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 11, 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

 
62 Comments
Order Comments: Newest First | Oldest First
jar-head  - 11 months 29 days ago 
i think they rushed this, but until hell freezes over, war games wont be getting old anytime soon, thanks GR for the review. but wheres end war? lol
the_real_fluke  - 11 months 29 days ago 
so basically, its more of the same, but different?
cant wait
bron1417  - 11 months 29 days ago 
different is better. getting it.
purpleshirt  - 11 months 29 days ago 
the demo scared me
sitting in a bombed out building artillery shells landing all around,
bullets flying through the windows
it was gritty
and was quite shocking
TrIp13G  - 11 months 29 days ago 
I'm glad I'll be getting this next month...
DampedVirus  - 11 months 29 days ago 
Waiting for CoD6, amirite?
MobstahLobstah  - 11 months 29 days ago 
^
YES.
volrath46656  - 11 months 29 days ago 
So is the next CoD going to be titled as #5 or #6? And where does this game stand in the series if the next one is going to be CoD5?
skyguy343  - 11 months 29 days ago 
maybe this is the "Rock the 80's" of CoD. This still looks awesome but id rather play the sequek to Cod 4
Jbo87  - 11 months 29 days ago 
"the single player campaign clocks in at a measly six-or-so hours." - These sort of statements really confuse me. i'd probably agree that six hours is a bit short short however Gears 2 was slated as being bloated at 8. Working on that logic then developers should only be making games 8 hours long to clinch those perfect 10's.
Jbo87  - 11 months 29 days ago 
^ meant 7 hours btw.
jimsondanet  - 11 months 29 days ago 
8 hours?! that sucks no game should be that short
i really dont think il buy gears now
oh well
fallout has over 100 i hear, but then again im no completionist
stat buffin too that of a demi god however
oreomonkey  - 11 months 29 days ago 
wow... i have this game and i rented far cry 2.
how does this get the same frekin score as far cry 2. yah i an understand this getting a 9 because its not as cod4 but c'mon its way better than far cry 2 and battlefield: bad company is better than it and got a worse score?!?!?! what is up with that
oreomonkey  - 11 months 29 days ago 
wow... i have this game and i rented far cry 2.
how does this get the same frekin score as far cry 2. yah i an understand this getting a 9 because its not as cod4 but c'mon its way better than far cry 2 and battlefield: bad company is better than it and got a worse score?!?!?! what is up with that
oreomonkey  - 11 months 29 days ago 
double post?
pimlicosound  - 11 months 29 days ago 
Contrary to what oreomonkey thinks, if COD:WAW gets the same score as Far Cry 2, I can only assume that COD:WAW is an excellent game.

I loved FC2 - a huge story mode with unparalleled flexibility for FPS games and the best graphics on X360. But you get out what you put in. I was patient with it and had the imagination to try interesting things, and the pay-off was great.
slayaz  - 11 months 29 days ago 
I thought BF was utter sh*te, first game I've traded in a while.

Won't be getting this though, just not enough originality for me.

I'm sure it will be a hit, but too many other games to try before this.
oreomonkey  - 11 months 28 days ago 
Far Cry 2 is not as good as this dont listen to him its garbage... well not THAT bad but its not as good as this if ur deciding which one to get..GET THIS!
Cwf2008  - 11 months 28 days ago 
Well a 9 huh? 3 more than it should have got...seriously is Treyarch too scared to make a Vietnam game?
Cwf2008  - 11 months 28 days ago 
Well hopefully the real Call of Duty 5 (not this hunk of crap) will be made by Infinity Ward and actually be good
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
2 player CO-OP
Online
18 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
Xbox 360 Review  -  Nov 11, 2008