Quantcast

Call of Duty: World at War


Every inch a "proper" Call of Duty game, this is a great WWII shooter

Multiplayer is split between adversarial (deathmatch etc) and co-operative play. Co-op, although not as popular as the versus multiplayer right now is a solid experience. Finding a game is easy enough and once you’re hooked up there’s plenty of fun to be had. Our favourite has to be the competitive mode that allows you and friends to battle over a number of levels racking up high scores. Providing you don’t end up with a bunch of jerks who spend their whole time nabbing the best weapons, you’ll be able to sink just as much time into this as the main single player. The ace card World At War has up its sleeve is the Nacht der Untoten mode that allows you and your buddies to defend a creepy house against waves of Nazi zombies. Yes, it’s a bit silly next to the oh-so-serious setting of the main campaign (in fact, we think it’s a little insensitive) but after hours of blissful zombie-dismembering we’re glad the mode is there. And you will be too.



However, the thing you’ll be logging on to long after everything else is the versus multiplayer, which is – as you’d expect – very much the same as it was in Modern Warfare. One concern many had before the game was released is that die-hard CoD4 fans would be reluctant to migrate over to World At War. Well, for now at least, these fears should be swept away. Servers are always busy (especially if you want to play popular modes like Headquarters, Sabotage and regular team deathmatch), and maps are mostly simple enough to allow new-comers a fair shot at the guys who have already ploughed hours into multiplayer, learning every level inside out.

Having said that, genuine Call of Duty virgins will find it tough to make headway in the multiplayer as all the skills learned in previous CoDs are very, very transferable. We’re no slouches with a rifle, but we had our asses handed to us time and time again for the first couple of hours. And there’s only so much angry Keifer Sutherland voiceover (he voices Sergeant Roebuck in the main game, and is therefore the chap who barks orders at you in multiplayer) you can take before getting a little upset. Some of the unbalanced Perks certainly don’t help - the attack dogs spring instantly to mind - and the fact that powerful short-range weapons like the trench gun and double barreled shotgun feel extremely underpowered is frustrating.



Newbies will be pleased to hear you can level up your online profile by blasting through the co-op multiplayer as well as the versus, so if you’re struggling to hold your own, it’s best to hunt a few zombies or sorch the odd Banzai warrior with friends before heading back in with the big boys.

All in all World at War delivers. It isn’t a revolution in Call of Duty gaming, but neither is it a step backwards, like some have claimed. Right now, it’s the best WWII shooter we’ve played, largely because it’s got a solid (if unoriginal) single player, some spectacular multiplayer, and oh yeah: because it’s brutal as hell.

Nov 13, 2008

You'll love
  • Extremely brutal gunplay
  • Great weapon variety
  • Pacific and European theaters
You'll hate
  • Nothing new
  • It's no CoD4
  • Sometimes shoddy level design

 
20 Comments
Order Comments: Newest First | Oldest First
Gourdmaster  - 11 months 29 days ago 
Freaking awesome, first
Yourself  - 11 months 29 days ago 
I hate this one. I'm glad that I had the beta it saved me $50. I guess I will play COD4 til CoD6 comes out. I hope Infinity Ward make them from now on.
Ps3_Addict  - 11 months 28 days ago 
I'm getting this game tomorrow. LONG LIVE COD!!
Blinder  - 11 months 28 days ago 
Is it just me or is anyone else tired of single player being chosen second fiddle in games nowadays?
Blinder  - 11 months 28 days ago 
Is it just me or is anyone else tired of single player being chosen second fiddle in games nowadays?
secondshooter  - 11 months 28 days ago 
You're not alone Blinder. As much time as I put into multiplayer, it sometimes bugs me when that's all the dev focuses on. I think devs need to start putting an equel effort into singleplayer.
DeadGirls  - 11 months 28 days ago 
If I can tear myself away from Fallout 3 for five minutes I think I might get this game when it becomes available on Steam. Although by then it will have to compete with Left4Dead!
I love how it has coop, ALL games should have it. It was the saving grace in RB6:V 2.

@single player being second fiddle:
I agree that most games should try to do either or, but not both. Brothers in Arms: HH is an example of a game with a nice single player, but tacked on, shitty, multiplayer.
FarCry 2, amazingly, does both well (its multiplayer modes and community support are great).
magicwalnuts0  - 11 months 27 days ago 
Great review. I'll be sure to not get this game and stick to Infinity Ward's masterpieces. I loved United Offensive for it's awesome vehicle based multiplayer, but I'm tired of seeing the same old rehashed Infinity Ward experiences that Activision seems dead set in cashing in on.
Blinder  - 11 months 27 days ago 
thanks for the tip on brothers in arms, and farcry Deadgirls now i know what to look for im so sick of the 10 hour completion time in games now.
FMF_Sea_Dog  - 11 months 24 days ago 
What kind of review was that? Not a word about all the problems that thousands of people are having with this game. From the "Black Screens of Death" to Multiplayer servers loosing your profile and having to start from scratch. Not to mention that there is absolutely "NO" support from either Treyarch or Activision. And you guys give it a good review. How much are they paying you guys for this? Whatever happened unbiased reporting? You guys use to be a good magazine.
anduin1  - 11 months 19 days ago 
yea im passing on this one myself, Im tired of WWII and its just the same COD4 engine so might as wlel just play COD4
herodotus2006  - 11 months 19 days ago 
If you're a CoD fan and you pass on this on principle, you're doing yourselves an injustice. It's a very good game, and yes very brutal...maybe too much so. The CTD's and MP problems? Haven't seen them, so don't generalize. Overall, a good review of a top shelf game.
GaMeZ4LiFe  - 10 months 20 days ago 
I think they did a great job on this game and even if it is set in the times of 1-3 I do enjoy that they added the pacific theatre which was a pleasent surprise.
officerTJhooker  - 10 months 12 days ago 
COD games are awsome i
hope they make more
musashi1596  - 10 months 11 days ago 
I tell you, this game on Veteran is probably the hardest i've ever played.
anduin1  - 10 months 7 days ago 
I played it and single player was bland, I dont know about everyone else but Im getting bored of these railway type shooters that only let you follow 1 path. Its like you have to take a bunker but you can only come at it from the front...wtf, online is the only redeeming feature and even then cod4 is better
Humpfester  - 8 months 2 days ago 
This has to be the worst COD released yet, you can see its a console hand me down, very disappointed
SOUTHPARKKENNY4LIFE  - 5 months 1 day ago 
I read it and it sounds so good I might get it for my birthday
GMAN2  - 2 months 22 days ago 
Stop with the shit about WWII. It's unlike any other WWII shooter to me.
applejohn  - 2 months 12 days ago 
god damn
This video player requires Flash 9 Player or later. Please download the latest Flash Player.
The Knowledge
Call of Duty: World at War
Call of Duty: World at War

Genre: Shooter
Release date: Nov 11, 2008
Published by: Activision
Developed by: Treyarch
Franchise: Call of Duty
Multiplayer Modes:
Offline
1 player SOLO
Online
32 player VS
4 player CO-OP
9 AWESOME
Read the review
Latest Articles About This Game
Every inch a "proper" Call of Duty game, this is a great WWII shooter
PC Review  -  Nov 13, 2008