Default Prime


Default Prime Review: Call of Duty: World at War


call-of-duty-world-at-war-multiplayer-detailedCall of Duty is something that most gamers know about and have played before. Call of Duty is all about war, guns, Nazi’s, and online multiplayer fun. Last year gamers were introduced into something new and different, modern warfare. This came in the form of, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. In modern warfare, you weren’t in a World War I or II setting, but rather, in the Middle East where a “Ultranationalist” movement has instigated a civil war in Russia. This was, and is still one of the most played games on Xbox Live, and there’s no wonder why.

With the most recent installment of the Call of Duty series, World at War takes the game back to the good old World War II setting. This could be a double-edged sword, as gamers have so many World War whatever games to play that it’s not even funny, but the game might make up with the amazing online multiplayer, okay single player story, and what’s that….zombies!?

What makes World at War tolerable for being a World War II game is that the game doesn’t focus on D-Day, or Normandy for the 1,000th fucking time. Instead of all of the cliche scenarios, the game goes from island to island. You campaign on the Pacific, all of the way to the Fall of Berlin. With these new locations, it takes away the dullness of the already-used locations in previous Call of Duty games.

The single player story in World at War is, well, kind of stupid. There are really no compelling characters or locations like that of previous title, it leaves you to think “What the hell am I doing not playing online?”. That is the main flaw in the game. At moments, you get some of the excitement or scenes in Modern Warfare, but there are just too little, and not enough to keep you going through the whole game knowing, or even caring for what’s going on.

Overall, it’s best to stay away from the single player, unless you are really, really compelled to do absolutely nothing, and have no motivation to do it at all. I’ve played through it only because I had to, because I couldn’t tell you how bad the single player really is without playing it. You could say that the co-op campaign could redeem the shitty single player campaign, but it’s something you’ll need to have a friend around in order to have a lot fun with it.


Of course, the single player campaign is only a small portion of the overall game. You’ve got the amazing multiplayer aspect. If you were a hardcore, heavy player of the Modern Warfare online multiplayer, then you won’t be too shocked. Not much has changed in the online mode except for the new maps and weapons, so nothing new was brought into the game. This fact is kind of disappointing, but it works perfectly for the game. At least the game is based upon a solid foundation, and fixes some of the flaws (if there were any) in the Modern Warfare online multiplayer.

The worst part of World at War’s multiplayer experience is that the maps are a lot bigger than that of Modern Warfare. This is a big pain in the ass if you are only playing with 1 or 2 other players. This absolutely kills the amazing tight-knit areas that were in Modern Warfare, where you always had to watch your back around every corner, and the game was a lot more tense to play.

Then there’s the long-awaited extra mode called Nacht der Untoten, or Night of the Undead. This is also referred to as “Nazi Zombies”. This is where you and up to three other people are in bunker and are holding your own against a whord of zombies. You go to each door and window and shoot all of the zombies while repairing your bunker, saving your friends, and upgrading your weapons. You gain points for killing the zombies and for rebuilding the barricades, which is how you upgrade your weapons, and access other parts of the bunker. Eventually, the zombies will kill you, but your goal is to hold up as long as you can and rank up in the leaderboards.

The gameplay is obviously the same as it’s been for every single other Call of Duty game ever released, but it obviously works, and I prefer it over a mouse and keyboard any day. The graphics have also taken a tiny step up from Modern Warfare, but as always look great and detailed.


In conclusion, the Call of Duty: World at War took many steps back from what Modern Warfare accomplished. Not to say that the game is bad, but everything that was good in the game was already out in Modern Warfare, and it’s good because it works. It worked before, and it works now. With a terrible single player campaign, and a sub-par online multiplayer, this will definitely not replace Call of Duty: Modern Warfare for most people. Fans of the series should rent the game, and see how it is, but definitely not buy it straight up unless you have the money.

What’s Good:

What’s Bad:

Default Prime is an independent video game website that is dedicated to bringing you the latest news, reviews, editorials, features, and video content on a daily basis. We like to keep things relaxed enjoy chatting and hanging out with our readers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>