There are no reviews for the Xbox 360 release of this game. You can use the links below to write your own review or read reviews for the other platforms of this game.
||The quality of the actors' performances in the game (including voice acting).
||How smart (or dumb) you perceive the game's artificial intelligence to be
||How well the game mechanics work (player controls, game action, interface, etc.)
||The quality of the art, or the quality/speed of the drawing routines
||How much you personally like the game, regardless of other attributes
|Sound / Music
||The quality of the sound effects and/or music composition
|Story / Presentation
||The main creative ideas in the game and how well they're executed
|Overall MobyScore (19 votes)
MobyRanks are listed below. You can read here
for more information about MobyRank.
Overall this is the best shooter I have seen in a long time but the extreme nature of WWII combat means it is not for everyone. People who don’t like bloody or violent games should avoid this, and it’s Not for kids at all. However, if you want a good shooter and a real challenge, this game is a can’t miss.
Call of Duty: World at War has entrenched itself on the battlefield, with no intention of becoming a casualty of the current gaming war. Its fairly brief but dramatic and adrenaline-fuelled campaign has been greatly enhanced by the excellent co-op mode and XP incentives, while its multiplayer is every bit as good as CoD 4, making this arguably the definitive Call of Duty experience thus far.
It's easy to dismiss Call of Duty: World at War as merely a WWII reskinning of popular Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, but it'd be doing the game and your enjoyment of it a disservice. Call of Duty: World at War is clearly one of the top games of this year, and a must have for any action gamer. Now get in there, private; we've got a bunker to burn.
I have to admit I went into this game with a bit of skepticism. I’ve played so many WWII games I feel like I am somewhat of an historian these days, and there doesn’t seem to be any end in sight to the titles that will continue to feed from the bloodiest time in human history. But as long as they are handled with the same care and attention to detail that Treyarch continually puts into the Call of Duty series, I’ll keep coming back for another history lesson.
That Gaming Site
Call of Duty: World at War delivers and leaves us wanting more, after finishing the single player there is definitely enough to keep you coming back.
I was extremely skeptical about this title, but it delivered on all fronts. It may be WWII again, and it may be Treyarch instead of Infinity Ward, but World at War does the Call of Duty name justice. It's every bit as good as its modern predecessor.
With Call of Duty: World at War Treyarch successfully did two things: they made World War II shooters relevant again and brilliantly followed up one of the best games of this generation. They had some mighty big shoes to fill, but with an epic singleplayer mode, robust multiplayer options, a clever zombie minigame, as well as stunning gameplay and an amazing presentation, more than met the call of duty. You’re looking at one of the best games of the season.
In all its blazing glory, Call of Duty: World at War powers up with the Call of Duty 4 engine to push the boundaries of the franchise. Treyarch has fully redeemed themselves for all the doubters with what could be considered the best Call of Duty of all time. The ultra-smooth controls, immersive story elements and distinct differences from mission to mission keep World at War feeling fresh and always fun. Even if you’re not going to jump online, World at War is worth a look. Of course you would have to be a fool not to want to investigate the flawless online capabilities of World at War which build upon the foundation of Call of Duty 4, one of last years best online shooters. Tack on support for co-op multiplayer in campaigns and the deadly zombie mini-game and you have enough action to keep you busy for some time. Call of Duty: World at War is an outstanding game and one of the years best shooter experiences.
Game Freaks 365
Call of Duty: World at War picks up where Call of Duty 4 left off. While there are basic modifications that have to do with a change in time period, World at War uses the same engine as Call of Duty 4, making gameplay nearly identical. Not that that is a bad thing. With what could be described as the most well rounded multi-player experience ever, Call of Duty: World at War inherits a tested game engine and a lot of goodwill from gamers. In a year from now, when the next Call of Duty will no doubt get released, I hope to expect something from Infinity Ward that is different from the current formula. I have every reason to believe that they will live up to this. Until then, World at War continues the same formula that has been working and keeping gamers up for long nights of gameplay since the release of Call of Duty 4. For that reason alone Call of Duty: World at War stands as the best World War II shooter to date.
Call of Duty: World at War was more than likely written off by most gamers when the theatre of war announced was a return to familiar battlegrounds. I cannot emphasize enough how great this game truly is and how much respect I have for the team to make a game that not only impresses on a technical level, but somehow manages to make playing in this overdone war fun again. With top-notch visuals, outstanding multi-player, addictive co-op modes and some of the best presentation of any game on the market Call of Duty: World at War is a must own for anyone who calls themselves a fan of shooters. Do not let the stage of battle deny you a chance to play the best entry in the series to date.
Call of Duty: World At War definitely continues the solid tradition of the CoD franchise, and has certainly proved there's more talent in Treyarch's camp than the industry may have ever given them credit for, but it's still not an incredibly massive leap. The WWII stuff is simply gameplay we've handled in one form or another for the better part of the last decade or more, and it really is getting old fast. However, the updates to multiplayer, excellent map design (barring inconsistent, troubling aesthetics) and Zombie Nazi mode do add more than enough value. It's not quite the leap Call of Duty: Modern Warfare was for the franchise, but it's a damn good update. Now we just have to wait another year to see what the papa bear of the series, Infinity Ward, have up their sleeves.
Call of Duty: World at War tarjoaa uskomattoman tiukan pelikokemuksen. Yksinpeli on juuri oikean mittainen ja loppuu ennen kuin se alkaa kyllästyttää. Moninpeli on vähintään yhtä riemukasta kuin Call of Duty 4:ssä, ja peli kruunaa vielä tarjontansa mainiolla yhteistyöpelituella. En ainakaan itse enää keksi, mitä enempää voisin räiskintäpeliltäni vaatia.
Is Call of Duty: World at War perfect? Far from it. Is it an action-packed, gritty, gory World War II shooter that anyone can enjoy? Why yes, yes it is. While it is devoid of some of the elements that pushed Modern Warfare to its tremendous success, it's a solid entry to the Call of Duty series. It goes a long way in presenting the case that the second (and hopefully last) world war was one of the most violent and harrowing experiences the world has ever faced. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Infinity Ward should consider putting out a restraining order on Treyarch. If you enjoyed Modern Warfare or FPSs in general, this is one of the higher quality shooters you'll find this year. If you're not a fan of grit and prefer your war games more sanitized, such as in Halo, then you'd do well to steer clear.
Cheat Code Central
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.
Call of Duty: World at War was a surprisingly satisfying experience all around. Developer Treyarch really showed that they could be trusted with the keys to Dad’s car, and made a game that could be compared favorably to anything Infinity Ward has done. Looking back on it all, this is the game Call of Duty 3 should have been, so maybe we should all just pretend that one never happened. Now what do we want more next, Call of Duty 5 or Call of Duty: World at War 2? That might actually be debatable.
It's easy to be jaded about World War II shooters, but Treyarch makes a convincing argument to stay excited with World at War. The game is packed with a deep amount of gameplay to appeal to every type of player, from those who want to experience a gritty single-player campaign to those who like to play with their friends to those who just like to play multiplayer. This is a solid, confident shooter with plenty to offer the casual and hardcore alike.
I didn’t want to play another World War II title. I didn’t want to revisit a theater that has been done to death. Thankfully Treyarch’s sophomore effort has changed my mind. Call of Duty: World at War is a fantastic title. It brings together the best efforts of Infinity Ward, as well as some new additions. While I lament the change in the online War mode, and the short single player campaign is criminally short, I fully expect that the game will hold the multiplayer crown until we see what Infinity Ward has for round 6.
World at War is a great game. Treyarch doesn’t even try to emerge from the shadow cast over their latest by last year’s Modern Warfare. They apply themselves instead in a different direction, responding to fan complaints about the previous game by adding in cooperative elements while serving up a high-concept alternative to 2007’s think piece. With the solid foundation of a well-constructed game engine at its core, Call of Duty: World at War is proof-positive that excellence can spring from derivation just as easily as it does from innovation.
Planet Xbox 360
Also, after two weeks of Gears of War, it’s truly refreshing to see a multiplayer experience so streamlined. Matches begin quickly, and rematches are automatic unless you choose to leave the group. The ranking system goes beyond typical level-based incentives, offering new weapons, add-ons and special abilities as you invest more time in the game. Since I’ve been pretty complementary of the game overall, you might wonder why I’m still not likely to return to the series. World at War, though enjoyable, lies squarely outside the fictional realm of video games that often gathers most of my attention. War games are troubling to me, not necessarily because they profit off human suffering, but because they are just too predictable. I had a pretty good idea of what Call of Duty: World at War had in store, and now that I know for sure, there’s little reason for me to go back.
The Review Busters
Call of Duty: World at War is a great addition to the Call of Duty franchise. All of the problems you thought would have been in the game are absent and it might be because of Treyarch’s direct copying off of last years Call of Duty 4 game. If you loved last years game, then you have to pick this one up, just know that Modern Warfare is still the much better game.
"Call of Duty: World at War", pelo menos a princípio, tem a cara de um produto velho, requentado, uma vez que recoloca a franquia na 2ª Guerra Mundial e apresenta o mesmo estilo gráfico visto no jogo anterior, com óbvias adaptações. Ainda assim, a mecânica continua deliciosa e a Activision não parece ter poupado no orçamento, garantindo uma produção de primeira que conta, inclusive, com vozes de astros de Hollywood. As versões para PC, Xbox 360 e Playstation 3 se saem ainda melhor graças ao consagrado multiplayer da franquia, que recebeu novos Perks e modos, entre outras novidades que não deixam a adrenalina cair em momento algum.
"Call Of Duty 5: World At War" remains a fantastic addition to the franchise. In many ways it betters COD4, with a somewhat more refined difficulty curve, celebrity voice-overs, the zombie mode, and online co-op.
However, the homing grenades have gone from mild annoyance to beyond tiresome with their frequency and magical homing powers. The story, however, still lacks a little compared to the more emotional BiA:HH, and the graphics, whilst being lovely in the 60fps-ness of it all, still has some unnecessarily rough texturing in places.
However, these are minor niggles in what is ultimately a very commendable effort and a worthy sequel to last year's masterclass.
No obstante, pocos podían imaginar que la franquicia CoD lograra posicionarse con tanta solidez como para ser capaz de distribuir un gran juego al año. La jugada, por otra parte, estaba muy clara desde Activision, por más que la primera incursión no saliera todo lo bien que se esperaba (con la tercera entrega de la saga), ahora todo se empieza a perfilar más claramente: ya se ha anunciado que para el próximo año nos viene la segunda entrega de Modern Warfare, desarrollada por la gente de Infinity Ward, volviendo a un escenario bélico contemporáneo. De esta manera, el ciclo que Microsoft pretendía con Halo y Gears of War se ve amenazado por una third party con las ideas muy claras y resultados sobresalientes. Situación que beneficia al jugador, ya que estas navidades se encuentra con una más que interesante oferta dentro del género shooter.
GamingHeaven / DriverHeaven
Call Of Duty World At War is a fantastic first person shooter and while the single player campaign doesn't quite live up to the heights of Modern Warfare it is still an accomplished and fun experience.
Game Informer Magazine
Other than featuring the voice of Jack Bauer, the story is mostly forgettable, but it does deliver a consistent stream of teeth-gritting awesomeness in almost every battle. Is this game as good as Call of Duty 4? No, but it is in the same league, and is a great game to hold you over until Infinity Ward returns with Call of Duty 5.
If Call of Duty 4 is anything to go by (and we’d say it is) people will be playing Call of Duty: World at War for some years to come, and it is definitely worth the investment.
Video Games Daily
It's nothing revolutionary, but you can't fail to enjoy World at War and it ticks every box rather convincingly. It's by no means the absolute best singleplayer, story-driven FPS out there (although that side of it is superb), but it does represent the cutting edge of console based FPS production as a whole, with all the value and play modes you actually want. You can't really say this is significantly better than Modern Warfare, but you should still buy it because it's at least as good.
The weight of expectation on Treyarch's shoulders must have been immense. Having seen CoD4 release to near unanimous praise and incredible sales, there must have been a few worried people inside the studio. The WWII shooter suddenly became incredibly dated, yet Treyarch was a year into development. Whether the sheer number of doubters spurred the team on or the extra development time just allowed them to make the game they were truly capable of doesn't matter. What matters is that Call of Duty World at War is a stunning game that doesn't miss a beat from start to finish and includes one of the most feature packed multiplayer components of any game released this year.
Official Xbox Magazine (UK)
Those worried that World War II has been done to death, fear not. Treyarch's willingness to push the boundaries has uncovered a side to the war few developers even knew existed, and we'll be damned if it doesn't make for one hell of a game to boot.
I was extremely skeptical of Call of Duty: World at War as I didn’t think that the series could go back to the World War II setting and come out with a strong game. I was proven wrong, as this is a great game that will carry the Call of Duty brand over to the next game. There is a lot to keep players busy for quite some time, and it will be time well spent.
Developer Treyarch did a fantastic job of not reinventing the wheel with World at War. Rather, they took the best elements of Modern Warfare and expanded upon them. The end product is a thrilling experience that injects some of the visceral punch back into World War II. The single-player mode is short but sweet and it unlocks the awesome Nazi Zombies mode but the true strength of WaW is the compelling multiplayer, which should have you huddled in the virtual trenches for a long time to come.
Whichever way you look at it, Call of Duty: World at War has had a lot of time spent on it, it takes full advantage of (and in some places improves upon) one of the best FPS engines there is, and its unflinching approach to the mature subject matter gives the immersion-factor a kick up the guts. Does all of this make Codwaw worthy of a purchase? Hell yes. Let’s face it, the second most of us heard the phrase ‘zombie Nazis’ we were already down for the ride….
Call of Duty: World at War is strikingly similar to CoD4 in many ways, while offering enough variety to recommend it to anyone who might be growing tired of last year's game. 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, at least until the inevitable release of another Call of Duty game next year.
World at War is a far better game than Call of Duty 3, and with a similar set up to multiplayer as Modern Warfare plus the new four player co-op, it’s certainly a well-rounded package – but will it survive the double-pronged attack of Resistance 2 and Gears of War 2?
MS Xbox World
In Call of Duty World at War we see that Treyarch has obviously learned well the lessons that Infinity Ward taught the gaming world with their massively successful Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. While student may not have surpassed teacher, Treyarch has still managed to craft together a game that pays homage to the roots it comes from. Any fan of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, is probably going to want to add Call of Duty: World at War to their collection.
Call of Duty: World at War is an excellent shooter. From start to finish, the action in the game is challenging and well paced. If you're a real multiplayer junkie, this game is capable of providing countless hours of online play with friends or strangers. Treyarch had a rough go around the last time they worked on a Call of Duty, but World at War proves that they're more than capable of handling the franchise when they've been given the proper time, resources, and conditions to work with. While some may feel a little reluctant about jumping into another World War II conflict, World at War is unique and enjoyable enough to make it a must for hardcore and casual shooter fans.
In the end, Call of Duty: World at War is far from the series' best when just played alone, but diving into the cooperative and online modes is what gives this one its charm. From calling the dogs on your enemies in Team Deathmatch to using concentrated fire and just the right angles together to slaughter Axis forces in cooperative action, this one has been made with maximum fun in mind. These game developers make it harder and harder to keep coming back to the tired old WW2 shooter genre, but that's only because the games are so good (and this one is an appropriate step up from the last) - it'd be easy to ignore these games if none of them were fun. But this one is a blast to play, and so I give it a hearty recommendation despite having been skeptical all along about the quality of another Treyarch WW2 game.
Call of Duty: World at War I believe will surprise gamers with how complete of an experience it is. Although World at War doesn’t have the same production values as Call of Duty 4, this is a fantastic experience that should not be missed. The move back to WWII was not a bad one, and for fans of the series it doesn’t matter what time period these games are placed in, they never cease to impress.
Call of Duty: World at War não inventa nada, mas consegue viver perante as expectativas elevadas perante o anterior jogo da série. A Treyarch foi inteligente em capturar todos os detalhes que fizeram os fãs delirar e adaptaram ao batido cenário da Segunda Guerra mundial. A campanha é pequena mas intensa, o formato multiplayer continua de topo e a adição de todo o suporte cooperativo permite-nos vislumbrar o que vem de futuro não só para a série, mas para os títulos em geral. Acima de tudo, é um FPS tão sólido como o anterior, com missões interessantes e um envolvimento fantástico que nos obriga a devorar do princípio ao fim. Ah, e os zombies são uma delícia!
Most anyone who has been following the Call of Duty series knows that there are two development teams that alternate releases, one of which is credited with achieving superior results. Even though Call of Duty 4 took the series out of World War II, developer Infinity Ward raised the bar significantly, and that has left stand-in Treyarch with a lot of work to do. In the end World at War hasn’t topped that effort, but it has at least benefited from the attempt, with the result being another really good, very comprehensive WW2 shooter.
CoD: WaW is a very hard game to rate. Play it on your own, and it’s a bit of a dog. A pretty, well-trained dog, but a rather boring and lazy dog nonetheless, that needs to be introduced to the vet’s special sleepy needle. Play it with your mates though, and it becomes a great example of why co-op is undoubtedly the Way of the Future™. Its repetitive and lazy single player sins vanish beneath the screams of your mates’ laughter across your Xbox Live headset. The multiplayer might be a totally unoriginal rip-off of everything that CoD 4’s online game did so well, but why wouldn’t it when the original is so brilliant? Is it better than CoD 4? Whether you play it with friends or not will determine the answer to that question. Now, if only it had the amazing singleplayer of CoD 4 combined with the strong co-op of CoD: WaW. Who wants to place a wager that this is exactly what we’ll see with the next officially numbered Call of Duty?
Call of Duty: World at War es una más que digna entrega de la épica saga bélica. Se trata de un juego que roza el sobresaliente y al que sólo le ha faltado la chispa a la que Treyarch aspira y que, de momento, parece sólo al alcance de Infinity Ward. El título ofrece todo lo que podemos esperar de un lanzamiento perteneciente a esta franquicia, y además lo adereza con un multijugador muy cuidado y la posibilidad de superar la campaña con hasta tres amigos.
Der neue Weltkriegsshooter spielt sich zwar ganz ordentlich, konnte aber die versprochenen Erwartungen nicht wirklich erfüllen: Das Spiel hat ein interessantes Setting und seine Höhepunkte, kann aber selten wirklich überzeugen. Der Zweite Weltkrieg wurde einfach schon zu oft aufgegriffen um noch wirklich intensive Spannung zu bieten. Da die Story nach höchstens 10 Stunden schon beendet ist, bleibt wieder zu hoffen, dass sich ausreichend um die Online-Community gekümmert wird, denn ansonsten bleibt "Call of Duty: World at War" mehr ein gut gemeinter Nachfolger als eine packende Fortsetzung.
Game Informer Magazine
Following a title as massively successful as Call of Duty 4 is no short order. World at War finally gives us a reason to visit the Pacific Theater with its fun cooperative and multiplayer modes. But the “been there, done that” single-player missions and overall derivative tone keep this very good game from achieving the greatness of its predecessor.
If you don't care what era your action takes place in, then Call of Duty: World at War manages to be an exciting addition to the series. It can sometimes feel like a makeover that is only skin deep, and FPS players who want more out of their favorite series may see little reason to leave Modern Warfare. But then, they'd be missing out on one of the best reasons for any player signing back up for another tour of duty in WWII.
Although World at War too often feels like a refit, it’s a refit of one of the greatest games of the current generation - and one that’s, by and large, been confidently handled by Treyarch. The WWII setting compounds the wearying feeling of over-familiarity, but the solid engine that powers the game ensures that it’s often the most spectacular take on the conflict yet, and one that’s certainly the most exhilarating. Whether multiplayer offers enough to wrest people away from Modern Warfare boils down to a matter of taste, but anyone who’s tempted to return to the Second World War will be met with a solid package – but one that’s short on surprises.
All in all, it has to be said that World at War doesn't quite achieve the levels of gameplay benchmarked by Modern Warfare. However, certain aspects have been finely tuned, particularly the online play. Yes, progress is a bit linear but it still looks great and there are bonuses to unlock, achievements to master and plenty of bad guys to keep you reloading. A professional performance from Keifer Sutherland and an unrecognizable Gary Oldman make for entertaining commanding officers who will also be there in online battles to let you know what's happening. CoD 5 is a very solid FPS that can sit proudly enough on the shelf next to it's predecessors. If you are not turned off by the idea of returning to WWII, you'll have five or six hours of enjoyable shooting in solo mode, and probably many more in the team deathmatch and war modes online.
World War II is one of the most chronicled moments in history in the video game medium, and with all due respect to those who fought and died, the premise is beginning to wear thin. Call of Duty: World at War is a great game that feels all too familiar, yet it's undoubtedly the best shooter based on the conflict. Comparisons between it and Call of Duty 4 are inevitable, but even on its own merits, it's a paint-by-numbers affair. The single-player campaign is intense and the cooperative play is engaging, but the competitive multiplayer, despite some added perks and tweaks, is subdued by the era it so accurately replicates. If you've spent the past 12 months building your prestige with everything the modern age has to offer, you'll have problems finding things to get too excited about. That said, there are still few shooters on the market up to its level of quality, so suit up soldier, and prepare for one last push.
World at War is without a doubt a great shooter: intense, immersive, with some memorable levels, a very high finishing and a basic gameplay that's as tight as possible. Too bad that there's little new and that despite everything Treyarch doesn't manage to get to the level of what Infinity Ward surprised us with last year. So buy it even if you're a mild lover of shooters but don't expect something as unfortgettable as Modern Warfare.
Game Over Online
While not on par with Infinity Ward’s Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, World at War is better than Treyarch’s last entry, Call of Duty 3. Even though it takes players back to World War II, the inclusion of a campaign set in the Pacific theater helps bring some freshness to the stage. The single player campaign is well executed, the Nazi Zombie mode is a nice surprise, and multiplayer, both co-operative and competitive, is sure to have virtual soldiers returning to the battlefield for months to come. It might not be what Call of Duty fans were hoping for coming off of Modern Warfare, but World at War does not disappoint.
Dass World at War Stillstand im Gameplay zelebriert, kann man nicht verneinen – dass dieser Stillstand auf sehr hohem Niveau geglückt ist, ebenfalls nicht. Bleibt zu hoffen dass das nächste Call of Duty wieder mit ein paar frischeren Ideen und wirklichen Gameplay-Verbesserungen aufwarten kann und wir nicht ein weiteres Mal die Normandie vorgesetzt bekommen!
Armchair Empire, The
World at War proves to be another solid addition to the Call of Duty franchise. World at War is one of the best first person shooters to be released this fall and is highly recommended for those who are fans of the genre. World at War provides a solid campaign and the multiplayer will keep your attention soon after you’re done with the campaign.
World at Waria painaa toisen maailmansodan kokoinen taakka. Tämä sota on nähty jo monta kertaa tietokonepeleissä, eikä uusia ideoita tunnu enää löytyvän tarinapuolelle. Pelissä tärkeintä onkin moninpeli, jossa ympäristöt menettävät historiallisen merkityksensä ja paha natsikin saattaa yllättäen olla voitokas. Yhteistyötila on hyvä syy hankkia tämä peli, mikäli myös kaveriporukasta löytyy taistelutahtoisia virtuaalialokkaita. Tiimipohjainen juoneton sotiminen ja jopa erikoinen zombimoodi ovat kuitenkin ne lopulliset syyt vingauttaa rahakorttia pelikaupan kassalla World at Warin puolesta.
By staying largely true to the formula that made Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare so successful, Call of Duty: World at War has ensured a proven level of technical quality, particularly in the multiplayer arena. On the other hand, one of Modern Warfare's strengths was its fresh approach, and by embracing a familiar setting and familiar mechanics, World at War achieves greatness but falls short of excellence. This is only a bad thing if you are expecting this game to top its benchmark predecessor. If, however, you are hoping for an exciting campaign, fun cooperative play, and engaging multiplayer action, then you'll find a lot to be happy about in World at War.
Computer and Video Games (CVG)
The short-lived campaign doesn't quite reach the highs of Modern Warfare, but the ever-solid shooting and multiplayer mechanics make this a great shooter.
Call of Duty: World at War feels at times like a little brother holding the hand of the more confident Modern Warfare, but keep in mind that it definitely shares the same genes. It looks better than any shooter currently out there, and plays at a furious and exciting pace with replayability abundant in the excellent co-op and multiplayer modes. Perceive it as a successor to Modern Warfare and you may come away a little disappointed, but look at it as a stand-alone shooter, and you’d be hard pressed to resist it's giddy charm. I suggest a swallowing of pride and go for the latter.
World at War is a terrific game and a solid addition to the Call of Duty franchise. The visuals and sound are top-notch, and the gameplay, which made COD4 outstanding, is just as solid as its predecessor. That being said, do not expect the same leap in quality we saw from COD3 to COD4. Don’t get me wrong, World at War is a great game but it just did not leave me with the same feeling I had when I played COD4 for many months on end. Regardless, shooter fans and action gamers alike will find a lot to like about this game and it is definitely a worthy addition to your ever growing collection of games.
If you can’t tell by now, the game is worth picking up. Treyarch has made vast improvements from their COD 3 work and delivered a solid product. There are a few flaws, but the game keeps up the intensity and fast-paced feel that Infinity Ward set up last year. And for a World War II game, it doesn’t feel the least bit outdated.
Je n'étais pas convaincu du retour au thème de la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale pour Call of Duty. Il reste qu'au moins Treyarch a mieux livré la marchandise qu'avec son dernier travail; Call of Duty 3. La touche plus sombre apportée au jeu est sans aucun doute la grande nouveauté de ce jeu, le reste étant que très peu retouché. Call of Duty mise, avec raison, sur son ambiance et son excellente capacité d'immersion pour faire le reste du travail.
CoD: World at War offers a new spin on their WWII games that we have not seen before. The downside is that it is fallowing their best game to date in Call of Duty 4. While it offers new things such as the M2 flamethrower and fighting on the Pacific front, it is just the same as CoD3. The game is interesting and you are fighting a seemingly just as ruthless if not more ruthless enemy in the Japanese compared to the Germans.The gameplay is strong just like every other Call of Duty and it has great weapons and environments to back that up. Compared to the older brother though it is just a more beautified Call of Duty 3 and changes very little in an overall standard. I enjoyed the campaign missions as well as some of the online, but the overall ability it is in comparison is just a shadow.
Il y avait de quoi être sceptique mais Call of Duty : World at War se place en digne successeur de Call of Duty 4. Certes il en reprend les bases en solo et pratiquement tout en multijoueurs, mais il le fait avec brio. A moins d’être complètement réfractaire à la Seconde Guerre Mondiale et ses grandes lignes vues et revues depuis de nombreuses années, ce nouvel opus mérite bien qu’on s’y attarde tant la réalisation est bonne. On prend clairement du plaisir à vivre cette aventure intense et soutenue du début à la fin et on se jettera sur le mode multijoueurs avec enthousiasme.
It's a fine game and Treyarch has proved that it's capable of upholding the Call of Duty pedigree - I just wish they had chipped in a little more to the series with this game. I can't really blame them, though; I can count the number of first-person shooter sequels that featured substantial changes to the original's gameplay on one finger with a Half-Life 2 tattoo. Furthermore, you can't expect big changes when the previous game was only released a year ago. Activision has stated that they plan on releasing extensive DLC for WaW and push back Infinity Ward's Call of Duty 6 so we hopefully we won't end up with another sequel that only polishes up the previous installment and adds a feature here and there. World At War's a good game but this is a cynical way of making games.
Totally Gaming Network
Overall this is a fun title to play this holiday season. While I had fun going through the campaign and seeing how the story unfolded I still prefer the modern warfare setting and weapons. Having Keifer Sutherland be the voice of one of the main characters was a nice touch and helped to further immerse you in the experience.
Call of Duty: World at War will undoubtedly become a minor edition in the series once the next Infinity Ward developed Call of Duty comes to fruition down the road. For now, and even then, it happens to be a very good game that adds reaction to the action. The world is at war, but no longer is it romantic adventure. It’s actually quite appalling. But we still love to wallow in its grime.
Of course, these are all pretty minor points in the grand scheme of things. Call of Duty: World at War is a perfectly competent game with exciting multiplayer options and a campaign that's worth playing. But in most of the ways that actually count, last year's game was better.
G4 TV: X-Play
World at War can't fill Modern Warfare's combat boots despite an earnest attempt by the developers to replicate the experience in a World War II setting. At the same time, the game still offers some genuine fun with an impressive amount of bang for your hard-earned buck. While it's disappointing that more wasn't done to further distinguish World at War from Infinity Ward's opus, shooter fans should strongly consider re-enlisting with Activision for another trigger-happy tour.
It's easy to be impressed by World at War. It's a game designed for maximum initial impact and, while it wobbles along the way, it delivers precisely the sort of carefully stage-managed carnage that fans will expect. The addition of a robust and varied co-op option helps to mitigate the disappointment of the by-the-numbers traditional multiplayer modes. However, looking back to Kristan's review review of Call of Duty 3 you'll find the exact same complaints being raised two years ago. Corridor gameplay. Outdated features. Flaky AI. They're all still here, albeit masked by even more whiz-bang effects than ever before. World at War certainly benefits from Modern Warfare's beefier graphics engine, but when it comes to the crunch it lacks the crucial innovations - both in gameplay and concept - that made its immediate predecessor so deservedly popular.
As I said before, Call of Duty: World at War is an ordinary game on an extraordinary engine. The faults are mostly swept aside by the gameplay, which is taken straight from Call of Duty 4, and the multiplayer should be different enough to pull those stuck on its prequel away in favor of a change of location and weapons. Nothing has changed too much, and that’s a good thing, so the game is definitely worth a purchase for anyone hoping for some multiplayer fun.
Call of Duty: World at War weet een degelijke, maar niet memorabele singleplayer campagne aan te vullen met een wervelende multiplayer. De uitmuntend werkende coöperatieve modus steelt de show, maar ook de leuke competitieve multiplayer maakt zijn terugkeer. Mensen zonder internetverbinding kunnen beter wachten op een budgetprijs, maar voor de multiplayers onder ons is Call of Duty: World at War misschien wel het spel van het jaar.
There was a small bit of controversy surrounding the Japanese half of World at War's campaign, but you could easily avoid the experience altogether and be totally satisfied with the multiplayer. World at War offers more of the same gameplay found in Call of Duty 4 but with some World War II flair and small improvements here and there. While it's a shame that the campaign isn't as good as its predecessor's, World at War sticks to what made Modern Warfare great: a solid multiplayer experience that can last you months.
Call of Duty: World At War offers a lot of content. The campaign is short but it’s as good as any other shooter on the market, and the multiplayer has proved to be a big hit already with COD4. But that’s the problem: it’s too much like its predecessor. For a lot of people this will be a great thing, whilst others may find the formula wearing a bit thin. It’s an enjoyable experience but may leave you wanting something more. It doesn’t have that same feeling of awe as when you first popped COD4 into your disk tray. I’m sure it’ll be a big hit, but for those already heavily invested in COD4, it might be best to stay there, for now.
World at War is a fun rollercoaster ride that is every bit as good as Call of Duty 2 and 3. Unfortunately after the success of Call of Duty 4 it's hard to go back to World War II, even when the game looks and plays this good. Treyarch has definitely learned how to tell an interesting story and give us good pacing, but I still can't get over the fact that we've fought this war a few too many times for my tastes. If you can get over that then you'll be rewarded with an amazing action game with one of the best online multiplayer modes of the year!
Entertainment Depot, The
Despite being built upon the shoulders of Modern Warfare, World at War isn’t as enjoyable as its predecessor. Similar to the previous entries from the frogging developing method of Infinity Ward and Treyarch, the follow-up isn’t as good but is still better than much of its competition. It is, however, better than 3. Hopefully the next go produces something on par with Infinity Ward’s work.
If all you’re looking for is more of the same, then Call of Duty: World at War is certainly a worthy addition to the franchise. After a lacklustre Call of Duty 3, Treyarch has made up for their past missteps and given Call of Duty fans something to tide them over until the next inevitable Infinity Ward release. Despite an underwhelming single player campaign, the superlative multiplayer modes more than make up for it. Now if you’ll excuse me, I know some Nazi zombies who need to introduced to the noisy end of my M1 Garand.
Instead of revitalizing the WWII shooter genre, World at War feels like a return to familiar territory. The unlockable zombie mode is fun for a few laughs, but it also shows that when given the freedom to try new things, Treyarch is more interested in doling out cheap thrills rather than refining or redefining gameplay. Even though Treyarch took Dad’s precious wheels out for a less reckless spin this time around, World at War is still senselessly eating away at Call of Duty’s mileage.
At any rate, you'll find that as a single-player experience, the game is far too short and lacks the compelling ambience of Modern Warfare. However, the multiplayer, more specifically the co-op, is where this game truly shines and from that perspective comes highly recommended from us. Should you decided to give it a try, make sure to dive into the all-new Nazi Zombie mode, which puts you and a group of up to 4 players against hordes of vicious zombies (that's when the real fun starts).
The game is not without some extensive polish, both in its overall presentation and especially in the multiplayer in which its relatively small flaws are drowned out with the gunfire you are sure to exchange with your opponent. The same cannot be said for the single player campaign, and while the graphics are capable of a lot of foliage it is not enough to hide the fact that the game leans heavily on trigger points and scripted events to mask the terrible AI on both sides of the fighting. The multiplayer is as solid the series has seen yet and is capable of carrying the game, but it is disappointing to see the single player campaign waste so much potential.
World at War may not represent the best of Call of Duty, but it's far from the worst. The single-player's a solid step forward from Call of Duty 3, and the cooperative multiplayer should give the game some legs...but I just wish competitive multiplayer had grabbed me the way Modern Warfare's did. I think anyone skeptical about whether Treyarch could improve upon their last iteration will be pleasantly surprised; World at War brings all the ugliness of humanity in wartime to the forefront, and it manages to find refreshing -- and satisfying -- new stories to tell.
Official XBox Magazine
World at War is like watching a fireworks show that you’ve seen a few times before. You’re simply not wowed by the buildup, the grand finale, or any of it anymore. When — not if — the next sequel arrives, it’s going to have an upstream swim against an apathetic tide of familiarity. But if the Star Trek analogy holds, at least it’ll be even-numbered.
World at War is for the most part a competently made and solid game. Sadly, these two virtues are not enough to topple the masterpiece that was Modern Warfare. An entertaining diversion for FPS fans, but by no means an essential purchase.
Call of Duty : World at War est loin d’être un mauvais jeu mais l’impression d’avoir affaire à un Call of Duty 4 : Mordern Warfare version Seconde Guerre mondiale est forte, ceci étant en partie dû au copié/collé général qui a été opéré par Treyarch (gameplay, multijoueur, moteur graphique, etc.). Néanmoins, les tares des développeurs refont vite surface et on se rend rapidement compte que toute la progression, fort linéaire de surcroît, est ponctuée par des scripts, des scripts et encore des scripts. Enfin, il est tout de même difficile de bouder son plaisir tant le titre est bon et les ajouts bienvenus, notamment le lance-flammes qui offre bien des passages jouissifs. La finition est correcte et la bande sonore d’excellente facture, ce qui induit une immersion des plus appréciables.
While World at War doesn’t fail in any specific way, it just fails to become the rousing success that its predecessor was. It’s definitely a playable game if you find you have the stomach for more World War II, but it doesn’t quite rise above that level of mediocrity.
Ce retour à l'atmosphère classique de la série Call of Duty réalisé par Treyarch sonne comme une compilation de ce qu'on a déjà vu dans les anciens volets mais parvient malgré tout à séduire notamment par le choix d'un ton bien moins politiquement correct et qui n'a plus plus peur de la violence de la guerre. On regrette néanmoins que le studio ait du mal à déguiser les scripts dont il abuse et qui peuvent se révéler frustrants ou encore qu'il ait recours à une astuce aussi grossière que les réapparitions infinies d'ennemis. Malgré tout, le "studio intérimaire" de la série s'en sort bien et ceux qui attendaient un retour aux sources trouveront là ce qu'ils cherchaient, ni plus, ni moins.
Au dos du boîtier, l'argumentaire du jeu commence par "Revivez les derniers jours de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale". Prenons Activision au mot et souhaitons qu'il s'agisse bien de nos derniers pas dans cet univers joué et rejoué depuis des années. Car celui qui n'a jamais touché à un Call of Duty ou un Medal of Honor ne connaît pas son bonheur ! Lui seul saura apprécier pleinement les qualités de Call of Duty : World at War, quasiment aussi explosif et intensif que ses prédécesseurs. En revanche, pour les joueurs plus aguerris, l'héritage du passé et certaines grosses ficelles se font un peu trop sentir. Heureusement, la présence d'un très bon mode multi aux qualités éprouvées, et d'un mode coopératif tout nouveau tout beau, aident grandement à faire passer la pilule.
At the beginning of this review I posed the question what is Call of Duty: World at War? Well, I have to side on the feeling that it is an expansion pack for COD4. It takes everything good about COD4 and places it in a new setting with nothing more really done to it. If you loved the last game then you will like this one and it is also a good starting point for newcomers, but series veterans might want something more.
Call of Duty used to be a game that was about quality as well as profits. If Activision releases this game again next year dressed in new clothes, either via Infinity Ward or Treyarch, the brand will be bloodied. Does Activision want to be the new EA? The publisher avoided by discerning gamers? Can it really risk that now EA seems to have got its act together? I should go get a blog. You folks enjoy Call of Duty: World At War now, it's a lot of fun.
Overall it’s hard to see what Treyarch were aiming for here, as the story retreads old ground and most of the set-piece moments seem to have been lifted directly from the previous games. Coupled with dodgy A.I and the ever present endless rush of foes and it’s just not that great.
However, in contrast to last year’s effort, none of the game’s high points are as memorable, and in addition, quite a few of the gunfights start to border on routine as you get further into the game. For that reason, combined with the selection of other erratic blemishes named above, World at War is a notably less appealing game.
Call of Duty World at War est un FPS sur la Seconde Guerre Mondiale efficace à défaut d'être innovant. Disposant d'une campagne bien trop courte et pas toujours captivante, notamment à cause d'artifices de progression trop visibles et d'une grande linéarité, le jeu se rattrape grâce à une bonne mise en scène, des batailles d'envergure, l'apparition d'un mode coopératif sympathique mais perfectible, et surtout un multijoueur en ligne très complet, calqué sur celui de CoD Modern Warfare.
Entendons-nous bien, Call of Duty : World at War reste un FPS on ne peut plus correct qui saura peut-être en attirer certains. Mais la percutante remise en question de la série opérée par Infinity Ward l'an passé semble ici totalement occultée, voire piétinée. Un tel retour en arrière est donc aussi inexplicable qu'impardonnable.
Ultimately, Call of Duty: World at War feels completely unnecessary. It's not bad, but most of the good stuff is only good because Infinity Ward made it and released it last year. It's unfair to say that this is an expansion pack because it has a bit more meat than that, but it's barely much more. With an awful campaign and a multiplayer that is fun but completely appropriated, this game can't hold a candle to the last. Fans of the series should check it out, but I couldn't in good faith recommend a purchase, at least at full price. Give it a rent or check out the bargain bin a few months from now. It's not like Activision won't make millions out of the game anyway which, ultimately, is the point ... and in this game, it really shows.
I can list a whole bunch of things that are wrong with World at War off the top of my head. The pace of the game doesn’t fit the era it’s set in. As far as the campaign goes, there isn’t much here. The story elements of CoD4 that made singleplayer not simply a stand-in for multiplayer when you had connection issues are gone. Your squad mates are idiotic cannon fodder that are oblivious to the insane enemies that will rush through your lines and sidle up next to them. You feel as if you’re doing everything while your team does jackshit. There’s no continuity between missions and you just hop from one location to another without really understanding why.
Le jeu est très court (de 4 à 6 heures, suivant que vous jouiez en coop ou avec un bandeau sur les yeux), mais rassurez-vous, il est si difficile de jouer plus de vingt minutes sans avoir envie de sortir la galette du lecteur qu'il vous paraîtra probablement plus long. Le multi, que nous vous avions déjà détaillé dans un article précédent et sensé compenser cette faible durée de vie, ne tient pas ses promesses. Pour faire court, les vieux routiers de COD4 seront déçus, tant le multijoueur ressemble à une conversion totale, pas très inspirée, de leur titre fétiche. Quand aux autres, et bien... pourquoi aller chercher un ersatz un peu mal foutu quand on peut avoir l'original pour pas cher en occaze ? Notez que la remarque vaut pour le jeu complet.