Call of Duty: World at War / Game

This game is extremely fun to play and easy controls, there may be some challenging things in this game but my son has got past the hard challenges so far.

thank you just right

Good game for the really old Xbox 360 elite if you got hdim cable gameplay good details good game overall 5stars

Great game in the past and has stood the test of time. People still play it, a head of its time and lots of fun to mod

Plays on a Windows 10 PC with an Nvidia GeForce 2GB GT730 silent graphics card. Not as good as Modern Warfare but as another game that will run on a low spec machine it is fine

I love this game! Just the downside is that MANY people Do NOT play this game ANYMORE D

does what it says on the tin and YOU CAN MOD IT. i read a review that said you couldn't but spoke to some of my friends and they said you could and they were right. very happy

Excellent bought for my son and he loves it! One of the top games and keeps him amused for hours

It’s been around for A while and a must have for call of duty fans

best ww2 game ever in cod

è stato il mio primo CoD e ne sono rimasto piacevolmente colpito belle atmosfere, difficile e i nemici mostrano una buona IA un buon passatempo decisamente consigliato agli amanti del genere

1. Campaign: The game is enjoyable, very good, and ALSO VERY HARD at Veteran. The Soviet Campaign is really incredible. US Campaign is good, but not as good as Soviet's. As a US Marine, Pvt Miller you fight with the imperial Japanese soldiers, and as a Red Army soldier Pvt Dimitri Petrenko you fight with the Nazi Soldiers. 2. Features: Features are quite dull. Checkpoint system is extremely poor. Most of US weapons are useless, so you have to pick Japanese ones, like Type 100, Type 99. M1-Garand was very good though. Killing unlimited number of soldiers in the battlefield is also very frustrating. The grenades thrown by you return back due to the Enemy AI. 3. Modes: Easy - Game plays by itself. Medium - Same as above. Hard (Recommended) - The game will feel as a real war. Vereran - You wont survive unless and until you are a "Pro". 4. Misc: Anyway, I recieved the game with damaged inner area, especially the disc holder. The quality of disc is VERY NICE, but the same thing about the cover cannot be said.

With 'Black Ops' having been released this past November and becoming the highest-selling Call of Duty game in the franchise, what made me turn the clock backwards and play 'World at War'? The answer is simple: balanced gameplay. There is no doubt that the peak point of any Call of Duty game from 'Modern Warfare' and beyond is its incredible multiplayer. Well... "incredible" applying to really only 'Modern Warfare' and 'World at War'. 'Modern Warfare 2's' multiplayer took what had been established by its predecessors, tried to expand it beyond a scope of reasonable means, and ended up failing miserably creating one of the most broken multiplayer experiences of any contemporary game. 'Black Ops' fared much better, bringing more balance to the gameplay (initially) and well-designed multiplayer maps as well as probably the best campaign storyline in Call of Duty's history. The problem with 'Black Ops' was how stale gameplay became after only a few months of playtime. Treyarch exaggerated the customization of your character and, while what you can customize is innovative, it gets boring when you can simply buy everything at a low cost. 'Black Ops' currency system was an attempt to force the player to work and literally "pay" for what they wanted in their load out. The problem arose, however, that once you obtained your "Superman class" (i.e. every perk, weapon, accessories, etc. you wanted), there was little incentive to continue playing the game, and this was the point at which I sold 'Black Ops'. I ended up reverting all the way back to 'Call of Duty 4', which remains to be an excellent, innovative, challenging, and fair game to this day. But what about 'World at War'? Its status being fallen into the shadow of its big brother, CoD 4, takes away from the appreciation and respect the game deserves. With a dark setting, no humour, an entirely serious tone, an intense campaign storyline, and being the goriest of all the Call of Duty games - 'World at War' stands out amongst the quickly growing crowd of its brother and sister games. I cannot praise the storyline and single player campaign enough and, whilst I admitted that 'Black Ops' has the #1 superior campaign of all Call of Duty games, 'World at War's' comes in a very, very close second. Also of utmost importance to me (and most other players), the multiplayer is everything that it should be: 1) Fun 2) Balanced 3) Fair 4) Exciting While some in the list could be construed into the same thing, these are the four adjectives that come to my mind when thinking of 'World at War's' multiplayer. Some may disagree and exclaim that the MP40 submachine gun is imbalanced, and they are fine to think that way (personally, I find the rifles and bolt-action weapons to be more devastating than any SMG). For me, however, 'World at War' delivers the joy I felt when I played 'Call of Duty 4's' multiplayer for the first time, and *thensome*. I also originate my war-themed, first-person shooter history in 'Medal of Honor: Allied Assault' for the PC - naturally, there exists a great appreciation and appeal towards WWII-era shooters for me. In sum, 'World at War' gets a "check +" in every category and I am truly impressed with this addition to the currently dismantled 'Call of Duty' franchise steering itself into mediocre and broken oblivion. I would highly recommend this game to anyone who likes first-person shooters, is sick of 'Modern Warfare 2' and/or 'Black Ops', and enjoys balanced multiplayer gameplay.