cod 4 because i prefer tactical corridoor shooters to waiting behind boxes in the prone position waiting for your health to recover because someone sniped from 300 metres away with a sub machine gun and then being killed by a grenade which didnt show up on teh GDA
Poll: call of duty: 4 vs. call of duty world at war
- Thread starter cult-of-the-odd
- Start date
Recommended Videos
CoD4, we've been over this many times before. It's more original, it isn't set in World War 2, all Treyarch did was just copy past from Infinity Ward's MW with some slight changes and modifications for World War II, and so on and so on.
Although now that I think about it, why are you and your friend fighting about which is better anyway? It's personal choice as to what you prefer, and if you really think CoD 4's better why are you asking us to come up for reasons for you?
Although now that I think about it, why are you and your friend fighting about which is better anyway? It's personal choice as to what you prefer, and if you really think CoD 4's better why are you asking us to come up for reasons for you?
it just has to be said .....Onyx Oblivion said:
"dont you know who I am I'M THE JUGGERNAUT *****"
oh also I like COD4 I have only played the demo of Waw mind
truth be told as well. I'm actually kinda getting it just to piss the h*** out of my best friend. He likes it overall of any thing and yet he doesn't have it XDorannis62 said:That's understandable. Truth be told, I felt the same way until I actually got Cod4. It has to be experienced, you know?0p3rati0n said:I've some of the levels and they're quite nice. But I've grown up with CoD as a WWII shooter. Also I'm really into WWII. So Modern Warfare doesn't all to really appeal to me. So there! Also I might be getting it any despite my thoughts about it!orannis62 said:And that's why your opinion for this is not valid. Play both, then come back.0p3rati0n said:World at War.... I just find Modern Warfare a pathetic excuse to get away from WWII. I'll agree Modern Warfare looks cool (never played it yet). But WWII guns are cooler! Thirdly because I said so
Have both, gave up on WAW after reaching lvl 32. I dont like the way every weapon in it is sniper accurate and i hate those god damned bolt action rifles. 1 shot ur dead, at least in MW u needed a sniper rifle to do that.
I also prefer MW's maps and at least it does'nt have tanks, they just ruin FPS for me.
22 days total play time on Modern Warfare speaks for itself!
I also prefer MW's maps and at least it does'nt have tanks, they just ruin FPS for me.
22 days total play time on Modern Warfare speaks for itself!
i don't think the game better i know the game better. but the reason im posting this is because he wanted me to put a poll on the web to see what the public thought and how would knowing why me and my freind got in the debate matter or notcaptain awesome 12 said:
I don't want to get too riled up about this, but I will name a few reasons that COD 4 is much better than World at War.
For one, COD 4 was made by Infinity Ward, and innovative developer, adding copious amounts of intriguing new features to an already stellar series, while WAW was made by Treyarch, which seems much more content to release a retread of past games using COD 4's engine.
COD 4 is more creative, as it modernized a series stuck in WWII. WAW drags the series back to WWII.
COD 4 remains a very unique experience, from the graphics to the online multiplayer. On the other hand, you could throw a rock and find a game similar to WAW, once you take away the features it essentially ripped off from COD 4.
So really, you're comparing an inventive and altogether brilliant game with one that plays like an upgraded greatest hits collection. Not really much of a competition, now is it?
For one, COD 4 was made by Infinity Ward, and innovative developer, adding copious amounts of intriguing new features to an already stellar series, while WAW was made by Treyarch, which seems much more content to release a retread of past games using COD 4's engine.
COD 4 is more creative, as it modernized a series stuck in WWII. WAW drags the series back to WWII.
COD 4 remains a very unique experience, from the graphics to the online multiplayer. On the other hand, you could throw a rock and find a game similar to WAW, once you take away the features it essentially ripped off from COD 4.
So really, you're comparing an inventive and altogether brilliant game with one that plays like an upgraded greatest hits collection. Not really much of a competition, now is it?
The only good thing World At War had was the zombie minigame. Otherwise, it was nothing more than Call of Duty 3 with better graphics.
Modern Warfare was more interesting, has better replay ability, better multiplayer... the list goes on.
Once Modern Warfare 2 comes out, it'll render World At War completely and utterly useless if it has its own zombie minigame.
Modern Warfare was more interesting, has better replay ability, better multiplayer... the list goes on.
Once Modern Warfare 2 comes out, it'll render World At War completely and utterly useless if it has its own zombie minigame.
This is all opinion.
For me it's CoD 4 as there is an incentive to get headshots (the camos), and the levels are less beastly to get up to prestige.
For me it's CoD 4 as there is an incentive to get headshots (the camos), and the levels are less beastly to get up to prestige.
I hate ww2 games now that there have been so many of them, and as such the edge goes to CoD4.
However, NAZI ZOMBIES ARE AWESOME.
I rest my case.
However, NAZI ZOMBIES ARE AWESOME.
I rest my case.
Your arguemnt fell flat when you said you didn't play 4. You can't judge a game you didn't play.0p3rati0n said:World at War.... I just find Modern Warfare a pathetic excuse to get away from WWII. I'll agree Modern Warfare looks cool (never played it yet). But WWII guns are cooler! Thirdly because I said so
OT: I'll compare the two games to find out:
Graphics: While CoD4 does look a tad bit worse (but only slightly. Only people with super high rez tvs can tell really), IE created the engine the beautiful game ran on. Treyarch just took it and improved it a little bit. So I'll give this one to CoD4.
Single Player: WaW had a pretty good campaign, with great set pieces and characters. But special recognition has to go the vastly superior Russian missions. I found Reznov to a much deeper and cooler character than Roebuck, the same goes for Chernov and Polonsky. Also, the Russian missions had better level design and actual choices that made me really decide if I wanted to give the men who destroyed my country a cruel, slow, fiery death, or a quick, clean shot to the head. Still, CoD4 shines bright for me, with a story that actually makes you want to kill that bastard Imran. From the political execution to the nuclear aftermath, CoD4 made you actually think if whether this war was truely necessery.
Multiplayer: This is a tough one for me. For actual multiplayer, I'd have to give it to (again) CoD4. Each map was the perfect size for the battle, from the frantic firefights on Shipment, to the cat-and-mouse antics on Overgrown. Perks were balanced, with certain perks canceling each other out, making getting that last kill a bit harder. For metagames, it has to go to WaW. Arcade and FNG were cool distractions, but WaW takes the cake with its Co-op and Nazi Zombies. The only problem? No one plays co-op, and NZ is impossible to do if guys try to be assholes. But that's how zombie games are, right?
So yea, I think, in my opinion, CoD4 is better.