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

[Sev72]

I like the quick movement, and pacing of Cod4 more...I don't know, it just feels... better isn't the right word, but it feels right.

 

[xHipaboo420x]

World At War, mostly because of the Nazi Zombies thing, and because Modern Warfare gets kinda stale once you've played through it a fair few times... I can't really comment on multiplayer, cos I'm not that kind of guy, although I've heard good things about MW's.

 

[rockingnic]

I hope everyone knows that most of the improvements from CoD3 to CoD5 actually came from Infantry Ward's CoD4. Treyarch basically stole every bit of what IW added and improved, that includes the multiplayer and combat mechanics sections, and place it in W@W. I think they wanted to cover that fact by adding 4 player co-op (it's not original either, Halo 3 did it in 2007...)and a zombie mode (it sucks... almost any other game with a zombie mode is better, oh AND you have to beat the game before you could play it). I don't see one thing Treyarch added that was their own idea... I'd rather have IW make the rest, WW2 sucks, we know we beat the Nazis for the 16 thousandth time! IW made a great game, Treyarch stole the improvements and basically made an average game that would have been better if it was an expansion pack for like $20 and not a full $60 one!

 

[0p3rati0n]

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

Your arguemnt fell flat when you said you didn't play 4. You can't judge a game you didn't play.

Ok let me start this off. I've never played it due to a few things. One my PC is s*** so it does jack. Secondly I have a Wii and mmmmmmm there is no MW for it only W@W. Also I've seen some of the levels. Mostly all ghillied up (awesome level if I do say so my self). So one thing i notice of people just because someone said they never played it and then judged it you guys jump to conclusions. Yes I've never played it but I've seen the levels on youtube. So i get just as much as effect as anyone gets! I rest my case!

 

[IsoNeko]

Call of Duty 3's gameplay + Call of Duty 4's style + Call of Duty 4's set pieces + Call of Duty 4's multiplayer + Call of Duty 4's "Wall shooting" gimmick = Call of Duty WaW

Not that theres anything wrong with that. It just feels like Call of Duty 4 with a downgrade. Maybe it's because Treyarch are nothing without Infinity Ward's true brand name of Call of Duty. That's possibly why Modern Warfare 2 dropped the CoD name so Infinity Ward could use their own shit, without Treyarch interfering.

I mean, we play the entire campaign with Price and Gaz. Gaz being a cheeky bastard, and Price being a overly daunting leader who has to save your ass more times than not. While Griggs is the funny comic relief guy and then theres Lt. Vasquez who was never really characterised that well TBH. Your on a manhunt for the leader of evil bad guy inc. Then you find out

Spoiler

He was just a puppet that Zakhaev was pulling the strings of.

Then it's the manhunt all over again. Which is why the ending is such a kicker to see

Spoiler

Price, Gaz and Griggs to all die pretty abruptly. Perhaps done in the spirit of true warfare when Death is truly around the next corner.

Then to watch Treyarch try and repeat these things. We have a squad of 4 yankee's. Trying their hardest to sound voncincing. One whiny little one always asking when do we go home, the other one trying to keep it together by and one of them who just gets shanked so early on you don't even realise you should care. Then theres the obvious fucking rip off, of the Save the Private scene. When a guy busts out of a door, and attacks a private. If you don't intervene, the private dies. This was done in CoD4 and then directly cut into CoD WaW. Then theres the overly butthurt russian leader, and some guy who keeps whining about how bad the war is. Then they try and make you care when

Spoiler

Either the overly whiny American or the overly huggy American leader die. Then watch the Russian whiny one die.

. Seriously, why should we give a shit? They've done nothing but whine all game about how bad the war is. At least 4 had a plot. Your looking for leader of terrorist group A, and you gotta stop him from doing his evil shiznit, but you don't know where he is and so you go on a murderous spree to find him. CoD: WaW. Your attacking Germany and Japan as Russians and Americans respectively. You blow up certain targets, take over certain buildings, win the war. That's it. If were supposed to care about the story, please tell me. Because there wasn't one.

Then seeing them steal CoD4's multiplayer gameplay directly from the game. Changed some aesthetics, added some dogs. It just sickened me. I could not stand that game any further. No matter how many zombies they threw at me. Oh, and might I add. Having Co-op does not make a story heavy game any better. It actually takes from the games story as trying to stay serious when your friends aren't is nigh on impossible. Which is why I'm glad MW2 won't have Co-Op.

 

[captain awesome 12]

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?

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 not

1. Please use correct punctuation and grammar. It's stated quite clearly in the forum guidelines and it's much easier to understand your post if you do so. Contrary to most interwebz belief, proper spelling isn't hazardous to your health.

2. Located at the top of the page is a "search button". Do a quick search of Call of Duty: World at War and CoD4: Modern Warfare and you should get some results. Here, I did it for you: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/global/search/?q=which+is+better%3F+cod4+or+cod+waw&cx=005672590579257297818%3Amkmrjhvsnwa&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search#1147

3. So you "know it's better"? See, here's the problem with this statement. You haven't given any reasoning as to why it is. Also, you can't "know it's better" because it is still your subjective opinion. But more on that later. I propose this question to you. How do you know it's better?

4. The question you're referring to was a rhetorical one. In other words, what the hell are you trying to prove by fighting over which game is better? As stated in my first post, it's personal preference as to which you prefer, but they're essentially the same game; World at War just being more like an expansion pack than a full title. Trying to put down your friends opinion by declaring the superiority of your own even if other people may agree with it just doesn't seem productive. Unless your friend's a twat, in which case go right ahead. ;]

The way you described it was a "fight" not a debate. In a debate, his opinion is of equal value to yours, and the only way to defeat his conflicting idea would be to provide irrefutable evidence to the detriment of his thinking. The internet, sadly, especially forums, isn't a very reliable source of irrefutable evidence. So basically this has just come down to a popularity contest based again on people's own opinions, which really hasn't gotten you anywhere meaningful except that the majority of people who have looked at this thread have sided with you.

Actually I think I got way too into this.

And yeah CoD 4's better.

Because I say so.

 

[Pyre00]

I was in a heated dabate with one of my freinds at school and I wanted to prove to him that cod: 4 was the better shooter oh and I would like a reason why too

Where's the "They both suck" option?

 

[azncutthroat]

It's not very reasonable to compare CoD:WaW to CoD4: MW; it's like comparing apples to oranges. Basically, it depends on each person's preference.

But if someone were to shove a BAR barrel into my left ear and someone else a M249 in my right ear and force me to take a side, I would have to go with CoD4. While I did enjoy CoD: WaW's singleplayer campaign and co-op zombie missions, I didn't really like the multiplayer. The tanks never felt right to me, as did the copy-and-pasted perk system and some of the maps. CoD4 got everything just right, IMO.

 

[azncutthroat]

Where's the "They both suck" option?

In a way, I have to agree. The friendly AI in both games were ridiculously frustratingly useless.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

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

This...

I found the grenade indicator in CODWAW very annoying as it was barely visible half the time...

 

[Sanity For Sale]

Call of Duty 4 is vastly superior to World at War. First off we have the fact that it IS NOT set in WWII. Tell me, how many games have been about WWII? How do you make any sort of innovation without changing the base? You can't use different guns in a WWII shooter because you are limited to what actually existed.

Secondly, the game writers had to write something. And it turned out well, surprisingly for a company generally lacking in the writing department. It was interesting to see interactions between other characters, and it wasn't all just "*Sobsob* <Name-here> is dead"

Third, there's the fact that we do not actually know what is going to happen when we pop the game in the console. When you pop a WWII game in, you can bet your ass the Allies are going to win. Unless it's some neo-nazi wet dream game.

 

[USSR]

CoD4 vastly better! Why!? Because

1. They are basically the same game, but 4 came out earlier,
2. WaW is set in WWII, MW has cool modern weapons and a new idea.
3. Its just.. better ok.

Once you can give a reason other than aesthetics, than you can tell me its better. However, for now its just your opinion.

Thank you Mr. Obvious.

Because we all know everyone bring facts and statements not influenced by opinions to a versus thread.

No need to get snippy, geez.

I'm not getting snippy..

I just hate people in general =p

 

[lizards]

CoD4 vastly better! Why!? Because

1. They are basically the same game, but 4 came out earlier,
2. WaW is set in WWII, MW has cool modern weapons and a new idea.
3. Its just.. better ok.

im going to assume that the "new idea" part was a joke

and if not then i must sadly point at nearly every shooter made in the near past like: Rainbow 6 vegas, Blood in the Sand, and Army of Two just to name a couple

 

[VoltySquirrel]

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

Your arguemnt fell flat when you said you didn't play 4. You can't judge a game you didn't play.

Ok let me start this off. I've never played it due to a few things. One my PC is s*** so it does jack. Secondly I have a Wii and mmmmmmm there is no MW for it only W@W. Also I've seen some of the levels. Mostly all ghillied up (awesome level if I do say so my self). So one thing i notice of people just because someone said they never played it and then judged it you guys jump to conclusions. Yes I've never played it but I've seen the levels on youtube. So i get just as much as effect as anyone gets! I rest my case!

Chillax dude. I didn't read your response to the other people saying the same thing. Sorry dude.

 

[cannot_aim]

This is not even a question CoD 4 was and still is the much better game. WaW is just a cheap nock off of CoD 4 made by a worse company with downgraded graphics, many pointless weapons and set in an era that is so saturated with games that even if there was never another WWII game made there would still be way too many. Also they ripped off left 4 dead and GoW2 with the nazi zombies

 

[Shapsters]

CoD4 vastly better In my opinion! Why!? Because

1. They are basically the same game, but 4 came out earlier,
2. WaW is set in WWII, MW has cool modern weapons and a new idea.
3. Its just.. better ok.

im going to assume that the "new idea" part was a joke

and if not then i must sadly point at nearly every shooter made in the near past like: Rainbow 6 vegas, Blood in the Sand, and Army of Two just to name a couple

I will edit it again...

 

[The Hitman]

The multiplayer split screen annoys me on WaW so I went with CoD 4. Yes, i know its a terrible reason but i had to split them somehow. That said i doo like the dogs on WaW - hmmm...

 

[Srkkl]

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

 

[L33tMarvin]

I got an idea which has a better ending cod4 or WAW

 

[CrafterMan]

Stupid thread vs Search button

...I guess stupid thread won...

Haha oh snap.

Yes, this is a rather pointless thread, why compare when they are both set in different timelines and made by 2 different companies.

I enjoy each for the story and the different weaponry.

-Joe