Call of Duty: World at War (Xbox 360, 2008)

PROS:
Intense combat situations with lots of booms and bangs everywhere
Great graphics, thanks to the COD 4 engine
Great combat scenarios (inside the Reichtag, Japanese trenches)
Good single player campaign (about 8 hours long)
Great multiplayer, a lot like COD 4 but WWII style
Nazi Zombie Co-op Survival mode is a great add on
Lots of weapons to pick up and swap
The overpowered flamethrower (one shot, all burned!)
The concept of the whole game is a great one

CONS:
Numerous glitches and bugs (patches are coming out to fix them)
Sometimes the AI is really dumb
Sounds can be a little flat and chunky at times
I many times couldn’t say who was friend and who was foe
Some parts are a little bit cheesy

OVERALL THOUGHTS:
You can’t speak of this game without mentioning that is almost completely based on Call of Duty 4. It is like playing a WWII total conversion modification of last years best FPS, which in the end is actually a really good thing.

You should know that the developers of this game are the same guys behind Call of Duty 3 (which is considered to be the worst COD in the series). Infinity Ward did not have to do with this project and the lack of polished details shows a lot throughout the game. The game tries to make his own version of COD 4 WWII style, and for parts it works quite well, but it sometimes it just feels a little bit forced. Now don’t get me wrong, this game is pretty good. I had a lot fun with it and the combat intensity for which the COD franchise is known is intact.

Bottom line is that if COD 4 received 95/100, COD: World at War would get an 85/100. It is a great game worth playing, but the numerous glitches and rough edges prevent it to be an excellent game.

Call of Duty : World At War is a great first person shooter. Fans of Call of Duty : Modern Warfare should be pleased with this game as well. The controls are the same as COD4, so it's easy to pick right up. I have played a lot of COD4, in fact it is my favorite game on the Xbox 360. This title did not disappoint me. Game play is great, the missions are even more challenging than before on the Veteran level, and they once again put you in many different scenarios. You could be a ground troop, tank operator, gunner on a plane, and more.

The online multiplayer vs modes are much like Call of Duty : Modern Warfare. You gain experience to rank up and unlock new perks, weapons, and attachments. It's very addicting. They have also added multiplayer co-op mode where you can take on some of the single player missions with the help of your friends. There's even an unlockable Nazi zombie mode. Very fun.

The only thing I don't like about this game, compared to Call of Duty : Modern Warfare, is the weapons themselves. I don't mean they are bad, but modern weapons are more accurate and I find them more fun. For that reason only, I would say Call of Duty : Modern Warfare may be a better choice if you have never played either game. I own both, and plan to keep both.

This game is so much better than COD4 some awesome guns for multiplayer to unlock story line is the best cod story line ever and you can even split screen CO OP THE WHOLE CAMPAIGN !!!!!!!

Call of Duty: World at War is basically an extension of COD4: new maps, new guns, etc. The multiplayer builds on the successful layout of COD4 and adds to it. While not an exhaustive list, additions include the ability to pilot vehicles, more custom weapons slots, and a zombie mode. While some may be content with COD4, COD5 freshens up a great game. I give it a "Good" rather than "Excellent" because it is basically COD4 but in WWII. I suggest, as with any video game, to rent it first; try before you buy.

This First Person Shooter has the best online play ever invented! You will team up with players from around the world and the action is intense. Extremely realistic! A MUST HAVE!

You can pick this game up used on ebay for a bargain and will not be disappointed in the least!

Good luck and happy gaming!

I don't like Treyarch and when people ask me why, I use this game as my reference. But, before I dive into the bad, let me talk about the good.

Treyarch is responsible for Call of Duty 3, the worst Call of Duty ever, so I didn't have too much hope for this one. When I played the campaign, however, I was stunned. The graphics are great, the action is great and there's plenty of vareity. There are your average missions where you have a machine gun and mow people down, but there's also missions where you snipe, drive a tank and ride in a plane and shoot down Japanese planes. So it is quite entertaining.

The online playing is cool. You get to rank up and unlock new guns and perks and make your own classes.....just like in Call of Duty 4. Wait, is this a WWII add on for Call of Duty 4? Seriously, they took all of Infinity Wards ideas, threw in terrible maps, added WWII guns and put their name on it.

About the maps. They have so many glitches on them, it's like Treyarch didn't even test them. There are spots where you can run at a wall and fall under the map. Oh, and floaty glitches. Can't forget those. You go to a certain spot, kneel and hold A and you float high into the air. Makes sense. Plus, not to mention, if you play Search and Destroy like me, you will get spawn noob tubed...a lot. You can spawn tube on literally every map. It's really exciting.

Now, Treyarch did add their own details to the game in the form of terrible perks. There's Shades which makes flares not effect you and Gasmask which makes Tabun Gas not effect you. What's the point? There's a few other terrible ones. Plus they added vehicle perks. That's right. There are tanks in this game and what's great is how people spam them.

Overall, this game is fine. I'd give it an 8 out of 10 if Call of Duty 4 didn't exist, but since it's such a copy game, it gets a 7 out of 10.

Short Answer: Awesome Game.
Long Answer: Well, this game plays and looks a lot like Infinity Ward's COD 4: MW but its a throwback (yet again ¬_¬) to the epic of WWII. The weaponry system is overhauled and allows much more flexibility and unlockables. There are now more stages to the challenges and a ton more weapons than Modern Warfare offered. The only downside to this game is that it is set in WWII era with WWII weapons, and thats only bad if you honestly care about it. Ive not tested this game out more than about an hour or two, but I see myself playing it a lot, just as I have played COD 4 hundreds of hours.

Oh and the Multiplayer level cap is now lvl 65 w/ 10 prestiege options! :D

What I like about this game is the layout and additional weapons, the story line is great. Some of the newer weapons are great, and until you play online it's a decent game.

Once you enter the online version everything goes south except for the weapons. You can't play unless you find a spot and camp out. While playing online and compared to COD 4, I found very poor quality graphics, the view is too distant, and the kids have already found some glitches.

I've played all of the COD games for XBox and in my opinion this has the poorest graphic resentation of anyone of the previous. It's almost like XBox threw a game together to sell.

I went back to playing COD 4 online and am thinking about relisting this item on ebay...it's that bad.

Call of Duty: World at War once again delivers sophisticated, class-based, online multiplayer action that has made the series famous. New additions include vehicle combat with tanks, and Call of Duty: World at War rounds out the multiplayer experience with improved features, such as persistent stats, player rankings, upgradeable weapons, squad-based gameplay, customized classes, enhanced perks, and more.

After Call of Duty 3, many longtime series fans -- myself included -- were skeptical at the prospect of future Treyarch-developed titles. Call of Duty 3 disappointed a lot of players -- especially when Call of Duty creator Infinity Ward's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare came out just a year later and blew it out of the water. Call of Duty 3 didn't bring enough to the franchise to make it feel like much more than a generic retread of Call of Duty 2. This time around, though, Treyarch hits us with a solid game, taking several cues from Modern Warfare and crafting something that manages to stand on its own as the most visceral Call of Duty to date...even if it's still a few paces behind Infinity Ward's offerings.
The war-torn cities of Europe and the jungles of the South Pacific never looked so good: From the between-level loading screens to the actual in-mission visuals, World at War looks well on par with Modern Warfare. Not that I'm surprised, since they share the same engine -- which flexes its power to display lush jungles and destroyed cities, as opposed to shantytowns in a fictional Middle Eastern country. And while this is the best-looking World War II shooter I've ever played, beautiful settings are only a small portion of what makes the game so striking.

To begin with, World at War brings to life elements of WWII that its predecessors left mostly untouched. While enemies died en masse in previous installments, dismemberment and gore were essentially nonexistent. That's no longer the case -- here, legs are severed, men cry out in agony as they reach for lost body parts, and gouts of blood fly as bullets pierce flesh. World at War portrays the horror of WWII more accurately than ever before, and it even comes across as almost too much at times...until you remember that real servicemen actually witnessed similar events. Several other moments stand out beyond basic combat gore; shocking executions (men being set on fire -- ouch), Japanese ambushes, and brutal hand-to-hand battles remind you that WWII wasn't just a glorious victory for the Allies, but also a horrible event that viciously ended many young lives. I find World at War's portrayal mostly respectful (if a little repetitive), and it does a good job of showing just how evil -- and heroic -- humans can be.

The battles in the single-player campaign get pretty bloody, but they engage more than just your gag reflex. Treyarch's crafted levels with plenty of grandiose battle scenes -- like the Russians' siege of Berlin and an assault on a Japanese castle -- whose sheer scales help mask the fact that World at War's an extremely linear shooter. My problem with these levels is the same problem I've had with every other Call of Duty: They're unflinchingly punitive at times. Checkpoints are plentiful (thank the maker!), but that didn't curb my rage when an unstoppable barrage of grenades rained down or when enemies ignored my A.I. allies, despite the fact that they were closer targets. It was like I was wearing some sort of "Screw the Axis" T-shirt, prompting unforeseen anger akin to that of a charging bull to a matador. It really pulls you out of the game when enemies act in ways that just don't make a lick of sense.

While this mode left an indelible presence in my mind, the multiplayer -- against other players, at least -- still isn't good enough to warrant players moving on from Modern Warfare. I can't quite pin down what it is, but as someone who's put hour upon hour in

Ok, first of all you cannot use the Carbine anywhere other than the Rifleman class,so basically you cannot use it in create-a-class. Then once you prestiege, the gun is basically gone. But you can use it if you make a neww account.Wasnt what I expected and hope his review helps.

After getting involved into the Call of Duty series for the first time with a bunch of buddies online with COD4 there was a lot of reluctance to jump into COD WOW. The move back to WWII has most of the playing group worried about the old time guns and lack of fun that Modern Warfare acheived in online play. But, the storyline of WWII intrigues me so I made the jump first. I'm now in recruiting mode trying to move the rest of my buddies over and have sold COD4 already as I don't see going back.

The storyline so far is great, the one thing lacking I would say is in depth involvment. You jump between what seems to be very random missions with different characters that you play, a couple US and a couple Russian. You never get connected to a character which I would have liked. But the missions are very engaging, graphics are a step up over COD4 I think. Playing engine is exactly like COD4 and why mess with something that isn't broken? Good move.

The online play is as engaging as ever. Yes the guns are not as advanced, I miss my M16 3 shot deadly accurate bursts a lot....but I replace it with long range single shot bursts. The thing is, everyone has the same guns, so it makes it fun regardless of a "step down" in technology due to the times. I'm not that big of a fan of the tanks and vehicles portion of multi playerj, but I can get over it. Also don't like the dogs attack which is not realistic at all. The spawn points can get annoying as people will camp over them, but I get over it pretty quickly. It seems so far that the playing field is a little more even in online play which I enjoy. The hardcore gamers may not like it, but the beginners and casual players will get a few kills which I think makes it more fun.

Overall great game for me and as mentioned WOW is now my game and COD4 won't be turned on again for me.

Best game of 2008, yes better than Gears of War 2. If you like Call of Duty 4, then this game is for you. The makers of this game have taken the COD4 engine to new heights. Better graphics, audio, and the introduction of COOP modes makes this game shine. It even has zombies. 94/100

Call of Duty is my favorite shooter game of all time. If you liked CoD 4: Modern Welfare, you'd like this one too. A lot of people say they don't like how its in "modern" time but hey! Its cool with me.

This is by far one of the best first person shooters on the market. I loved Cod 4, and never thought I would like the old school warfare more, but they did an amazing job with everything and made my new favorite game (level 33 in 2 days)

I got my code within 3mins of ordering. Very quick. GREAT SELLER. He sends you an email with the code and a copy of your reciept. I recommend buying everything possible from this guy. LOL

Seller answered my questions, was able to use the beta within minutes! Works for US or UK!!! AWESOME!!

He is a great seller. The item he was selling is the exact thing I received and I got it within seconds. I highly recommend him to everyone.

Thanks again.

Modern warfare was awesome for multiplayer and had an all-right campaign. World at War has an all-right campaign, but terrible multiplayer. The adding of tanks to multiplayer maps is ridiculous, even to the point where you have to shoot 4 RPG's at it for it to go down. (You get two when you have that perk). Another annoying part of the game is the downloadable content. There are already two map packs out that go for 800 Microsoft points each. If you choose to not purchase them (like I have) then you will get kicked out of about 1/4 of the games you join because they play on one of those maps... If you have COD 4: Modern Warfare stick with it. This game is not worth it. Stick it out until Modern Warfare 2 comes out.

This first-person-shooter has taken all of my favorite aspects of shooters and combined them into one solid game.

The campaign mode is intense and engaging. Unlike the previous Call of Duty games which focused on the European theater of World War II, World at War drops you head first into the Pacific battles that raged across the Asian continent. It gives the player the opportunity to experience an often overlooked aspect of the war.

While the campaign is a fantastically built story with many challenges, the online game play is where this game moves past its competition. Giving many options of game play types, the online matches are fast-paced and exciting. What makes the multiplayer so great is the game's nearly perfected balance between weapons and upgrades. Whether you are using a bolt-action rifle or a sub-machine gun, the weapon alone will not determine the outcome of the match.

Customization is one other feature that enhances multiplayer in ways other games have not allowed. As you play in multiplayer matches, new weapons and perks can be unlocked to help enhance your character's class. During and at the beginning of each match, the player can switch between custom made classes to use for the online game. This allows the player to not only show off the weapons and bonuses they have unlocked, but it also allows on the fly class changes.

World and War is a combination of the past-paced action of a Halo game while also simultaneously giving the same sense of immersion and realism that the Battlefield series gave us. Overall, I would give this one a 9/10. It is a truly great play through for single-player/co-op and it is phenomenal for its multiplayer functions.

Taking a really long time to ship the item i ordered. Seller said that will be here in about 2 to 3 days, it has been about a week and still have not gotten the game i bought.

ok you probably have heard this alot "its good.... but not as good as call of duty 4"

the reason they say this is because the are still infatuated by all of the "New" weapons of cod4(Modern warfare).

but call of duty 5 is like halo 3 compared to halo 2.... its not that much better... but its the same game with different weapons and different maps....

so if you like ww2 then this is the game that will stay in your xbox for months....

if you absolutely hate ww2.... buy a cheap one without the box or somthing.... its still as good as cod 4.....

This is a SOLID game. Seriously. As in my title I won't bore you with what everyone else has already stated. Yes it's basically a copy of COD 4 placed in WW II setting, so lets leave it at that. If you're bored to death with WW II games you're probably not going to think this is the greatest game ever. It's been beat to death and I don't blame you.

So let me get on to some of the points that haven't been mentioned why COD WAW is a truly good game.

Zombies. Everybody loves shooting zombies. Finishing the campaign lets you unlock a bonus game of blasting away at Nazi zombies. Not for everyone, but awfully fun if you've got some friends on xbox live.

Co-op. There are several co-op modes for the campaign that all games should be including. First is local co-op in which 2 people can join on the same xbox and help beat the levels. Second is xbox live co-op. Even better is the ability for you and 3 others to team up over xbox live and work to complete the campaigns. You also can earn experience points to take with you to regular multiplayer gaining rank and unlocking weapons and extras. You can possibly be a level 12 without ever playing an xbox live match.

Achievements. Some hate em, I love em. COD WAW has some really fun achievements. Sure if you want the full 1000, you have to beat the campaign on veteran. I get killed within 10 seconds even though I'm pretty good, so I'm always looking for the achievements that keep my score up there with the pros. There are plenty to unlock through the regular campaign, and some really fun ones to come back to later. Gunslinger and the Professional were 2 in one level that I'm particularly proud of that anyone can complete.

So there you go. COD WAW is what it is. It is not COD 4. It's a WW II first person shooter with a lot of extras that everyone seems to overlook. I haven't traded in my COD 2, COD 3, or COD 4 in yet and I won't with COD WAW either. They all were good in their own way, and all deserve a place in your collection.