Call of Duty: World at 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.

Perhaps the guys at Treyarch haven't surpassed its predecessor's bar, but it really was too high. Nevertheless, this does not mean Call of Duty: World at War is not a very good game, it is indeed one of the best of its genre, and no shooter fan should miss it.

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.

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.

Call of Duty: World at War may not be another Modern Warfare, but its still a very well-developed game with plenty of fun to be had.

The campaign's quick-paced action and violent nature will entice any FPS fan. [Jan 2009, p.75]

Ultimately, the single player campaign is atrocious and I had a rotten time playing it. It seems to take everything that was frustrating about Modern Warfare, magnify those elements, and then leave out the interesting objectives, characters that matter, and anything that leaves a lasting impression beyond anger and disappointment.

when call of duty were focusing on real men and dont take a Consideration of the feelings because thats what happend in WWII + not like today removing every **** sign just for people feelings (if the care about there own feeling they should have not played the game, thats history, dont make it up) blood shed, true war, very dark beautiful anthems, true historical cutscenes, the Mission(Vendetta) is inspired by a true legendary Soviet Sniper called (Vasily Zaitsev) and inspired by the movie (Enemy At The Gates) + don’t forget that this is the first cod that brought us (Zombies)… the OG one

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

A fantastic campaign and fun zombies mode is what made this game stand out at the time alongside its fun multiplayer that despite being fun wasn't as impressive as its predecessor Call of Duty 4

A too generic shooter. The story is too short and the multiplayer is not at the level of the other games in the saga.

This rendition of the CoD franchise sees me frustrated at the poor AI in the solo campaign - especially on the so-called 'veteran' difficulty. Juggling grenades that the enemy throws at you soon turns into a clown worthy juggling act, if you weren't to die a billion times during the same skit, it'd have a comedic value. The allied AI is terrifyingly rubbish. They may occasionally throw grenades back, but they are slow to use them, they may also get in the way. On earlier difficulties, it's a fun shooter, but from Hardened onwards, it's a major chore that eventually becomes frustrating the extreme.