Poll: call of duty: 4 vs. call of duty world at war

[Jodan]

id have to say cod4
with wow i kept getting annoyed at the characters i was fighting with. Yes we get it you REALLY hate Germans good for you can we move on.they might have well just stuck to a cod zombies and based an entire game out of Nazi zombies. i preffered storming the reichstag in cod1

 

[Boxinatorizore]

COD4 MW I just can't stand WW2 games. There's so many out there it's ridiculous. It's good to get a breath of fresh air from WW2 and Space Marines.

 

[Marshmallow]

Up until now I always thought WaW was just a poorly done mod of COD4 with reskined weapons and a few new maps. Hmm I guess I was wrong.

 

[Dragon Zero]

Wadda you know, most people on the Escapist like COD4 than WAW when discussing them on a forum, what a surprising turn of events!

All kidding aside, I actually like both equally. They both don't revolutionize the genre but perfect it and both use great cinematic type story telling. Wodern Warfare is more or less the same type of fps taking place in well modernish times like SOCOM, Battlefield 2, or the Tom Clancy games with the smooth controls that made Call of Duty famous. World at War is a faithful returning to the roots that laid the foundation and by placing it in theatres not often covered by most WWII FPS' (I can really only think of one other game that has done the Pacific theater, and the less I can remember Medal of Honor Rising Sun, the better) it gives a breath of fresh air. Both game's multiplayer are exactly the same and funnily enough feel like just an upgraded version of the design featured in Call of Duty 3's multiplayer just with more customization, most importantly they are both fun. I wish there will be an end to all the fanboyist infighting that this debate has lead to and we can get back to just enjoying the games on their own damn merits and not just because one is made by one developer and not the other.

 

[Ignignokt]

CoD4. I'm currently playing WaW, but some things just annoy the hell out of me. The dogs and artillery feel like they take away from the game more than they add. They never stop. EVER. Artillery lasts way too long. I once died to the same artillery four times thanks to unlucky spawning. The airstrikes in CoD4 were a quick boom, it's over. And the helicopter was one object that you could actually hide from and shoot down. The dogs come flying out of every window and around every corner three at a time, and always more behind you. On hardcore, you're dead instantly before you can even try to knife.

Also, I agree that WW2 has been done to death. And it is pretty lame how badly they just copy pasted CoD4 with WW2 skins. I kind of like the addition of tanks, except for how much it takes to kill one. It shouldn't survive both bazooka shots or satchel charges and a sticky bomb.

Another thing is that apparently WaW went with a newer shader that doesn't increase quality much, but significantly drops my framerate.

After I get all the challenges or get bored of trying for them, I'll probably go back to CoD4, or maybe MW2 will be out by then.

 

[Dragon Zero]

True, but in cod4 there is that blasted M16, the magic assault rifle with the same power and range as a sniper.

Don't forget the MP5 and P90, apparently all you need to wage war is one of those and no one will beat you!

 

[MortisLegio]

Ive played both and though i like some thing about COD4, I think CODW@W is just more fun. I guess cause not every person is prestige level 9 billion yet and I actually stand a chance

(Im Poor)

 

[Gunn01]

I picked modenr warfare vbecause it's vastly superior. Also It's cheap I just bought a copy today for 35 bucks. That ought to hold me until the Modern Warfare 2 comes out.

 

[uhgungawa]

I went with CoD 4, But I do like both of them

In both games some guns are better than others.

WaW has larger maps which is great to Tach play

CoD 4 Air strikes are ok, hellies are a pain. WaW artillery is kinda cool, but dogs just suck.

But in the end I just find CoD 4 more fun to play, just wish it had the larger maps. the slow stealthy play is fun as hell.

 

[The Ghost]

on the subject of which is a better war game WAW is the better game. MW is not a war game. MW is a game about special forces putting down insurgents (enemy special forces). On the subject of which is a better game, I'd say they both suck. The maps are all too small in WAW, because WW2 wasn't about tactical shoot outs, but instead about all out war. MW has maps that fit its tactical combat. The multiplayer was made to keep the attention of our modern ADHD FPS players by forcing you to play for several hours before you got any good weapons. On the subject of the campaigns, I find both of them excellent. MW has an interesting fictional campaign experience that really draws you in, while WAW has an incredible campaign based on real battles. Honestly MW is a good and polished game, but WAW never got a chance to be polished and shined, because the producers forced them to release it before it was finished. Regardless of that I prefer WAW over MW because the Nazi Zombie Mode is far more interesting than either game's multiplayer. I hope that in the future if a new WW2 game enters the COD series it will include massive battles in multiplayer and in single player.

 

[Schwenkdawg]

I like MW much better, for a variety of reasons. First off, as a history major, I'm almost obsessive compulsive about my shooters being at least moderately realistic. The single player in WaW was very good for this, main character's mutant healing factor nonwithstanding. However, in multiplayer, its a huge curse. In a game which HEAVILY favors the sub-machine gun classes, using a bolt action rifle like 90% of the soldiers in WW2 would have been doing gets me killed alot. But, thats just a minor historical hiccup that cannot be rectified in multiplayer, so i'll ignore it. Now comes the real problem. I've already mentioned it, but the sub-machine guns are incredibly overpowered. The situation with the MP5 was bad enough in MW, and instead of learning from the experience, Treyarch went entirely the wrong way and made the MP40 more of a game winner than the MP5 or the M16 are in MW. The SMGs are both too accurate and far overpowered when compared to their real-life counterparts, and thus you always end up in games where you might be the only player not using an SMG...which gets annoying extremely quickly. There are a few good things I'm willing to say about WaW, though. The mechanic in which you hafta EARN your sniper scopes is a good idea, and treyarch heard at least some of the complaints, and made grenades, and also martyrdom, a lot less effective. The assist point system is also a plus, but it occasionally makes me angry when i get +8 cuz some dumbass nabbed my last stand kill.

Because of these reasons, I enjoy 4 faaaar more.

 

[Pasta Lamp]

CoD4 is better. It's single player campaign had more interesting levels, like the ship and the nuke, that WaW lacked. Although I do find it funny that so many people bring up WaW's setting as a detriment, as if 4's is somehow mountains better. Oh wow, I'm shooting an M16 at terrorists! This is so refreshing, I've never done this before!

I don't like either multiplayer mode because of the leveling, which I feel is a stupid fad that really needs to die soon. I don't really like Gears of Wars old school system of running for weapons at spawn time, but still... unlocking game modes? Seriously?

 

[uhgungawa]

SNIP...

I don't like either multiplayer mode because of the leveling, which I feel is a stupid fad that really needs to die soon. I don't really like Gears of Wars old school system of running for weapons at spawn time, but still... unlocking game modes? Seriously?

Well neither game is worth the cash if you don't get it for the multi player. The single player mode is just too damn short. $50 bucks for a couple of hours of game play would be a bad choice IMO.

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

World At War for me, thank you.

 

[Dixon55]

CoD 4 in EVERY aspect wins

 

[Evertw]

I've played every single CoD game, but Modern Warfare was a fun and more intensifying game than the world war ones, especially with hard core mode on.

 

[Spirultima]

Wait what?

How does being "hardcore" or "casual" equivalent to which game you prefer...? They are the same game set in a different time zone...!

Simple, casual gamers are the ones who play a game usually on hype, and buy it just because there friends are going to also.

Hardcore on the other hand will usually play the BETTER game.

 

[D_987]

Wait what?

How does being "hardcore" or "casual" equivalent to which game you prefer...? They are the same game set in a different time zone...!

Simple, casual gamers are the ones who play a game usually on hype, and buy it just because there friends are going to also.

Hardcore on the other hand will usually play the BETTER game.

Are you kidding me, COD 4 received significantly more hype than COD:WaW and the games are near identical...

 

[Spirultima]

I like MW much better, for a variety of reasons. First off, as a history major, I'm almost obsessive compulsive about my shooters being at least moderately realistic. The single player in WaW was very good for this, main character's mutant healing factor nonwithstanding. However, in multiplayer, its a huge curse. In a game which HEAVILY favors the sub-machine gun classes, using a bolt action rifle like 90% of the soldiers in WW2 would have been doing gets me killed alot. But, thats just a minor historical hiccup that cannot be rectified in multiplayer, so i'll ignore it. Now comes the real problem. I've already mentioned it, but the sub-machine guns are incredibly overpowered. The situation with the MP5 was bad enough in MW, and instead of learning from the experience, Treyarch went entirely the wrong way and made the MP40 more of a game winner than the MP5 or the M16 are in MW. The SMGs are both too accurate and far overpowered when compared to their real-life counterparts, and thus you always end up in games where you might be the only player not using an SMG...which gets annoying extremely quickly. There are a few good things I'm willing to say about WaW, though. The mechanic in which you hafta EARN your sniper scopes is a good idea, and treyarch heard at least some of the complaints, and made grenades, and also martyrdom, a lot less effective. The assist point system is also a plus, but it occasionally makes me angry when i get +8 cuz some dumbass nabbed my last stand kill.

Because of these reasons, I enjoy 4 faaaar more.

You pretty much said it all, in CoD5 its not "who is the most skilled" its "who has the biggest machinegun". And as a sniper, that really irritates me.

I do argue about the "earning sniper rile" though, e.g. I don't think using a R700 without the scope would be any fun, not to mention (my personal sniper) the Dragonov, i would have to get to medium range, and I could hardly hit any heads with it, therefore getting closer to them, reducing accuracy and to become more of an easy target.

Finally, I think WAWs machineguns would be better if they jammed, you know LIKE IN REAL LIFE.

 

[Kukakkau]

CoD4 for sure
WaW is just a copy and paste of CoD4's multiplayer..and yet they still ruined it. The game is too based on the SMG weapons as they are ultimatly better than any other weapons.

Plus WWII is so heavily worn out - I was tired of it by the 3rd/4th Medal of Honour game.

Ultimatly I liked CoD4 more since it explored an area that isn't really touched on much (Iraq though they refuse to call it that and situations with Russia)