option to save in Split-Screen co-op. Save your money and play Call of Duty 4.
  8. DaveC.
    Nov 20, 2008
    0
    When a company release IMPROVE the game nope just change it back to a WW2 game that ive played a 1000 times and worsen the spawn good job treyarch maybe u should spend more than 30 mins to edit a game from last year and ship it as a new game. DO NOT BUY.
  9. HagenM.
    Dec 4, 2008
    4
    I've always had a resentment for Treyarch's attempts at making COD games. However, after seeing this game get decent-good reviews I decided to at least try the game for myself. I went in starting to enjoy the game, only to experience an incomplete hodge-podge of bad game design choices. First and foremost, the AI in this game is terrible. Treyarch simplym made the game harder I've always had a resentment for Treyarch's attempts at making COD games. However, after seeing this game get decent-good reviews I decided to at least try the game for myself. I went in starting to enjoy the game, only to experience an incomplete hodge-podge of bad game design choices. First and foremost, the AI in this game is terrible. Treyarch simplym made the game harder not by increasing the AI, but by making them throw more grenades on each difficulty level. You'll spend 95% of your time dying from 10+ grenades being placed on every direction of you. The AI also only seems to aim at you, your team AI is retarded, and they seem to always get you killed by standing in the way of cover. The online also has flaws. the hugest being the fact that there is still no filter system in matchmaking. You'll start out with extremely terrible guns only to be paired up with high ranked players who have the best guns in the game. Perks are still here (The only mistake made in COD$), which is stupid. I gave Treyarch another chance, this is strike three. Big Red One, COD3, and now COD:WaW. You're out Treyarch.… Expand
  10. mathgod9
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Terrible gameplay, terrible multiplayer, terrible interface. Nothing like Call of Duty 4. I shelved this game quickly and moved back to Call of Duty 4.
  11. Thehamster
    Nov 22, 2008
    2
    Big, big step back from CoD4. Now, it is fun to play the missions with 3 buddies and the game does look good, but like Christian G. said....you buy it for the multiplayer and the multiplayer sucks balls! So your telling me a dog can kill you with one bite but when you shoot a guy in THE FACE he drops down into last stand and there fore becomes invinceable??? I know its a video game, but Big, big step back from CoD4. Now, it is fun to play the missions with 3 buddies and the game does look good, but like Christian G. said....you buy it for the multiplayer and the multiplayer sucks balls! So your telling me a dog can kill you with one bite but when you shoot a guy in THE FACE he drops down into last stand and there fore becomes invinceable??? I know its a video game, but do the makers of it know? The weapons are true to life and they SUCK OUT LOUD!!! Again, you put dogs in it...lighten up on the weapon shittyness. Ahhh, screw it! I'll just play CoD4.… Expand
  12. DavidJ.
    Nov 29, 2008
    3
    Ok, i'm a COD3 and COD4 fan, but this didn't do it for me, for two mian reasons: 1) I know there was a 'transition period' from COD3 to COD4 that took a bit of getting used to, bit I got there and it was worth it, but this time I took one step back and never went forwards - the game is just not as good as COD4. But I never felt good about the game anyway - see reason 2 Ok, i'm a COD3 and COD4 fan, but this didn't do it for me, for two mian reasons: 1) I know there was a 'transition period' from COD3 to COD4 that took a bit of getting used to, bit I got there and it was worth it, but this time I took one step back and never went forwards - the game is just not as good as COD4. But I never felt good about the game anyway - see reason 2 below. 2) The opening sequence of real footage is obscene. Yes of course, we have real clips of war promoting games before, but here we see people being executed and dumped in pits of bodies. This is real footage of executions used to promote a game, and that just doesn't feel right. I'm all for war games (play 'em and love 'em, been doing it for 25 year) and I can watch documentaries on war etc and I know the difference, but we shouldn't mix it up too much. If they were Brits or Yanks being being told to knee down with their hands tied behind their backs getting a shot in the head as a game promotion there'd be uproar, but maybe its because its Chinese civilians it's ok. Not for me. So I traded it after 24 hrs.… Expand
  13. [ANONYMOUS]
    Nov 8, 2009
    3
    My friend invited me over to play this game, after playing call of duty 4 I thought it must be pretty good. Oh god, was I wrong. The graphics were bad for last gen, and the sound was not realistic at all. The online took forever to find a match, unlike in its predecessor in which it took barely any time at all. The aspect I've heard is amazing the "Nazi Zombies" was a real My friend invited me over to play this game, after playing call of duty 4 I thought it must be pretty good. Oh god, was I wrong. The graphics were bad for last gen, and the sound was not realistic at all. The online took forever to find a match, unlike in its predecessor in which it took barely any time at all. The aspect I've heard is amazing the "Nazi Zombies" was a real disappointment. If you want Call Of Duty, get 4, or WF2. Do not buy this game.… Expand
  14. ChristianG.
    Nov 17, 2008
    1
    What everybody wants to play this is for the multi-player. And to say they took a step back from cod 4 is a severe understatement. The guns are absolutely horrible, you can stand in front of somebody and shoot 5 times and not hit them. It is very upsetting because I was looking forward to this game for a long time. Back to COD 4 for me.
  15. ErikE.
    Oct 17, 2008
    4
    If Call of Duty 2 and 4 didn't exist (and I suppose Infinity Ward at all), this would be considered an okay game. What makes it bad is that despite having double the time to develop it (compared to COD3), Treyarch still can't add anything really exciting to the genre. The single additon of some usable vehicles (tanks) in the level callled Round House is probably the most If Call of Duty 2 and 4 didn't exist (and I suppose Infinity Ward at all), this would be considered an okay game. What makes it bad is that despite having double the time to develop it (compared to COD3), Treyarch still can't add anything really exciting to the genre. The single additon of some usable vehicles (tanks) in the level callled Round House is probably the most interesting addition. This is accompanied by the ability to specify a vehicle perk. The maps Makin, War Castle and Round House are nowhere near as good as COD4 maps. Although Round House is the best of the bunch. Makin is an awful nighttime map that is essentially flat and small. War Castle is just too small and awkward without too much replay variety. The weapons sounds are muffled and unsatisfying. Shooting a BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) should feel powerful but it sounds like a pea shooter. The bullets don't seem to do much damage so you still run through clip after clip on even the machine guns. EA just doesn't get it. This is an Infinity Ward creation and no other developers can do it justice. I am definitely glad I'm only beta testing the multiplayer and didn't pay $60 for this. Wait for Call of Duty 6 (the REAL Call of Duty 5, most likely to be developed by Infinity Ward).… Expand
  16. CoreyR.
    Dec 5, 2008
    1
    The game got really frustrating fast, the unrealistic detail and the cartoon characteristics about it. The weapons detail great, the maps are ok, but the actual players are garbage. And what really grind my gears were the perks and the sprees (artillery and dogs). The idea for the dog was outrageous, get rid of the dogs and tanks, and have tank support and a 7 man kill spree. I am on The game got really frustrating fast, the unrealistic detail and the cartoon characteristics about it. The weapons detail great, the maps are ok, but the actual players are garbage. And what really grind my gears were the perks and the sprees (artillery and dogs). The idea for the dog was outrageous, get rid of the dogs and tanks, and have tank support and a 7 man kill spree. I am on online player and don't really bout the store but really big on the online game play and it SUCKED. COD5 seemed like a cheat spin of COD4, Treyarch are just trying to make money of you. Don… Expand
  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. PekkaP.
    Nov 19, 2008
    1
    The multiplayer is a total rip-off of Call of Duty 4. Why should we pay twice for the same game? Also, It's not even close as good as Cod4. Unfortunately there are tons of idiots who will buy this game anyway. I didn't, I borrowed it because my friend was sick of playing it after a few hours. This sucks. I hope this doesn't lead to a trend where developers just copy The multiplayer is a total rip-off of Call of Duty 4. Why should we pay twice for the same game? Also, It's not even close as good as Cod4. Unfortunately there are tons of idiots who will buy this game anyway. I didn't, I borrowed it because my friend was sick of playing it after a few hours. This sucks. I hope this doesn't lead to a trend where developers just copy successful games and sell it with a new name.… Expand
  19. OshizL.
    Nov 22, 2008
    0
    I can't believe treyarch have done it again. Have none of these people played it on veteran? It's unacceptable that when you are playing on the hardest level you die, not out of lack of taking cover or aiming skill etc. but from appalling clipping issues... too many times in cod3 and now 5, I've crouched at a sandbag / box / whatever, preparing to run to the next piece of I can't believe treyarch have done it again. Have none of these people played it on veteran? It's unacceptable that when you are playing on the hardest level you die, not out of lack of taking cover or aiming skill etc. but from appalling clipping issues... too many times in cod3 and now 5, I've crouched at a sandbag / box / whatever, preparing to run to the next piece of cover, only to be caught out by the magic splinter of doom that even ants could climb over, let alone humans, let alone soldiers charged on adrenaline. cod2 and 4 don't suffer from these problems. After the tiny twig problem, there is the awful friendly AI. too often in 3, and now in 5, I would be crouched at the corner of some cover aiming out only to discover I had been pushed out into the open by my fellow soldiers, who are seemingly made of impregnable lead and steroids which no opportunity to push them out to take fire for you when hemmed in. cod2 and 4 don't suffer from these problems. Infinity ward must be holding out on treyarch or something, because I heard this was going to use the cod4 engine. I didn't imagine they just meant the graphics engine! whatever. they don't care anyway, they got my money... but I'll be selling this to some half-wit as soon as i've frustratingly dragged myself to the end of this labourious campaign. Treyarch, you have managed to compound the disgrace that was 3 with this latest effort, you can count on 1 less customer in future.… Expand
  20. johnnieb.
    Dec 18, 2008
    1
    This game is incredibly poor. Without the Nazi zombie mode (which is awesome, but not as good as L4D) and the epic end cutscene, I would hate everything about this game. My real score is a 6/10 but the 1 evens it out with these terrible high rated reviews. Obviously they haven't tried veteran.
  21. NickS
    Dec 31, 2008
    0
    A complete step backwards from COD4 in every way... I hear about strategy??? there is none the maps are so big and you could get shot from anywhere so its pot luck, on cod4 they were at least designed so that enemies could come from certain directions and you could actually use some strategy to decide how to deal with them and vice versa. Tanks are a terrible addition and every time I see A complete step backwards from COD4 in every way... I hear about strategy??? there is none the maps are so big and you could get shot from anywhere so its pot luck, on cod4 they were at least designed so that enemies could come from certain directions and you could actually use some strategy to decide how to deal with them and vice versa. Tanks are a terrible addition and every time I see one I just have to hide and stop having fun(everyone just rushes for them at start). Dogs the same, back against a wall and shoot them and stop having fun(and 1 bite kills you?). Spawning into dogs and enemies is frequent and frustrating. Guns are clunky and most feel like they have some sort of bullet lag. Graphics LOOK slightly worse/more unscaled than previous game even though technically(native resolution) there not. Go offline to story... 1000GS in about 6-7 hours is stupid(no competitive online achievements) even with that veteran mode with its bad friendly AI always getting in your way and the constant grenades and the horribly scripted enemies that a 3 year old could script a more creative game than that(spawn here, go there etc x10 on most maps, bar the occasional slightly more interesting cod4 rip off mission), and then push up to cause the trigger point in which the same thing happens: some enemies stop spawning, some start, and your silly AI buddies push up (again a 3 year old could write a better script than that). Enemies wont try and be smart and flank you, there scripted to stand in there spots shooting you. So overall if you havnt played or the previous game didn't exist this game would get about a 7, but since absolutely everything has been unimproved and made worse than previous, it has to get a big fat 0. Lazy work treyarch. [PS: Last stand was the noobiest perk in cod4 and now it lasts a minute and you can be recovered... lol?]… Expand
  22. FredL.
    Dec 11, 2008
    3
    Treyarch failed again, as a die hard COD 1 fan, I see this newest game in the series as a huge disappointment. But first, GOOD: Graphics are pretty, Japanese traps are actually frightening and fun to fight through. The bayonet is easily the most entertaining way to beat the game. BAD: The multiplayer is feeble, just like COD4 before it. It feels behind the times and stale compared to Treyarch failed again, as a die hard COD 1 fan, I see this newest game in the series as a huge disappointment. But first, GOOD: Graphics are pretty, Japanese traps are actually frightening and fun to fight through. The bayonet is easily the most entertaining way to beat the game. BAD: The multiplayer is feeble, just like COD4 before it. It feels behind the times and stale compared to recent multiplayer games. I find myself wishing that it was more like Battlefield: Bad Company styled multiplayer. The single player is dry and failed miserably to keep me enthralled. It's hard to imagine screwing up a game's story based on one of the most compelling periods of military history. They managed to bore me and make me hate the NPC teammates. They became little more then ammo repositories and spare weapons on my trek through the pacific and eastern Europe. My biggest complaint is the coop mode. First off, whoever thought up how they did the splitscreen needs to be fired and banned from the game industry. There is at least 1/4 of each side of my tv that is dead and wasted space. I can see how they wanted to offset the screens to reduce confusion between player 1 and 2, but really it just makes the players screen's even smaller and more confused. Add that to the fact that I played coop my first time through, and made it to the 2nd to last mission. My friend and I decided to take a break, and when we turned it back on it didn't even save my progress. I would expect to be able to continue from where I left off. OVERALL: Graphics are pretty, but since when do graphics alone make a game? Story is terrible, gameplay is nothing new, and I feel like this game would have been better a couple years ago. I'm very glad I rented it, I can't imagine paying full price for this.… Expand
  23. FredL.
    Dec 11, 2008
    3
    Treyarch failed again, as a die hard COD 1 fan, I see this newest game in the series as a huge disappointment. But first, GOOD: Graphics are pretty, Japanese traps are actually frightening and fun to fight through. The bayonet is easily the most entertaining way to beat the game. BAD: The multiplayer is feeble, just like COD4 before it. It feels behind the times and stale compared to Treyarch failed again, as a die hard COD 1 fan, I see this newest game in the series as a huge disappointment. But first, GOOD: Graphics are pretty, Japanese traps are actually frightening and fun to fight through. The bayonet is easily the most entertaining way to beat the game. BAD: The multiplayer is feeble, just like COD4 before it. It feels behind the times and stale compared to recent multiplayer games. I find myself wishing that it was more like Battlefield: Bad Company styled multiplayer. The single player is dry and failed miserably to keep me enthralled. It's hard to imagine screwing up a game's story based on one of the most compelling periods of military history. They managed to bore me and make me hate the NPC teammates. They became little more then ammo repositories and spare weapons on my trek through the pacific and eastern Europe. My biggest complaint is the coop mode. First off, whoever thought up how they did the splitscreen needs to be fired and banned from the game industry. There is at least 1/4 of each side of my tv that is dead and wasted space. I can see how they wanted to offset the screens to reduce confusion between player 1 and 2, but really it just makes the players screen's even smaller and more confused. Add that to the fact that I played coop my first time through, and made it to the 2nd to last mission. My friend and I decided to take a break, and when we turned it back on it didn't even save my progress. I would expect to be able to continue from where I left off. OVERALL: Graphics are pretty, but since when do graphics alone make a game? Story is terrible, gameplay is nothing new, and I feel like this game would have been better a couple years ago. I'm very glad I rented it, I can't imagine paying full price for this.… Expand
  24. RichP
    Dec 28, 2008
    1
    COD 4 isn't perfect, but it is still the best first person shooter I have ever played. Infinity Ward developed compelling story lines, interesting characters, effective pace, realistic weaponry, and made the playing experience consistently entertaining. Though perks had their critcs, multiplayer play was outstanding, with beautiful level design. COD 5 is shares a franchise title and COD 4 isn't perfect, but it is still the best first person shooter I have ever played. Infinity Ward developed compelling story lines, interesting characters, effective pace, realistic weaponry, and made the playing experience consistently entertaining. Though perks had their critcs, multiplayer play was outstanding, with beautiful level design. COD 5 is shares a franchise title and a graphics engine with its predecesor, and little else. Recall that Treyarch also developed the vapid and uninspired COD 3, though defenders were quick to point out, with some justification, that Treyarch had less time to develop COD 3 than Infinity Ward had to develop COD 4. Fair enough. This time, Infinity Ward had 2 years of development time, envionments set in a familiar WWII context, and a successful graphics engine with a few enhancements to start with. And still, Treyarch failed miserably. COD 5 single player is all but unplayable on veteran. The incessant grenade storms and relentless swarm of spawning enemies defined by terrible AI, who only have eyes for you, and are all world-class marksmen, compete with the mind-mumbingly boring level design to earn your ire. I earned 1000 points in COD 4, with over 8000 kills online and a 2:1 kill to death ratio. I played only 7 chapters of COD 5 and gave the disc to a friend. Don't waste your money and reward the amateurs at Treyarch. They don't deserve your support.… Expand
  25. JMitch
    Nov 13, 2010
    0
    Without a doubt, the worst Call of Duty game made to date. This is where things in the COD franchise started to collapse. COD games since WaW have been horrible such as Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops. While MW2 is not quite as horrible but still, same as Black Ops which is only a tab bit better than Waw. The Multiplayer is filled with campers. The multiplayer is also as unbalanced as youWithout a doubt, the worst Call of Duty game made to date. This is where things in the COD franchise started to collapse. COD games since WaW have been horrible such as Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops. While MW2 is not quite as horrible but still, same as Black Ops which is only a tab bit better than Waw. The Multiplayer is filled with campers. The multiplayer is also as unbalanced as you can expect from COD to date. The Campaign is as beyond retarded (which what you can except from Call of Duty). I've never played a game that's so bad, that I wanted to die. I'm dead serious.… Expand
  26. coopert
    Jan 19, 2014
    0
    I didn't play this game very long, I shot one guy in the head then my screen was cluttered with a notice telling me what I had just done with points underneath, I don't want my immersion taken away by on screen numberwang. This game took a tired concept and made it worse with no efforts to do anything good with the franchise. This game was truly the final nail in the COD coffin.
  27. MadJaples
    Jan 7, 2018
    4
    This rendition of the CoD franchise sees me frustrated at the poor AI in the solo campaign - especially on the so-called 'veteran' difficulty. Juggling grenades that the enemy throws at you soon turns into a clown worthy juggling act, if you weren't to die a billion times during the same skit, it'd have a comedic value.
    The allied AI is terrifyingly rubbish. They may occasionally throw    This rendition of the CoD franchise sees me frustrated at the poor AI in the solo campaign - especially on the so-called 'veteran' difficulty. Juggling grenades that the enemy throws at you soon turns into a clown worthy juggling act, if you weren't to die a billion times during the same skit, it'd have a comedic value.
    The allied AI is terrifyingly rubbish. They may occasionally throw grenades back, but they are slow to use them, they may also get in the way. On earlier difficulties, it's a fun shooter, but from Hardened onwards, it's a major chore that eventually becomes frustrating the extreme.    … Expand
  28. Caffe
    Sep 3, 2023
    4
    A too generic shooter. The story is too short and the multiplayer is not at the level of the other games in the saga.

Awards & Rankings

23
#23 Best Xbox 360 Game of 2008
11
#11 Most Discussed Xbox 360 Game of 2008
27
#27 Most Shared Xbox 360 Game of 2008

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
84

Generally favorable reviews - based on 84 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 76 out of 84
  2. Mixed: 8 out of 84
  3. Negative: 0 out of 84
  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. GameSpy
    90
    Although the campaign storyline isn't nearly as engaging as the one seen in "CoD4," there should be enough memorable set pieces and intense sequences to keep you riveted throughout. The addition of a co-op mode brings a great deal of replay value to the proceedings, especially once you start throwing the death cards into the mix. Ultimately, it's the multiplayer and co-op action that will keep us coming back for more.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »