Call of Duty: World at War (2008 Video Game) User Reviews (29)

An instant Classic

[seandoel · 9/10 · 12 June 2009]

I've read so many articles rubbishing w@w and treyarch and I can't help but wonder if they've even given this game a chance. It seems a lot of people are just unhappy that they've gone back to ww2 and that initial annoyance has tarred their judgement.

I played the game and tried not to compare it to cod4 but as it is so simular it's hard not to. If your looking for an opinion on which game is better I honestly couldn't say. If you stuck w@w in having never played cod4 you would be amazed, having played cod4 it isn't so stunning.

As for the single player campaign its 10/10, its lenghty and diverse, it captures you in a atmosphere never seen before in a ww2 shooter. The graphics are stunning and the gameplay is challenging yet rewarding. The content is much more mature than seen before and this adds to the other-all experience.

The multiplayer offers players a long term service and the map packs are a welcome enhancement. The improvements from its predecessors are many although some of the maps don't seem to have been thought through. Zombie mode offers a great break while offering merit.

To sum up, if you want to play a really involved FPS any call of duty will do ya, however world at war is special and will keep thrilled for much longer than other games.

Call of Duty: World at War (Short Game Review)

[Cirene404 · 9/10 · 8 June 2019]

Positives:

• Story
• Tone and atmosphere
• Gameplay
• Pacing
• Presentation
• Musical score
• Multiplayer

Negatives:

• Not much

Was Never Going to Better Modern Warfare But Still an Excellent Game

[aledhughes · 8/10 · 20 May 2009]

When creating Call of Duty: World at War, Treyarch didn't stand a chance. If released two years earlier this title would be a game that everyone would be waxing lyrical about. However, it followed in the footsteps of the fantastically addictive Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Anyway, what is done is done and Treyarch tried to make the best game they could.

As happens on all games the first impression you have is of its graphical capabilities. World at War has a different feel to those of Modern Warfare as its set in World War II but the graphics are still impressive. They take some getting used to if you've played Modern Warfare meticulously but the details on everything are very realistic and its refreshing to see a game set in different locations such as Russia and Japan. The sound quality in the game is as impressive as its predecessor as well.

Now the most important factor whats the game-play like? For those who delve into the campaign, its almost on a par with Modern Warfare. It lacks the intensity and brutality of Modern Warfare's campaign mode but makes up for this with its interesting set pieces on the Eastern Front and in the Pacific. One level replicates the fantastic Chernoybal snipers levels from number 4 but moves the action to Stalingrad. It doesn't hit you with the same 'wow' factor as the levels in the predecessor but its still a great level. Overall, the campaign mode is incredibly enjoyable to play through but the main criticism is, its even shorter than the campaign mode in Call of Duty 4. And that was short.

Now to the online mode. Franky it is excellent, the problem is if you are not a newcomer to the series: it is no Modern Warfare. The matches are a lot of fun and contain a good mixture of close quarters combat and long distance shooting. Tanks spice proceedings up nicely too. The maps are generally well constructed, however some are just too big. A particular level called Outskirts is insanely large and there are few kills to be made on this map. The weapons just aren't as fun to play around with as those in Modern Warfare either. I understand that Treyarch are vying for realism but the inclusion of more powerful weapons would have been welcoming.

To conclude, World at War is a game that should be played in isolation. Forget that Modern Warfare came before this title and you'll have a lot of fun playing through this. This should be viewed as a great game and a good stop-gap before Modern Warfare 2. However, it is easier said than done to forget how good Modern Warfare is. You will most probably go back to play it but give World at War a chance - especially you Mr Taylor

The war for the world

[colombo_canada · 10/10 · 8 April 2009]

This is a terrific tittle. The sequel to Call of duty modern warfare brings the same gameplay with a few improvements. Using the same engine as the previous games the graphics are very similar to COD:4 the gore of the game is excellent and much more realistic than the gore in Cod:4. For example when you get a grenade thrown at you your leg may come off or your arm, this holds true for the equivalent of the 50 calibre sniper rifle in the game.

The story line of the game is just amazing, the intense action makes you feel in the game. The story line is very similar to that of Cod:4 with an intense sniper mission and a bombardment mission with an added tank mission. The added Nazi Zombie mini game is very fun to play and a welcome extra for any sequels.

I, myself are not at all upset that infinity ward decided to go back to World War 2 , in fact that is what I was hoping for considering that all the other world war 2 call of duty games were not nearly as good as COD:4 I was expecting them to go back and make a proper World War 2 game.

All in all the game is just as great as COd:4 if not better , only differences are: The WW2 setting, More intense gore, more perks, Tank playing and a little bit better graphics. recommended to buy.

Ps please don't let your self's be convinced by all the hype and criticism go and try it yourself.

A Good Game (even if it is WW2)

[saniuk4014 · 5 January 2009]

This game is one of the best I feel that Treyarch as put out. There are two campaigns, one with the Marines fighting the Japs in the Pacific and the Russian invasion of Germany. Some of the missions are well done, however, the campaign is short. It takes about 5-6 hours to complete.

The graphics are a plus, they include flying limbs, blood, and some good shadow effects. If you have played COD 4, then you already know how World at War looks like. There are some neat perks and vehicles in multiplayer as well.

The weapons are the same old WW2 weapons that you have seen in the first 3 Call of Duty's. However, there are always new weapons for you to mess around with including portable MG-42's and .30 cal's. My favorite is the flamethrower. The Fg-42 rifle adds a bit more variety as well. This will disappoint those COD 4 fans who love their customized modern weaponry.

Overall a good buy for any Call of Duty fan or newcomers to the series. I think this will be the last WW2 game in the franchise, so enjoy it.

One of the Best Video Games EVER MADE!!!

[ryanwmullally · 10/10 · 2 March 2021]

All the way through, Call of Duty World at War is an absolute masterpiece that every fan of the series should play. Even though it was released quite a few years ago, I think it's aged perfectly.

Not only do I recommend it to Call of Duty fans, but also any WWII buffs out there. It's both satisfying to play, but can also get people not familiar with WWII interested in researching the historical events and battles seen in the game.

The game is very accurate in it's brutal depiction of war, and I honestly can't think of another game this unapologetic with it's source material. It has the balls to avoid being safe, and instead decides to show the true horrors of war. And because of that, it's why fans prefer this game instead of Call of Duty WWII, because this game is not afraid to take risks and go to some pretty dark and unexpected places in it's gameplay, such as killing surrendered soldiers, body parts being blown off, and showing actual graphic footage from the war.

Campaign: The game depicts two sides of the Second World War. You play as both an American soldier, fighting the Japanese in the Pacific, and a Russian soldier fighting the Germans in Europe. It is interesting to finally have the Japs as enemies in a Call of Duty game, and the gameplay in the Pacific is fun to play, but I thought the story and characters should've been written a bit better. In my opinion, the gameplay in Europe is far more better. And Gary Oldman is AWESOME as Victor Reznov, a character so beloved and iconic that they brought him back for Call of Duty Black Ops. The European campaign also improves in terms of story and characters.

Multiplayer: I found the multiplayer in this game very fun and enjoyable, and the maps are nicely designed, and are big enough for the player to explore. And is cool the use WWII weapons in multiplayer. It was just as fun and simple as it needed to be. This was back when multiplayer was still fresh and good, mind you.

Nazi Zombies: Being the first Call of Duty game to include zombies mode, and think they nailed. It's extremely fun to mow down undead German soldiers, using a bunch of cool new weapons like the Ray Gun. The story in the first mission, Nacht Der In Toten is very simple to follow. You play as an American soldier who's planes been shot down, and you have to take refuge in a bunker of sorts, defending yourself against a bunch of Nazi zombies. It was very fun to play, and when I'm ever playing this game, it's mostly spent in Nazi zombies, so that's saying a lot.

One of the Best Games of All Time, and I highly recommend it.

Best COD game ever

[treymoncrieff-29917 · 10/10 · 31 January 2021]

This is my favourite Cod game in the series Definitely worth a play

the best WWII game you will ever find

[mayonin · 9/10 · 16 June 2011]

this game, without any doubt is the best World war II experience you will ever have! the campaign is superb with you fighting as the Americans in the pacific front against the Japanese and the Russians invading Berlin to defeat Nazi Germany once and for all. it's intense, it's fun as hell, the action is none-stop the voice acting is some of the best i ever heard in a game and just plain fun to listen to, the realism makes this game so much more fun to play

i would like to address a special note to this game's presentation - it's amazing, it's dark and moody and it is no longer the silly "BAM WAR IS FUN!" kind of game. atrocities committed by all both axis and allies, serious gore - limbs being blown off and big puddles of blood on the battlefield, and horrid screams of pain from all sides. this is real war, yet still scripted well enough to be enjoyable and fun. no WWII can be compared to this game until World at War 2 will come out.

This, Is War!

[JohnLeeT · 10/10 · 24 August 2013]

While I admit I am a bit behind the curve on video games and play on a Play Station 2, this is still a stunning experience of war and an incredibly exhausting, frightening, and challenging World War II game. I am perplexed by the response of some reviewers to the fact that this is Second World War game and another stirring tribute to the soldiers who made such horrendous sacrifices to defeat the Axis and save freedom for all. The war with Japan is especially stupendous with maniacal banzai charges that will have you running for your life and an astonishing attack accomplished as you ride on a machine gun mounted elephant. There are few too many such fantastically exciting moments to mention but time after time you will find yourself pushed to the limits of your endurance and suffering the fatigue of intense combat in unendurable environments. Beautifully produced and superbly scripted and scored, this will remain a classic for those of us who salute the brave combat veterans of the bloodiest conflicts in history. One can only hope many more World War Two games will be produced of such excellence so that we may continue to grow in our understanding of that time and our respect for what the heroes endured eternally.

Super underrated

[nathanielgendron · 9/10 · 14 June 2020]

This game set up the black ops franchise and is very good. The campaign has you play as the Soviet Union and Americans in Japan. It is a realistic game and very gritty. It is underrated and should be appreciated more.

You will find yourself going back to Call Of Duty 4

[iamforart · 6/10 · 15 December 2008]

First off I would like to say that World at War (WaW) is a great game. It is well made and polished. There really are few things wrong with it. In fact to even list anything wrong with it would be hard for me, because the problems are small and to me very insignificant.

However, WaW just fails to draw me in. It fails to make me want to play it over and over. I find myself, as well as most of my friends, going back to Modern Warfare (MW).

Why? Mainly because World War II is a tired and OVERUSED setting for shooters. You can fill a chest with the amount of WWII shooters there are out there. When I found out that the nest game in the Call of Duty (COD) series was going BACK to WWII I was upset. I kept hoping and waiting for them to say, "Ha! Just kidding!". Unfortunately that never happened. COD went back to WWII. Now I am not saying that WaW is a terrible game. In fact its really quite amazing. The graphics are beautiful. The game play is great. The story is great. BUT IT'S IN WWII!

MW was by and large a perfect game. Sure it had it's faults, but it still draws in more than a million online man hours a week. Thats amazing. MW was, and still is, the best COD game that I have ever played. I had hoped that they would make a second one instead of the irritating WaW.

I think what really turns me off onto WaW is the multiplayer. It is boring. You can walk around for literally 2 minutes before you see someone. The weapons are terrible. There is ONLY ONE good gun in the whole game (STG-44). Personally I like mixing it up everyone once in awhile. Can't do that with only one good gun. The maps, while huge, are amazing. But like I said they are huge. They still only allow up to 12 players per map(in most cases). Thats not enough. Your kill count decreases greatly because the maps are too big. The levels are all same color and feel. This dark, depressing, WWII feel. Jst gets tiring to look at. And for some reason, I found myself getting bored and frustrated at the layout of the maps. It feels as if you have to walk a million miles to get to a close location. The avatars all look the same. Sure if you compared them to each other side by side you would see big differences, but in the game its hard to tell. I can't even tell you how many times I found myself shooting my own teammates because they looked like the enemy. In MW that rarely happened.

I feel insulted that Activision let it go back to WWII. MW brought countless amounts of people to the COD franchise. It's STILL the most played shooter on the market. So why, why mess that up and take it back to the most overused genre? You have lost my respect.

I've been paying WaW ever since it came out, even before with the Beta version. After all that time I am finding myself sadly putting the game away on the shelf and happily putting Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare in my PS3 and having a blast.

In short WaW disappointed me. Thankfully Infinity Ward is making a Moder Warfare 2!

A great placeholder for the next one

[thisrockisit · 8/10 · 1 March 2009]

This game came of just as well as I expected it to be. There were very little problems I had with it so I'll start off with those.

The main problem I had with this game was that the enemy A.I. is Incredibly dumb. Enemies will run right past you and not register who's in front of them. Another problem is that the story and music was not nearly as memorable as COD 4. The moments that made COD 4 so memorable, are not as great and underused.

Despite all of these problems, This game is endlessly addicting and WAY gorier than any other COD game. It still has its very great sequences, we just need to hand this title over to Infinity Ward because they handle it very well. Still, despite it being WW2, Treyarch has pulled it off as the best WW2 game ever.

Not World War II again...

[HowlingRabbit334 · 7/10 · 19 December 2008]

This game is a really genuine shooter, with intense battles and so much more. But thing is, I, like many other folks out there, are tired of games set in World War II! I mean, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare brought something new to the series, because it's not set in the second World War. I was totally miserable when I was told this game would be set yet again in WWII. I was hoping the fifth installent of Call of Duty would be in modern times like Call of Duty 4, or even in the fictional World War III like EndWar, although Treyarch and Infinity Ward don't seem to like fictional settings.

Despite the drawbacks of this game, the battles and gameplay are pretty interesing. Multiplayer has improved with new perks, Nazi Zombies has been inserted as an extra feature, and the missions are quite fun, although a bit too WWII-ish.

All in all, Call of Duty: World at War is a game which fans of the Call of Duty series would enjoy, but not one for gamers who like advanced and sophisticated settings.

REAL COD GAME

[markosepjr · 9/10 · 2 January 2019]

Spooky music,amazing gameplay,graphics suitable for this game and bonus that went into other games. This game is like you learning the history,except you play it and enjoy it more. Why can't Activision publish COD games like this?

One of the best games yet

[barryscottishere · 9/10 · 23 December 2019]

I had brought call of duty 4 at a curiosity and it was incredible. I knew this game would be a blast. So a year later I decided to get Call if Duty World at War. It was fantastic. It contained the best soundtrack and actors. The campaign had a bloody and gritty feel to it. The characters were pretty average on the American side of the 2nd world war. But it had a great character in the game. And it was reznov. Victor Reznov. The multiplayer, well kill steaks returned with the 3, 5, 7 kills just as cod 4. Great multiplayer with all the weapons being amazing(not including mp40) maps were amazing and overall a great experience. Now nazi zombies has met its dubut at waw. It was simple not like bo4 with weird as maps. But the thing that made it shine were the characters. Nikolai being a Russian soldier, Dempsey being an American Marine Takeo being a Japanese soldier and Richthofen being a Nazi scientist. All of the game is fantastic

Treyarchs only masterpiece.

[DustinRahksi · 8/10 · 15 April 2013]

Well I just played a couple of hours of this game, why was I playing it? because Black ops 2 is complete and utter trash. I was nervous about coming back and running into hackers, well luckily I didn't play against any. I actually ended up having a truck load of fun, I mean I was so excited with how good the game runs and from the lack of modern Call of Duty BS, this game is where it's at. You can actually rush around and get great scores, in the two hours I have played on April.15, I can throughly say I had more fun playing WaW than the 3 and a half days I have playing Black ops 2. Seriously, what happened Treyarch, how did you guys screw up so bad with Blops 2. The multi-player in this game is purely gun on gun, no stupid ass kill streaks, all purpose sniper rifles, no lag cutter shot guns, no drop-shotting try-hards, no infamous Blops lag, just pure gun play. Which means I can destroy the competition. You could be on a 2 bar and still go 26 and 5, if your on a two bar in Blops 2, well I bet you know what thats like, it's an automatic rage quit. I haven't been this happy playing a shooters multi-player since MW2 or when I went back to cod 4 to take a break from MW3, that's a long time to be miserable playing shooters. It was crazy how much better I am at this game compared to Blops 2, let me rephrase that, how much less bulls***y it is than Blops 2. Man I even got 7 kills from a single artillery strike, I've never seen that before.

The Game: This is going to be brief considering how old this game is, and how trey-arch has been doing the same stuff. The guns are better than they have ever been or ever will be, nothing beats the classic ww2 weapons. They are all deadly and are very unique unlike todays cod games. The sound is also at an all time high. The classic zombies still feel more genuine and creepy than they are in latter titles. The campaign is great. The graphics still look better than any other cod.

This is my favourite CoD, it shows that simple multi-player is how this series should be, this was the last great Call of Duty, it's sad really. Try to experience it one more time before the few hundred players that remain leave.

They just don't make them like this anymore.

[martellonola · 10/10 · 13 June 2020]

Now it's all PC and doesn't show it how it was. I don't like playing like the communists were good guys though. I wish it we're all American or British soldiers. But a great game nonetheless!

Still Playing it Today

[keelhaul-80856 · 9/10 · 2 October 2017]

This game is awesome. In a period done to death, WaW revived the WW2 shooter genre, and still looks great and aged great to this very day.

I am still playing the hell out of this game online in 2017, and it is even better now, as Xbox One users have been added to the 360 lobbies. So the dying servers now jumped up, and the number of online ppl to play with pretty much doubled overnight.

The maps are a bit too big(on some), and most of the new map packs for battles or zombies just don't seem as reliable and doable as the original maps. I try to vote these out!!!

The single-player is good, but since we get to play as communist butchers of Stalin, I wish we could mix it up and play as the Japanese or Germans in some games, like they let you do in multiplayer.

As others have stated, this game is incredible and ages well, but the WW2 period may have been done to death at this point. I was surprised to hear about yet ANOTHER game, simply called WW2?

WaW and Battlefield:1943 are my faves for this genre, especially with online play.

It would be really awesome to see them stop the current warfare craze, the WW2 craze, and the space/future craze, though, and have a CoD set in another time period of interest, or to teach people more about the weapons and battles of that era. For instance, a Civil War CoD or Vietnam or WW1 would really jazz things up for a change.

Honest albeit imperfect.

[troy-daniel-bush · 8/10 · 13 March 2022]

I have no shame in saying this is the best world war two Call of Duty. Unlike its predecessors and WWII, it portrays the worst war in history the exact way it should be portrayed: dark, gritty, messy, gory, and horrifying. Also unlike its predecessors and WWII, you get to fight in the European theater and the Pacific theater. On top of this, you get the voices of Kiefer Sutherland and the great Gary Oldman, not to mention one of the best characters in the COD franchise, Reznov! Sure the dialogue could have been written better and Reznov is the only character you get attached to, but this game's focus is portraying world war two in the most realistic way possible, and that's something that it definitely accomplishes.

A classic, no doubt.

Visually impressive but in the shadow of Modern Warfare in almost every regard that matters

[bob the moo · 15 March 2009]

CoD5 was the big new release last year and I had seen all the message board debate about it for some time before that. I had played the beta version of the multiplayer ahead of release and something about it had prevented me getting excited. I let the release go by and, aside from noticing fewer people on CoD4 (and a lot of them being really good now), I didn't think much about it until someone lent me their copy for a few weeks. As with CoD4 the game operates on two levels – the game itself and the multiplayer.

I played the game first, without trying it on co-op or anything and I must say that visually it is very impressive and tense. However, as a player, I found it almost too big – and I recognise that this is personal taste speaking here, because some will love that. The comparative simplicity of the CoD4 battles made them more engaging, with CoD5, it all just felt too frantic and random – more realistic of war I suppose but less fun to play. I much preferred the level structure where the focus is smaller, rather than you as part of an army. That said I did still enjoy the levels but I did find that there were only one or two that I would return to. The zombie mode is a nice idea that adds to the game but I didn't get into it and probably didn't give it a chance to grow on me.

I wanted to get into the online games "proper". It took me a minute to get used to the differences. The guns of course are different and feel a lot more basic and even as I levelled up, they didn't seem to "feel" right. On CoD4 the weapons feel meaty and they have a tangible presence – it is hard to describe but the contrast is clear. In CoD5 they are less so and I didn't come to like them as much, and not just because of the WW2 setting. At the start I thought the maps were great as they generally are bigger and more complex, however this quickly flipped round as I got used to them. Some are almost too big and, in team games, I never really got that sense of intensity that I do on CoD4. I was surprised as well to find that, playing it many months after release, how full of annoying quirks the game was. Players would float into the sky, easily disappear under the map and other such examples. I know some glitches will always exist but these ones seemed common and really easy to access. The spawning was also an issue – the smaller maps in particular seemed to constantly put you directly in front of other players, or too close together as a team. The use of tanks adds variety to the game and I suppose their pros/cons balance out. The perks are OK but the "air strike" function was a lot less effective than in CoD4 while conversely the dogs are just too effective and are only fun when they are yours (thanks to them I got a 23-streak, a 24-1 game and a 15-0 game, all on my first day of playing – that shouldn't be right!).

In a nutshell though, I always seemed to be playing the game thinking that I could be using this time to play CoD4. And this is the problem – CoD5 is not good enough, different enough, slick enough or engaging enough to even stand as an equal of Modern Warfare, and that applies across the board. It is a matter of taste to a point but I found the game more frustrating due to technical reasons, less intense as an on-line experience, less flowing and less fun – and it is not down to me "losing", because I don't mind that so much.

So, like many others, I have returned to CoD4 and will remain there until Modern Warfare 2 comes out, which I hope can replicate the strengths and success of that game – because for my time, CoD4 just doesn't cut it, no matter how visually impressive and grand it all is.

Worst multiplayer Call of Duty ever

[morkulv_athferion · 6/10 · 21 July 2010]

I'm going to start of by saying that I liked the singleplayer-campaign for Call of Duty: World at War. Not that its anything special, but its nice to shoot your way through the campaign. Its your average World War 2 shootinggame. The multiplayer however, is by far the worst Call of Duty experience I have had.

The weapons in multiplayer are unbalanced to say the least. With some weapons you need to fire so many bullets into your opponent its ridiculous. Even in hardcore-mode (where the weapons have more 'realistic' firepower) this is unbalanced. Using your knife as a melee- attack in multiplayer is also completely useless. Usually when you try to knife your opponent your character does this weird 'jump attack' towards your enemy, and I guarantee that this move will nearly always get you killed instead. Sometimes you can even hear your knife striking the enemy, but you still end up dying. What the hell is that all about?? Its also very easy to get stuck in the scenery or behind objects, which happened to me more then just a couple of times. Bugs like these ruin what could have potentially been a good multiplayer-experience.

The biggest saving grace for me personally, is the Nazi-zombies mode. If it wasn't for this I would have quit playing this game a long time ago. This mode is unlocked once you complete the singleplayer-campaign, and I have to say its a lot of fun. The premise is that you and up to four buddies mow down waves after waves of zombies, while preventing them to get inside by bolting windows shut which gives you points. Shooting a zombie will also get you points of course (extra for headshots) which you can use to purchase weapons. You and your companions are destined to die from the beginning since the waves of zombies are never-ending, but the question is: how long can you survive? Even though many 'elite' Call of Duty players will probably don't like the Nazi-zombies mode, I think its a refreshing experience in what otherwise would have been a boring, buggy and overall flawed shootinggame. If you play Nazi-zombies with three friends online it will make for a chaotic and intense game of shooting zombies.

Would I recommend buying this game for the Nazi-zombies mode alone? Not really. If you don't count the average singleplayer-campaign it doesn't have much else to offer. The regular multiplayer with team deathmatch and similar modes will drive you insane with all the little bugs and glitches that it has. In that aspect Modern Warfare 2 does a much better job. Still, if you can get this game at a store for just a few Euro's then it might be worth checking out. I really hope that developer Treyarch will get their act together and deliver a well-programmed game with the upcoming Call of Duty game Black Ops. Until then, have fun shooting zombies!

Ura !

[Badr90s · 9/10 · 3 October 2021]

Best world war game so far, showing different prespectives on each side soviet and american but not japanese and German which lacks the process if being perfect but still great.

One of the best World War 2 games ever made

[bigbopper-29649 · 10/10 · 30 July 2020]

Call of Duty World at War is one of the best World War 2 games ever made. It shows a true experience on what World War 2 was like. The Campaign had you being the allies ( the Americans and the Russians) and you were fighting against the axis ( the Germans and the Japanese). The Multiplayer was so much fun and so enjoyable and last but not least Zombies. Zombies was the best mode in the game. There was so much things to do and the DLC maps were amazing.

Excellent Game

[DanSchneiderLovesKids · 10/10 · 16 November 2021]

Each mission feels like you've achieved something great. Both on the Soviet side and the American side, it doesn't feel like you're playing a game. It feels like you're actually there with your fellow soldiers (or comrades).

The American side doesn't have as much emotion or story, but it does make up for it with dynamic gameplay types. You fly in a plane and rescue drowning survivors from a sunken ship. You fight Japanese that are bonzai charging you. The best part: there are almost ZERO quick time events.

The Russian side doesn't have as much to offer when it comes to gameplay (except for 2 sniping missions that are really cool and a tank mission), but the story leading up to the epic climax is epic. It ends with you taking down the Nazi flag on the German parliament and replacing it with the soviet flag. TALK ABOUT AWESOME.

It's also the game that started the whole zombies aspect of COD, so gotta give them credit for that. Nacht der Untoten is dated, but it still feels really good to do well in that game. The shooting and knifing are really satisfying.

Call of Duty: World at War - Great, but with some disappointments...

[artorius-maximus · 9/10 · 14 January 2009]

Call of Duty: World at War is with little doubt, the greatest World War II game of 2008, and possibly in recent times altogether. Call of Duty: World at War, or CoD5, definitely does the World War II genre justice; it simply has that atmosphere to bring the bloodiest war in human history to life. However, despite me considering CoD5 a "great" game, it is definitely not the best of the Call of Duty series, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is the one most eligible for that title.

When I first heard that Call of Duty: World at War would return to the World War II setting of the earlier titles in the series, I had a mixed reaction, this is just after the success of Modern Warfare, and obviously it would have been a little safer to stick with a "Modern Warfare 2" than return to the Second World War. Surprisingly, this game has done quite well, even for a WWII FPS, I mean, the genre has been done so many times, one would think people would simply stop buying World War II games, but Call of Duty: World at War proves otherwise. It simply has the substance needed for a game set during the Second World War. The blood, gore, weapons, uniforms... they are all very authentic for the period.

Multiplayer is arguably CoD5's strong point, as the campaign feels inferior to that of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, probably because it is too short. Another popular aspect of the game, one of which I enjoy most, is the Nazi Zombies mini-game. It pits you against a horde of Nazi zombies, wearing uniforms with the Nazi swastika insignias on their sleeves. You know, Nazi Zombies... there's something unique about that. It seems like anything with Nazi Zombies, whether it's films, books, or video games, is unheard of. This is definitely a part of Call of Duty: World at War's originality factor, even though Nazi Zombies is not exactly part of the main game.

Despite the greatness of CoD5, there are a number of flaws as well. The horrid slit-screen co-op screen angles, some weapons such as the M1 Garand feeling imbalanced, and the awfully short campaign are a few of the obvious problems. These problems are what separates Call of Duty: World at War from the greatness of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and thus, a 10 out of 10 rating.

Call of Duty: World at War is great, but not on the level of Modern Warfare.