Good standard Call of Duty game. First in the series of CoD games to have Natzi zombie (side game) maps.

The single player is definately better than Call of Duty 4(and that's a fact). IMO, Treyarch made COD4's engine look way better in this game. They added more detail in everything like the water and soldiers. Multi player is the same. I like the seven kill streak and getting the dogs.

If you've played Call of Duty games before then the control scheme will be instantly familiar and the weapons from past titles, such as the M1 Garand and the Browning Automatic Rifle make a predicable, but welcome, return.

Cinematic visuals and soundtrack; Great A.I makes it a rewarding challenge; Brilliant co-op and multiplayer modes

Extremely tough in places

Call of Duty: World at War is a lot like its predecessor, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. In most respects, this is a good thing. The guns are tightly tuned, the tone is gritty and mature, and the action is exciting and fast-paced.

Gritty; exciting story; Same excellent multiplayer system; Four-player cooperative campaign; Bayonets and flamethrowers; Nazi Zombies

Familiar setting; Familiar game mechanics; Familiar guns

Throughout the history of the Call of Duty games, developer Infinity Ward has created each major version of the game and then handed things off to Treyarch to handle the expansions and minor sequels.

In conclusion, if you're looking for a new single player title and have never played MGS, there's nothing in the market that is worth buying more than this. Regardless of whether this is the first time you're playing through the game or the hundredth, MGS HD Collection proves to be an emotional...

were sky high to say the least. This game isn't being developed by Infinity Ward though, with development being handled by Treyarch, developers of

Call of Duty: World at War , surprisingly, lives up to its predecessor. It loses a few points for lack of originality and while it doesn't have the same freshness that Call of Duty 4 had, it's ability to throw gamers into WWII battles that haven't yet been realised in a game is encouraging.

Modern War was a difficult title to follow up. Therefore in that sense World at War is a little lacking to one of the best first person shooters, at least in my opinion. That is why I do not truly see this as a follow up, especially since Modern War 2 is the true follow up to CoD 4.

When Infinity Ward released Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare back in 2007, the developer was met with critical acclaim and praise for breaking away from the World War II setting that had started to bog down the once revolutionary series.

Great campaign with a variety of missions; excellent replay value; tons of multiplayer options; exceptional production values

A few random, irritating glitches; World War II setting won't appeal to everyone