Poll: Call of Duty 4 or Call of Duty 5?

Recommended Videos

Kyuumi

New member
Jan 12, 2009
164
0
0
Call of Duty 4 because the P90 has to be the sexiest weapon in the world, plus online is a lot better in COD4.

Infinity Ward made a slowly fading franchise into a fantastic. online experience that we all have to love!
 

Berndawg69

New member
Nov 19, 2008
95
0
0
neoman10 said:
Berndawg69 said:
t
neoman10 said:
Enigmers said:
Not to nitpick here, but there is no "5" in "Call of Duty: World at War."

That aside, I have played very little of CoDWaW, however, you can't go wrong with CoD4, it's a hell of a game.
oh god not this again


Wikipedia said:
Call of Duty: World at War is a first-person shooter video game. It is developed by Treyarch and published by Activision for Microsoft Windows, Nintendo DS, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, Wii and Xbox 360. It is the fifth installment in the Call of Duty series
that may be, but that does not mean that it is CoD5, look at GTA series for exa,ple or even F.E.A.R., which will show you that it is the topsy turvy-ness of the corporate world that is the cause of these cases, there are over 7 installments of GTA, yet GTA4 just came out, the reason for the numbers is to let the consumer know that the game has something thats actually new, and not just new areas or weapons.... but new engines, or tech, etc. therefore CoDWaW does not get the # because its really CoD4 with different weapons, levels, and enemies..... but it's not CoD5

Calm down Neo, Calm down

breath

*begins heavy breathing*
this isn't neo, this is me, your corrector...lol
 

hippo24

New member
Apr 29, 2008
702
0
0
One reason and one reason only TANKS

Other then that they are basically the same thing.
 

Jinx_Dragon

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,274
0
0
I liked COD5 because it didn't ignore the existence of Russia like so many WW2 games, and most movie, love to do. Russia was the reason Germany lost that war after all, so giving them some exposure seems like a good thing if you want to be historically accurate. But... that was it! That was the only thing about COD5 that I found notable. The game play was the same as ever other WW2 game out there, and at times worse many times over. The game was scripted to the point most times I died trying to figure out how the Dev decided this section needed to be solved instead of doing my own thing and the AI was... shockingly bad. Telescopic eyes on the enemies and of course 'team mates' that love to drop grenades at my feet just as much as the enemies did.

COD5 multiplayer also felt like a re-skined COD4... I know it was just that but still, it didn't have to feel the exact same! Just take the 'aperture sight' for example, right there you have a massive break away from reality all to try and keep the EXACT same 'rewards' that was popular in COD4. Aperture sights during WW2 where just 'peep sights' which are standard iron sites for many rifles of the era! Other rifles could be modified to have these sights, but they where tiny metal rings designed to focus the eye at the rear sight and give better accuracy when looking down the fore sights.

It was like they where not even bothering to hide they had just re-skinned most of the COD4 stuff to make it look WW2ish. Throw in a few extra maps, with all the same objectives as COD4, and volla... your playing COD5.
 

da0n

New member
Jan 16, 2009
19
0
0
COD4 wins - we are all bored of WWII shooters. My theory is that Treyarch HAD to set CoD:WaW during a different time period to get away with ripping off CoD4:MW so much. If they'd set it during modern times, CoD:WaW would basically have been CoD4 with more glitches. A LOT more glitches. And dogs.

Either that or Activision is using CoD:WaW to increase sales for MW2 (so... many... acronyms...) by throwing into sharp relief exactly how great a game CoD4 is, and how much better Infinity Ward are at - well, anything really. They knew everybody would react like this, and are taking the 'Ah, but just you wait for CoD:MW2' approach.
 

Spoonius

New member
Jul 18, 2009
1,659
0
0
I think they are both great games, though i think the cod 4 campaign is better, the tank level in cod 5 pissed me off. Cod 4 is alot more cinamatic and you can't beat infiltrating russian territory with a scottish guy. The campers in cod 5 make me twitch and the nazi zombies does get quite annoying. Apart from that there is the fact that cod 5 multiplayer is more of a 'click, band "DAMN I MISSED" click, zoom "DAMN HE ESCAPED" kind of game that does sometimes get on your'e nerves. BUT, i think that they are both great games and i'm glad that i bought them both.
 

dennyaaa

New member
Jul 31, 2009
258
0
0
Call of Duty 4, because the online section just blows your mind and will keep you peeled to the screen for a very long time.. also the single player section is superb fun and will make you want more... and it's cheaper :D
 

Supreme Unleaded

New member
Aug 3, 2009
2,291
0
0
Call of Duty 4 is way better, it looks better (somehow), the guns are better, you feel more bad ass, the multiplayer is better, and call of duty 5 is just call of duty 4 except WW2atised.
 

rossatdi

New member
Aug 27, 2008
2,542
0
0
Dkozza said:
Not to sound rude but can the people who voted also write a response telling me WHY? Sorry if you're currently posting something...
CoD5 was yet another WWII game with the same guns, the same settings and the same bland heroism.

CoD4 was new in setting and exciting in application. The multiplayer was substantially more fun.
 

Axle_Bullitt_19

New member
May 29, 2009
947
0
0
I vote Call of Duty 3. I play it more than CoD4 and CoDWaW because its just simple pick a class and kill some fuckers.
 

Merteg

New member
May 9, 2009
1,579
0
0
I only own Call of Duty 5, and it is quite fun.

So there really is no wrong choice, you'll have fun with both.