Play-mag: "Some would argue that games based on real-life wars – games that essentially make light entertainment from the suffering and horror of real people's lives – are inherently wrong, and they could have a point. But it's a point that we usually choose to ignore simply because we like war games. Sorry, but they're fun.
But just because we ignore the notion that it might be fundamentally wrong to use real war as a basis for fantasy entertainment, it doesn't mean we don't believe history, and the people involved in it – millions of whom sacrificed their young lives – aren't entitled to respect. The Call Of Duty series has, in the past, done a pretty good job of keeping its depictions of war appropriate, respectful and reasonably tasteful; even daring, in COD4, to force you to face your own unavoidable death. A somewhat hammy moment admittedly, but it told you an important truth about war that games usually forget. It kills people, and usually no degree of skill, talent, training or determination can change that. So yes, we thought war was in safe hands with Call Of Duty. We thought it knew that when portraying, reconstructing or simulating historical events – real lives and real deaths – there are certain lines that simply should not be crossed. We thought wrong. World At War wilfully steps over nearly all of those lines. And it doesn't seem to give a flying Focke."