Call of Duty: World at War Reviews

  • AbylitiesAbylities92,189
    09 Dec 2008 31 Aug 2009
    94 39 24
    Call of Duty : World At War is a game I'm really struggling to understand. It's landed a lot of mixed emotions on my table, and I know whatever I say will have some people disagreeing completely.

    Treyarch are not renowned for being the best game developers. And standing next to Infinity Ward on the CoD front must be very tough, so I'll hand them some sympathy and won't go on a swearing-rampage, swirling shitstorms and calling them names. But I will say this; I expected Treyarch to disappoint, and I wasn't disappointed with them disappointing me.
    Still here? Alright.

    Call of Duty World At War is a World War Two game where you play a few people on a few sides blah blah blah, apply every other review of a CoD game to get the picture of the plot. You play as some rather interesting characters that don't get explained as much as they should have. Those of you that adored the Modern Warfare characters (Oh, Captain Price...) will be disappointed that they don't quite have the same depth. One noteable mention however, is a russian named Dimitri, who you just start to bond with... as the game ends.

    Campaign features a number of interesting, varied missions that I have to admit are very fun, and none of them have felt like a chore to re-play through. If I'm trying my hardest to be unbias - and trust me, I am - the missions are well done and enjoyable. In my opinion, the tanks feel a bit iffy and it's almost as if Treyarch forced them into the game, but hey, that's nitpicking.

    Of course, with community gameplay evolving as it is, co-operative mode has been added, which is a breath of fresh air to the series. You can play competitively, for fun with strangers, or have a private match with various cheats (although they must be collected in the first place). Except for not being able to select which mission you play, it works great. One huge mistake Treyarch have made however, is neglecting to allow achievements for completing levels be done in co-op. Massive, massive doh there.

    Veteran has not gotten harder. Veteran has simply changed. To be honest, Call of Duty 2 is harder than this, BUT - and this is a big, fat woman but - enemies have gained ridiculous tactics. Get to the later levels of the campaign and you'll be enjoying a flurry of grenades, excessive swarms of neverending enemies, and when you add this to the fact you're playing a mode where two bullets kill you, it's no laughing matter. People have made petitions to remove grenades but to be honest it won't happen, and if you want all the achievements all you need is patience and to be persistent. And then maybe some more patience.

    Nazi Zombie Mode, the absolutely beautiful new feature, is a complete bucketload of fun with friends. All your zombie dreams can come true in this dark, boarded up building. There's a lot of re-playability value here and it's rumored at time of writing that there will be DLC soon for this feature. Fingers crossed indeed.

    This will be the last section I write, and it's probably going to be the one that interests the most people; online multiplayer!
    As Treyarch have done.... certain things with the engine, multiplayer has a rather strange feel to it. You can easily play it as CoD4.2 (The .2 being different skins for levels and guns), but if you're going to do that you may aswell pick up CoD4 and have a lot more fun with it.
    Sniping in this game though, is utterly fantastic. Gone are the M40A3 no-scopes but in it's place is a plethora of sniper rifles that actually work, that actually feel like sniper rifles. Using the right perks you can play an entire match as if you're Jude Law in Enemy At The Gates, the game is so gripping and realistic. If this was Treyarch's aim, they've done a bloody good job and I commend them.
    The problem is, we all know this wasn't their aim, and they haven't done so well in other areas.

    I have to apologise for such a haphazard review, but WaW is a game that utterly confuses my emotions. If you're a huge fan of CoD4, this will be marmite to your toast - you'll enjoy it entirely and wish there was a bit more, or you'll despise it and cuss Treyarch as much as you can. I can only recommend this if you consider yourself a true sniper, a true WW2 veteran, or a nutter who loves having grenades thrown at him.
    Showing most recent comments. View all comments.
    keoskeyI would downgrade it to a 2 star b/c the multiplayer is being Destroyed by Hackers
    Posted by keoskey on 22 Jun 11 at 22:33
    Sheamus OBoyleYou gave a game a negative review because achievements can't be done in co-op and that enemies thow too many grenades? really?
    Posted by Sheamus OBoyle on 24 Dec 13 at 12:31
    Killerfox UruFair review, 3 stars should not be regarded as a bad game. I like this game.
    Posted by Killerfox Uru on 25 Apr 14 at 17:57
  • HWNDarksideHWNDarkside902,648
    04 Feb 2009
    57 13 6
    The Infinity Ward-produced COD2 was one of the finest FPS available on any platform. Sublime single player action and a consistantly enthralling storyline coupled with excellent (for the time) online multiplayer.

    Along came Treyarch and the very mediocre COD3. Stupid AI, boring level design and a crappy story took the franchise a step backwards, but it was propped up by a strong mulitplayer offering.

    Infinity Ward then blew COD3 out of the water with COD4. Although the single player mode was woefully short it was extremely intense and well made. The online multiplayer really set the standard offering of the most intense experiences over Xbox Live.

    So here come Treyarch again. Have they learnt anything since COD3? Has the extra time in development made any difference (apparently COD3 was a rush job). Yes and no.

    It's World War II again. Another game with M1 Garrand. Another COD with a tank mission. Another COD with splinter storyline than doesn't help build any empathy with the characters.

    In fairness though the level design is a vast improvement on COD3. The Japanese/flamethrower missions are a blast and there is an underlying feeling of dread and danger throughout the Soviet missions. Airplane and tanks missions are nothing more than filler though. There's a lot more blood and dismemberment - which is nice! Presentation is all a bit too flash though, the cut-scenes/level intros detract from the sobering stories they are trying to tell.

    Unfortunately, as with COD3, it's let down by Treyarch's approach to AI. Your comrades/squad are by far the most useless and unreliable I've come across to date. They stand in front of you and let enemy through to attack you, spend hours shooting but never actually kill anything, and worst of all - they push you out of cover directly into line of fire!

    Enemy AI isn't much better. Treyarch stick with the chaining system that made COD3 such snooze-fest. Enemies will respawn and cover the same postions over and over until you cross The Magic Line that stops them, turning most of the game into a smoke-and-sprint to the next Magic Line or checkpoint.

    The worst addition to the series though is, by far, grenade spamming. Apparently all enemies now carry at least 15 grenades each and have an uncanny ability to pitch grenades (a) at your feet despite you hiding against 4 foot cover and (b) not only at your retreat position, but the position you decided to move to because you knew the retreat position would be grenaded!! This isn't so much of a problem on the easier settings, but on Veteran it makes some levels ridiculously hard to the verge of impossible and extremely frustrating. Although Veteran on this COD is probably the easiest of the whole series certain sections are made 10 times more infuriating by grenade spamming (I'm looking at you Blowtorch & Corkscrew!!).

    Multiplayer is pretty much a direct port from COD4, in fact it might as well be COD4:World War II. Decent enough maps but some respawn issues and glitches that should have been ironed out in beta testing.

    Overall this is a decent game and Treyarch have improved on COD3 but haven't really added anything of worth to the series - apart from maybe a flamethrower.

    Please, no more World War II!!
  • AerodynamoAerodynamo164,663
    23 Mar 2009 12 Apr 2009
    46 15 5
    Call of Duty: World at War

    About the Game

    If you've ever played any other Call of Duty game, aside from Modern Warfare, this game is just like the rest. You play random infantry soldiers from varying countries, and also like many of the others, it takes place during World War II. There isn't much to say here other than the fact that you are fighting in a war... A really long war.

    Gameplay ( 7 / 10 )

    We all remember Call of Duty 4, and if you are someone who has never played it, get it right now. Call of Duty 4 produced an amazing game, full of perfect graphics, gameplay, sound, story, everything. Nothing about it was negative in any way. So what did Treyarch do upon making World at War? They've used the same engine with a few "enhanced" features.

    The basic gameplay involves jumping from mission to mission with various checkpoints. Some of the ways it differs from CoD 4 are the rareness of checkpoints. In CoD4, you could be sure that if you had to put up with annoying scene, an annoying amount of walking or running or anything, you'd have a checkpoint past it. You did that already, why do it again? Treyarch aimed to cut back on checkpoints.

    You know that sniper in the tree that shot you? Prepare to get sniped 17 more times before you even figure out where he's at. Not only are there less checkpoints, but you will spawn in the same place you got the checkpoint in. Say you were running out of a trench into enemy fire, and the checkpoint message popped up. Well, henceforth, every checkpoint will be you standing at the top of that trench looking like a dumbass while the enemies get to shoot you. In one of my many missions, I was caught fighting a Banzai Japanese Soldier (Kind of like dogs from CoD 4. The ones that no one liked and everyone hated. But don't worry! They brought them back in World at War--in the form of Japanese soldiers.), a timed battle that requires the press of the thumbstick to kill him before you die. Well, "checkpoint unlocked" as he stabs me in the throat. So, every time after, it was 99% death. Needless to say, I restarted.

    Flamethrowers are enjoyable. You can burn enemies, and they go down. But even this has problems... Trees, wood, grass? The fire doesn't spread. It'll stay in one place, then it goes out. C'mon now... You're going to put fire in a game and not utilize it? Also, the fire spits out like they are made of individual .gif animations and spread out to wherever they like. Gets very frustrating... the good thing is, no ammo! It just gets hot (pun intended), and then you have to let it cool off.

    Veteran mode are where most of my frustrations stem from. Let me just tell you... If you plan to 100% this game, prepare for doing the same tedious task over and over and over again. Prepare for dying to the same bullet, which kills you instantly before you can pick out your killer's location. Prepare for masses of respawns that will never stop unless you cross Treyarch's infamous "invisible line". You should also be prepared for your teammates to not do anything at all. I'm pretty sure the General was like, "Let's perform a social experiment. We'll give one soldier a real gun, and everyone else fake guns--they sound, look, and smell real, but they only have blank cartridges!"

    Every enemy will always aim for you. I can understand making it so they will fire at you too--otherwise just let your teammates do the work. But really... I can't even count the number of Nazis that ran past my ally with a sub-machine gun lying prone right next to them, got up in my face, and shot me down. Seriously? Why wouldn't you kill the guy who is defenseless on the ground? Also, enemies just know where you are. They just do--don't ask how, and don't ask why.

    I could go on and on, but I don't want to make this review unreadable.

    You may be wondering why Gameplay gets an 7 / 10. Well, needless to say, the game has some good multiplayer. Of course, it isn't Treyarch that did it--it was Infinity Ward.

    Only good thing they really added: Nazi Zombies.

    Graphics ( 9 / 10 )

    Graphics are great. From the first mission, with the lighting passing through the trees from flashbangs and bombs, made me really happy and impressed. (Dynamic Lighting--somethign CoD 4 didn't have!) Faces are different for every soldier you see, as well as outfits. They did some good work with this stuff. I have to hand it to them for this part.

    Sound ( 9 / 10 )

    Can't complain, but I'm not impressed. They did good work with the presentation of sounds, but it isn't anything I would really praise.

    Replayability ( 10 / 10 )

    Once you get out of the frustrating veteran mode, the game isn't bad. You can ease up on the difficult, play with 3 other guys, and have a great time. The multiplayer will keep you coming back... four words: "Attack Dogs" and "Nazi Zombies". Very fun, very inventive additions to the online multiplayer.

    Great multiplayer
    Creative level design
    Russian levels were amazing to play

    Don't make me list all the cons, please

    Alcohol, padded room (so the controller bounces off), and 1000+ hours to play the same stage over and over again.


    Gameplay ( 7 / 10 )
    Graphics ( 9 / 10 )
    Sound ( 9 / 10 )
    Replayability ( 10 / 10 )

    Overall ( 8.75 / 10 )

    I gave Treyarch a second chance. Really, I did. I wanted to like this game--I even spent the first few days lying to myself to try to like this game. It didn't work... Nothign worked. The only thing this taught me is, when a developer really screws the pooch in a game, don't jump into another game they produce before trying it out first.

    I'm sure people will disagree with many of my views. Hell, I went and got it because I heard it was an amazing game... Much to my dismay. The only thing I can say is, before you play it (especially on your achievement-hunting gamertag), please, please, please try the game out first. The multiplayer is way worth it, but the single player will have you wanting to go out and murder the developers. Buy or rent this game with caution. Don't say I didn't warn you.
  • John HanniganJohn Hannigan243,575
    18 Feb 2015
    8 5 5
    Before the next Call of Duty game comes out this fall, I have decided to do a review on the most recent Call of Duty games starting with Call of Duty: World at War. This game is based around the events of WW2 on the European and the Pacific fronts. Firstly on the European front, the player will become a part of the Red Army and help to try and take down the Third Reich. This allows you to take part in historical battles such as the Battle for Stalingrad, Battle for Seelow Heights and the Battle of Berlin (which takes part in the streets of Berlin but also in the Parliamentary building of the Reichstag). At the end of the Russian campaign, you will be able to get a sense of pride by lifting the Soviet flag above the Reichstag. Whereas on the Pacific front, the player will be playing as U.S soldier who has been captured by the Imperial Japanese Army. Throughout the U.S campaign, the payer will also get to relive key battles that took place on the Pacific front such as the Battle of Pelelui and the Battle of Okinawa. At the end of the campaign, it shows signs that the U.S soldiers believe that there will be no fighting after this war and that they have achieved peace…until the U.S believe that their allies (the Russians) are the new type of villain that everyone should be fighting.

    • I thought it was the best fps game based around the events of WW2
    • Living different parts of the war had not been done before
    • The multiplayer was good
    • The Nazi Zombie was a great hit as it allowed people to show off their skills against the Zombie apocalypse

    • Due to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare being released a year before this game, many people believe that this was a step back on the Call of Duty franchise
    • Graphics were decent
    • Veteran was in parts ridiculously hard
    • In parts, the multiplayer was too difficult as people were able to control the game by using certain guns or certain perks

    The Rating
    I would have to give Call of Duty: World At War a 4 out of 5.
  • 5 9 0
    This game is entertaining, to say the least. The campaign is throughly enjoyable the first time round, but it gets repetative if you attempt another play through. The multiplayer is in my opinion : dissapointing it is nearly an exact replica on the Call of Duty four multiplayer format ( which isn't a bad thing, it is just not new) with a few added perks, which in my opinion are pointless, for instance the reconnisance perk lets you see everything on the map, hmm hello? RADAR.

    This game is also a lot more bloody than it's "modern" counterpart, limbs will almost certainly be flying after you throw a grenade. I write this mainly as a warning to anyone who finds that sort of violence distasteful.

    There is one crowning glory on this game however; and that is : Nazi Zombies. In this game mode up to four players will attempt to survive, wave after wave of an attacking zombie horde. This game mode will have you playing for hours on end and is amazing fun with lots of good friends.
  • A 0 A LaurenceA 0 A Laurence366,086
    28 Feb 2012
    7 17 2
    After Call of Duty 4 being so brilliant i expected a lot unfortuantely i was dissapointed. A few of my friends think its the best call of duty to date i struggle to understand why. This is very quick and brief review mainly warning people not to buy.

    Campaign 4/10- Standard world war 2 campaign nothing special, and extremely frustrating especially on Veteran as the AI lob grenade after grendade after grenade and don't stop spawning.

    Online 6/10- Very dissapointed after cod 4's brilliant online. The maps are poor and the tanks don't get me started on them!

    Zombies 7/10-Great new feature to the COD series but could have been much better.

    Graphics 5/10- The graphics were poor, i was hoping they would improve after cod 4 but they didn't.

    Overall 4/10- A big let down for me, Zombies was the only plus point.
  • 8 19 6
    So far a lot of people have been rating it 3 star. HOW COULD YOU RATE IT LESS THAN 5!!!angry.

    It's not the best campaign it's relatively short (2 days) and doesnt seem to follow a direct storyline. that is all that is bad about it, its veteran is challenging(oops i forgot to mention veteran AI grenade spam) and fun and has many different objectives rather than fight your way through (e.g you may have to rescue someone, take control of a tank, be the gunner of a plane etc). so overall 4/5

    i thought i'd go on to the visuals/audio next because they were massively improved compared to previous installments. CoD 4 had pretty bad visuals to be honest. the scenery couldnt look more fake. CoD 5 improved on this by making it much more realistic. even the detail on the faces were convincing. CoD 5s audio was also massively improved. by using a new audio engine, they managed to make the sound much more realistic (E.g in CoD 4 a grenade on the other side of the map sounded as if it was next to you, in CoD 5 the grenades volume would be quieter as if it was ages away)
    'nuf said 5/5

    It's multiplayer is rivaled by no other. with highest level of class customisation in the CoD series (but no camouflagecry). allowing you to put different attachments depending on the weapon rather than it's "set". also higher customisation of snipers. It now includes tanks more game modes more hardcore game modes and a very good ranking system. There are different game modes and weapons and areas of map to suit your style. Also nazi zombies. the best bonus mission (whatever you wanna call it) there is. the objective...survive! it is challenging for even the most advanced player.5/5

    overall rating...5/5
  • 7 18 3
    Good but not as good as Modern Warfare in many aspects. The game suffers from poor scenario's where the maps (layout) could have been greatly improved. Also Veternaran mode is far differnet in difficulty compared to modern warfare it seems to me.

    Also compared to World at war, modern warfare had a far better storyline and better selection of areas, which towns, military bases, farms etc. which i found to be better. The weapons also are a let down, i know they are suppost to be world war style but they are absolutely rubbish compared to some of the weapons on Modern Warfare.

    I suppose just these facts shown just show why there is going to be a Call of Duty Modern Warfare two and not a World at War 2

    Do You Agree?