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. atyoukha
    Aug 1, 2022
    6
    It's not bad but I didn't find myself blown away with it in anyway. The campaign was great but I didn't think the characters were compelling enough for me to care. I also wish they worked a bit more on the soundtrack, the music for me, plays a big role on immersion.
  2. lesiuML
    Jan 18, 2022
    6
    A dull and repetitive experience... Both campaigns had a lot of potential but it didn't really worked for me. Russian part was much better with better variety of chapters at least there were some sneaky part. Too many brainless shooting and moving forward without any deeper sense. Little plus for first zombie Mode and multiplayer although they are both dead at the time.
  3. frederik1478
    Jun 23, 2021
    5
    Probably the worst call of duty but mostly because of that awful soundtrack and the sickening feeling of WWII history getting bit in the face. I don't know what it is but I just play call of duty 2 and call of duty modern warfare 1 and this is just terrible after playing the other two games it just doesn't have the same feeling
  4. dislexicpotato
    Oct 21, 2018
    7
    A fantastic campaign and fun zombies mode is what made this game stand out at the time alongside its fun multiplayer that despite being fun wasn't as impressive as its predecessor Call of Duty 4
  5. Wadds1867
    Sep 6, 2014
    6
    This game was a good game, but it was left by the way side. Certain parts of the multiplayer need a lot more balancing, the SMG's are the go to weapon to almost everyone as they are horribly overpowered. But right now before you even need to worry about the weapon balance you need to hope that the lobby that you are in isn't hacked. As I would say a quarter of the players in this gameThis game was a good game, but it was left by the way side. Certain parts of the multiplayer need a lot more balancing, the SMG's are the go to weapon to almost everyone as they are horribly overpowered. But right now before you even need to worry about the weapon balance you need to hope that the lobby that you are in isn't hacked. As I would say a quarter of the players in this game use hacks. These include; god mode, no clip aim bots and a variety of other things that make the multiplayer ruined. So then you'll need the single player to keep you going, and I am glad to say that the single player is better than both other treyarch call of dutys. It is diverse and with compelling movie inspired parts and very strong characters. Now, the zombies. In my opinion zombies was best in world at war as it was the most casual experience, and it taught its players slowly about how to play as it gets gradually more complicated as you go from map to map. But nothing was overwhelming, because if you played all the maps chronologically, when you got to der reise you would know the basics and how things worked. But zombies is still best played with friends as solo you can easily lose interest past round 25 and if you try the matchmaking hackers can hack your multiplayer and make you max rank and mess up all your stats… Expand
  6. SupaChigga
    Nov 19, 2013
    7
    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player) Gameplay (1/2) Visuals/Story (1/2) (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player)

    Gameplay (1/2)

    Visuals/Story (1/2)

    (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is better than the visuals, review this section as if the visuals didn’t matter)

    Accessibility/Longevity (2/2)

    (Review this section only on Accessibility if the game has no longevity) (Review this section only on longevity if the game isn’t accessible)

    Pricing (1/2)

    Wildcard (0)

    This is a guideline for how to properly review games. Many reviewers like to get a “feel” for a game, and arbitrarily give a game a score that they believe it deserves. This results in wildly different scores between different reviewers, and vastly different scores between similar games. This guideline addresses these problems and scores games fairly and consistently. This guideline also gives scores that are usually similar to the metacritic score.

    The review score is based out of 10 points. There are no “half” or 0.5 increments. It is impossible to have a score above 10 or below 0. The review score will change as the game gets new dlc, drops in price, or if more secrets are found through the game increasing its appeal.

    The scoring is split into 6 sections. The first five sections can add a possible 2 points to the final score. The first 5 sections are Single Player/Multi Player, Gameplay, Visuals/Story, Accessibility/Longevity, and Pricing.

    Notice that 3 of these sections have two parts. These particular sections will be scored based on the stronger part of the game of the two. For example, if a game has a lousy single player campaign, but an excellent multiplayer component, that section will be based solely on the multiplayer as if the single player did not exist. This allows games to be based on their own merits, as many unnecessary features are shoehorned into video games by publishers to reach a “feature quota”. Games that excel in both areas of a section don’t receive should be noted in the written review, but cannot increase the score past 2 in that section. However, it can be taken into account in the final section

    The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.    … Expand
  7. houyi111
    May 28, 2013
    7
    I like the veteran playthrough, like it. haven't play co-op, zombie, and multiplayer that much. the 7 is mainly for the satisfaction after finishing the game on veteran.
  8. mrgeebaby
    May 12, 2013
    7
    The Campaign on this game is EPIC!!!

    If you are looking for a cheap game, with a great campaign pick this! It is also great playing a game about the Eastern front during WW2 (Which is normally ignored in the West). Anyone who knows History knows that the Eastern front dwarfs the Allied operations in Europe. You get to play in STALINGRAD! Many parts of the game seem based on    The Campaign on this game is EPIC!!!

    If you are looking for a cheap game, with a great campaign pick this!

    It is also great playing a game about the Eastern front during WW2 (Which is normally ignored in the West). Anyone who knows History knows that the Eastern front dwarfs the Allied operations in Europe.

    You get to play in STALINGRAD!

    Many parts of the game seem based on the Movie 'Enemy at the Gates' which is great, but if you also read Anthony Beevor's 'Stalingrad' book then play this you will be immersed in the game on a whole new level.

    Unfortunately the Multiplayer has been destroyed by idiots who hack and cheat, I don't know why they do it esp on a game of this age (Not like it is MLG wannabe's?) I do not know, but they have ruined the online play.
    Still co op campaign though which actually increases the difficulty to account for the extra human player!
    Very challenging to beat it on Veteran, but a great feeling when you do.

    The last CoD that was any decent.

    7/10 would recommend you spend £10-15 no more for this!    … Expand
  9. drlowdon
    Mar 12, 2013
    6
    On a technical level World at War is arguably the least accomplished of the Call of Duty titles and yet another return to World War II setting certainly meant the single player campaign could be a bit of a chore to play through. Since the now overused online multiplayer formula was still fairly fresh at the time however it was still very easy to lose days, even weeks, competing on XboxOn a technical level World at War is arguably the least accomplished of the Call of Duty titles and yet another return to World War II setting certainly meant the single player campaign could be a bit of a chore to play through. Since the now overused online multiplayer formula was still fairly fresh at the time however it was still very easy to lose days, even weeks, competing on Xbox live. As a result World at War was still a worthy purchase at the time even if it has now been truly overshadowed by better entries in the series.… Expand
  10. emoney
    Nov 28, 2012
    7
    This game has some good ideas such as zombies which makes ppl get hard but some of the maps are kinda gay and the tanks are overpowered . The dogs get kind of annoying and sniping doesnt exist in this game
  11. CursedKnight187
    Jul 18, 2012
    7
    The story of this game just doesn't particularly stand out from any other FPS game, and the multiplayer doesn't live up to what was left by Infinity Ward in Modern Warfare. However, despite being an average game in the previous respects, the innovative zombies mode and the way it is incorporated into the game make this a stand out title among others.
  12. OnAnarchy
    Mar 20, 2012
    6
    By far my least favourite of the 'modern' call of duty series (post COD3, that is). I never felt the campaign really took off. The story was good, but it never met the expectations I had after COD4. The multiplayer was sub-par compare to modern warfare as well, leaving zombies as the only new and redeeming feature. This game laid the groundwork for what become Black Ops, but it neverBy far my least favourite of the 'modern' call of duty series (post COD3, that is). I never felt the campaign really took off. The story was good, but it never met the expectations I had after COD4. The multiplayer was sub-par compare to modern warfare as well, leaving zombies as the only new and redeeming feature. This game laid the groundwork for what become Black Ops, but it never really satisfies on a game level. It's merely sandwiched between multiple great games on either side, and comes out average.… Expand
  13. Magic
    Feb 20, 2012
    6
    And yet again we see another generic shooter. This, is actually the best CoD game out there. I enjoyed it... For a while. After finishing the campaign there was nothing more to do. Yeah, there is Nazi Zombies, but it's crap to play it alone. The online? Oh man, don't get me started at that BORE...
  14. snacko12
    Feb 5, 2012
    7
    fun, better zomibes than black ops but in 2011(not sure when you will be reading this) the hackers got a hold of it and 4/12 people are invinible, but the zombies is really great
  15. sinadoom
    Nov 15, 2011
    7
    Let's get things straight. The multiplayer is an absolute JOKE. Dogs are overpowered, artillery is awful coz it shakes the screen so much. Not to mention some of the useless perks and guns. The campaign has a poor story, nothing links together and the levels aren't particularly well designed. Veteran difficulty is also a joke, due to the infinite grenade-spamming AI, but is do-able. Still,Let's get things straight. The multiplayer is an absolute JOKE. Dogs are overpowered, artillery is awful coz it shakes the screen so much. Not to mention some of the useless perks and guns. The campaign has a poor story, nothing links together and the levels aren't particularly well designed. Veteran difficulty is also a joke, due to the infinite grenade-spamming AI, but is do-able. Still, zombies is fun. It's not a "GOOD" game, it's just enjoyable if you can manage to not take it seriously. This game still puzzles me in a way. It seems like 3arc have put zero effort into the multiplayer, judging from the imbalanced perks (who uses flak jacket or shades when you can have juggernaut or stopping power?), some of the stupidly under-powered weapons, the worst hit detection ever and of course, the MP40 Juggernoobs. Small wonder how most people stay serious on Modern Warfare and come on this for a mess-around. The multiplayer is poorly designed not just in balancing but there's plenty of lag as well. Where this game shows its ingenuity is in the zombie maps. Even though the original was meant to be just a mini-game, it's turned into something bigger and inspired other game developers to think more carefully before discarding the idea of a horde/survival mode. I've played all the maps on PS3 and I can tell you, they are so well designed. The windows, doors, cost of buying... everything is so strategically done and it all makes sense. Shame about the campaign which feels soulless and the pathetic online which isn't even worth complaining about, but just to have a good laugh at.… Expand
  16. Watermelon789
    Apr 26, 2011
    6
    Entertaining but perhaps not the best one in the series. The mechanic is equal to MW ,the campaign nice . The game gives the same feature that all the cod game has only in a ugly way that I dint expected weird not satisfying multiplayer . Also it includes the famous zombies that made treyarch famous and the only positive feature that i think that is great, also original. Such a let downEntertaining but perhaps not the best one in the series. The mechanic is equal to MW ,the campaign nice . The game gives the same feature that all the cod game has only in a ugly way that I dint expected weird not satisfying multiplayer . Also it includes the famous zombies that made treyarch famous and the only positive feature that i think that is great, also original. Such a let down for a great franchise.… Expand
  17. dupplawt
    Apr 24, 2011
    6
    This game is fun; the campaign can be played with 3 other people with various 'death cards' enabled to make all the enemies zombies or give you temporary invincibility after getting 3 kills in short time, with competitive scoring to try and get the highest score by the end of each chapter. It makes the campaign far more interesting, but it isn't bad on its own. The zombies level is quiteThis game is fun; the campaign can be played with 3 other people with various 'death cards' enabled to make all the enemies zombies or give you temporary invincibility after getting 3 kills in short time, with competitive scoring to try and get the highest score by the end of each chapter. It makes the campaign far more interesting, but it isn't bad on its own. The zombies level is quite simple but brilliant, surviving infinite waves of increasingly hardy zombie foes in a spooky building; get enough points and you can advance to a new area and gain access to the mystery box and get a new weapon, which could be a sniper rifle or a heavy machine gun depending on your luck. You can buy decent weapons off the walls, but getting a good weapon from the box is essential to exceed round 15. The multiplayer is good old Call of Duty; although it's essentially a WW2 mod of COD4, with new killstreaks, guns and map but pretty much the same perks. With the DLC support, zombies is hard to fault. 3/5, very good.… Expand
  18. BurningDesire
    Feb 20, 2011
    7
    I enjoyed the single player campaign even though it suffers from the usuall treyach taint, it was still an enjoyable romp. The hit register sucks a big fat one which is to be expected see developer. online was a pain with the indestructible tanks the the poor weapon balance and bad hit register. But zombies makes up for a lot of the mp faults. certainly worth a weekend hire but not a lotI enjoyed the single player campaign even though it suffers from the usuall treyach taint, it was still an enjoyable romp. The hit register sucks a big fat one which is to be expected see developer. online was a pain with the indestructible tanks the the poor weapon balance and bad hit register. But zombies makes up for a lot of the mp faults. certainly worth a weekend hire but not a lot of replay value… Expand
  19. Review9
    Aug 23, 2010
    6
    Modern warfare was a great game that left gamers wanting more... Unfortunately they did not get more with WAW, it was just a typical WW2 game with a crappy campaign with co-op. Multiplayer sucked where if you didn't buy the map packs it would kick you out of tons of games and the only good thing about the game was nazi zombies. I traded mine in 1 year ago. I give this fail game a 6.5
  20. ChrisI
    Sep 9, 2009
    7
    World at War is a competent, fun shooter. Call of Duty 4 is an excellent, well thought out, amazing example of the genre. The thing that separates Modern Warfare from World at War is how they're done, the campaign in particular. MW is an entirely original war drama, while WaW is a smarmy, we beat the Nazis, we've all been here before, cash in on history's greatest conflict. World at War is a competent, fun shooter. Call of Duty 4 is an excellent, well thought out, amazing example of the genre. The thing that separates Modern Warfare from World at War is how they're done, the campaign in particular. MW is an entirely original war drama, while WaW is a smarmy, we beat the Nazis, we've all been here before, cash in on history's greatest conflict. That's not to say WaW's campaign is bad. It's a fun experience from start to finish. As with MW, the multiplayer is where this game truly shines. It's marginally expanded on MW, but that's because there's no camouflages and there's 65 levels. World of War is average. Run of the mill. Because it's done nothing but re-skin Modern Warfare. In fact, this game comes off as more of a mod, than a play-it-safe wanna be. It's worth a buy.… Expand
  21. JoshuaE
    Jul 28, 2009
    5
    Call of duty 4, was an amazingly well built game from the graphics to the game play, to the setting were amazing, but from the switch to WW2 Treyarch has changed very little of this only fixing a few things that were slightly bad on call of duty 4, please for anyone looking to buy a good game for your console buy Call of duty 4, only buy WAW if your truly bored of call of duty 4 and Call of duty 4, was an amazingly well built game from the graphics to the game play, to the setting were amazing, but from the switch to WW2 Treyarch has changed very little of this only fixing a few things that were slightly bad on call of duty 4, please for anyone looking to buy a good game for your console buy Call of duty 4, only buy WAW if your truly bored of call of duty 4 and looking for something else to keep you occupied while you wait for Modern Warfare 2, which hopefully will be an amazing game.… Expand
  22. RowanF
    Jun 4, 2009
    6
    Had this come out all on it's lonesome without COD: 4 behind it, it would have been a truly revolutionary, amazing, perfect war game, finally ditching the same uninteresting, uninspiring sections of the war pervious games have stuck to, and for the first time actualy managing to capture an epic slice of the action. However, as it is, all Treyarch have done is rip off COD: 4, which Had this come out all on it's lonesome without COD: 4 behind it, it would have been a truly revolutionary, amazing, perfect war game, finally ditching the same uninteresting, uninspiring sections of the war pervious games have stuck to, and for the first time actualy managing to capture an epic slice of the action. However, as it is, all Treyarch have done is rip off COD: 4, which completely invalidates the game for me. Sure, you've put WW2 games back on the map, but that's not because you're good game developers with any good ideas or imagination, it's simply because you can get away with stealing ideas from Infinity Ward because you're both working under the same franchise. The mulitplayer, the idea of perks, the split character campaign, the graphic stlye, the gameplay style, the airborn level, even the bloody loading screens are all COMPLETE copies of COD: 4. The only thing Treyarch have actualy done on their own is fix a few tiny issues from the first game. Ok, so I have to admit that they did a magnificent job of copying it, but it's still is realy just COD: 4 under a different heading, and to be honest, COD: 4 is a much better game. If you havent palyed COD: 4 yet, stop even considering buying WAW and go and get COD: 4 now. If you have played COD: 4 then I suppose that this will supply you with a bit more of the action you loved, but you just can't escape the feeling that you've been here before.… Expand
  23. robertn
    May 21, 2009
    5
    The first thing that really ticked me off on this game is the sound. the sound sucks. Most games don't even have to try and you can have decent sound. A few games stand out with excellent sound like Dead Space. Even fewer have BAD sound. this game does. its lame, but the guns sound like paint ball guns. and its ruins the game for me. Shooting old WW2 is so much fun. The M1, the The first thing that really ticked me off on this game is the sound. the sound sucks. Most games don't even have to try and you can have decent sound. A few games stand out with excellent sound like Dead Space. Even fewer have BAD sound. this game does. its lame, but the guns sound like paint ball guns. and its ruins the game for me. Shooting old WW2 is so much fun. The M1, the Tompson. MP40. classic guns, with great destintive sounds to them. Call of 2 did it perfectly, call of duty 3 was worse but not this bad. The strange thing, the same company that made this game and COD3 did worse this time around. The game play is good. not as good at 2 or 4, but still good. The graphics are pretty craptacluar, if you look at 4 which is at times photo realistic. My friends told me, you were disappointed in COD3, the same company made this one, don't get it. well I waited till I found it for 25 bucks, and I have to say I am still a little disappointed. Its worth a play through, and some online matches. but this is the last call of duty I swear I will ever buy from this developer.… Expand
  24. ColinC
    Mar 20, 2009
    7
    A solid shooter. My biggest gripe is with the co-op though. Given a choice, I'll always play through a co-op game with a friend before even thinking of replaying by myself. But this co-op mode doesn't give you the option to play with any of the proper cutscenes, so you get none of the story. Gears of War 2 co-op and Halo did it right, letting you and a friend enjoy the story A solid shooter. My biggest gripe is with the co-op though. Given a choice, I'll always play through a co-op game with a friend before even thinking of replaying by myself. But this co-op mode doesn't give you the option to play with any of the proper cutscenes, so you get none of the story. Gears of War 2 co-op and Halo did it right, letting you and a friend enjoy the story unfolding together. And yes, I know Call of Duty isn't generally big on story, but still, I like at least a little context for the action I'm about to be engaged in. Infinity Ward (not to mention the developer of Killzone 2), I hope you're reading this. Don't strip the story out of co-op modes. At the very least, give us an option to watch with cutscenes or not.… Expand
  25. JohnH
    Mar 12, 2009
    6
    After spending almost a year enjoying CoD:4, I had high expectations for this game. As a long time Infinity Ward fan, I do not believe that Treyarch was able to deliver the goods with this game. I feel that all of the elements that made Modern Warfare an excellent shooter were recycled and put into a mediocre game that has the face of the famous CoD franchise, but nothing more. It's After spending almost a year enjoying CoD:4, I had high expectations for this game. As a long time Infinity Ward fan, I do not believe that Treyarch was able to deliver the goods with this game. I feel that all of the elements that made Modern Warfare an excellent shooter were recycled and put into a mediocre game that has the face of the famous CoD franchise, but nothing more. It's like Activision saw a golden nugget in the toilet and in a rushed attempted to do it again, they got a spew of diarrhea.… Expand
  26. [Anonymous]
    Mar 6, 2009
    7
    Anyone who calls this a bad game is lying, but sadly, so is anyone who calls it the best game of the year. It's a good game, but has quite a few flaws. First off, the single player can range from too easy to deceptively frustrating at points, and the game will rub it in your face if you are killed by a grenade or tank. Secondly, it's not very compelling to play. If you start it Anyone who calls this a bad game is lying, but sadly, so is anyone who calls it the best game of the year. It's a good game, but has quite a few flaws. First off, the single player can range from too easy to deceptively frustrating at points, and the game will rub it in your face if you are killed by a grenade or tank. Secondly, it's not very compelling to play. If you start it up, you'll play for a good while, but after that, you'll play something else. It's a bit off-and-on. Also, it's a good WWII game, but I thought we were over that when Call of Duty 4 came around. But still, the gameplay is solid, the multiplayer can be fun, and it looks very nice, even at 60 FPS. In short, it's not necessary, but it's still pretty good.… Expand
  27. SeanB
    Feb 20, 2009
    6
    A game which is hampered by its continuing delusion that World War II provides a compelling setting, World at War serves up the standard fare seen in the previous games (even going so far as to have the obligatory Normandy beach landing under a different banner), with its its tightly constructed set pieces seeming painfully contrived as a result. It's not that this is a bad game, but A game which is hampered by its continuing delusion that World War II provides a compelling setting, World at War serves up the standard fare seen in the previous games (even going so far as to have the obligatory Normandy beach landing under a different banner), with its its tightly constructed set pieces seeming painfully contrived as a result. It's not that this is a bad game, but rather, a game which is overshadowed by the far greater success of its post-modern sibling, and undercut by the plethora of prior art.… Expand
  28. RickR
    Feb 5, 2009
    5
    Single Player -Too many Grenades -inconsistent difficulty. Hard and Veteran are too similar too each other, way harder than normal and not rewarding -routinely killed by unseen enemies -game saves that start with a grenade nearby and little or no warning -frustrating and not fun Multiplayer -tons of glitches and people using them -huge advantage to higher ranked players and advanced guns Single Player -Too many Grenades -inconsistent difficulty. Hard and Veteran are too similar too each other, way harder than normal and not rewarding -routinely killed by unseen enemies -game saves that start with a grenade nearby and little or no warning -frustrating and not fun Multiplayer -tons of glitches and people using them -huge advantage to higher ranked players and advanced guns -spawning is terrible. you will be respawned very close to the person you just killed (or killed you) -some unbalanced maps due to elevation changes -dogs are too powerful AND they point the enemy to your location -treyarch has taken over 3 months to patch with little to no communications Skip this game until it's patched and stick with COD4.… Expand
  29. AH.
    Jan 26, 2009
    6
    The single player story failed to grab me. The visuals were impressive, but nothing about the game had me hooked. The multiplayer was good, but offered little improvement upon COD:4. I'll stick with Modern Warfare.
  30. ChrisMcTear
    Jan 2, 2009
    5
    Call of duty world at war single player was lots of fun. But the multi player sucked. It has all of the same perks as COD4. The multi player is the exact same as COD4 but with tanks that make it no fun. It is a wast of money i now just play COD4 instead of it.
prev
Page:

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 »