World At War is a competent game that does a decent enough job of what it set out to achieve. The combat is decent, the story is good if a bit disjointed at times and the multiplayer is slightly flawed but otherwise brilliant. The only real thing that is stopping the game from really excelling is the fact that the setting was tiresome a couple of years ago. So now the game comes off as feeling dated and seen before. If you don't mind the unoriginal setting then by all means you should pick this up but otherwise you might be better off sticking to Modern Warfare.
Huzaifa from eXputer: "2008 was home to the likes of Call of Duty: World at War, Dead Space, GTA 4, Far Cry 2, Left 4 Dead, and many other hits, which is outright remarkable."
Just about every year in the 7th generation was great and something we most likely won't experience again.
2009 for example had Assassin's Creed 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dragon Age: Origins, Uncharted 2, Halo 3: ODST, Killzone 2, Borderlands, Bayonetta, and Demon's Souls to name a few.
A very devoted fan of Call of Duty: World at War racks up incredible in-game stats while playing regularly for the past 15 years.
Of course you will hit a ridiculous stat after 15 of anything.
My main character for Everquest had over 500 days played in the first 6 years of the game. I was young then and had a lot of time on my hands. I don’t think I could duplicate that again until I retire and not sure I could match it if I tried.
Gamespot : Call of Duty: Vanguard launches with 20 multiplayer maps, three of which are actually remakes from 2008's Call of Duty: World at War. Let's take a look at how the maps have changed with this side-by-side comparison.