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

[damn12369]

cod 4 all the way!

 

[xChevelle24]

Okay, lets see here:

COD4, came out first, made by infinity ward, won countless awards, innovative, great hit detection, great graphics, great story, M16 sucks balls, just overall a very good game, that gets boring after a while.

CoD5, same fucking game set in WWII with a worse story, worse hit detection, god I can't even think of things they did right other than zombies. Any game where you can EASILY maintain a 2.5 K/D ratio on all game types is a stupid game.

Call of Duty 4 had a very good idea, and they did a great job with that idea.

Call of Duty 5 took the same idea and butchered it to death with a cleaver and some scissors.

Treyarch is making the CoD after MW2. What a shame.

Also this.

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.

This.

And.....

Modern Warfare. WAW might have been good, but it was good because unlike MW which took chances, it just settled back on the tried and true. WAW even copied the basic level concepts in places (a sniper level where you follow a grizzled old veteran?), and the multiplayer is an exact copy with a few tweaks to force tanks in for no particular reason. As a whole MW is just a better package. WAW is to MW what a Rock Band track pack is to Rock Band: more of the same only different theme.

Also a bit thing for me is the lack of feel with the guns. In MW when a bullet hit you really felt it, it felt like the bullets connected. MW was just another shooter, you shot and the guy fell down.

Plus the Germans apparently carried 54 grenades into battle.

Each.

This.

 

[Triple AD]

Well for me I dunno only got CoD 4 yesterday so don't know much but for singleplayer cod 4 because it's longer, more epic and dramatic but for multiplayer *shrugs*

 

[Datsle]

World at War is basically the same game tried and tested about 20 times already; a bog standard WW2 game.

COD4 is more than just a war game, its an experience. You witness the atrocities of war, such as an execution and a nuclear explosion from a first person perspective, giving you an impression of the horror, fear and absolute destruction of war. You are also kept intrigued as you switch between the many different roles in the game, from the SAS, to the Marines, to doing things like taking control of a AC-130 gun ship.

On top of that COD4 is just fucking awesome fun

You haven't played WaW.

It is that obvious.

 

[suhlEap]

i'm not going to vote for the simple reason that i own both, and i think both are brilliant. i couldn't pick because they both have their merits. i know a lot of people are bored of the WW2 thing, but personally i'm not and i still enjoy that whole era in gaming. but i also think COD4 is ace. so i'm not gonna vote, cos i really can't pick though on second thought, i'll vote for WaW because i doubt many, if anyone has

 

[ygetoff]

World at War is basically the same game tried and tested about 20 times already; a bog standard WW2 game.

COD4 is more than just a war game, its an experience. You witness the atrocities of war, such as an execution and a nuclear explosion from a first person perspective, giving you an impression of the horror, fear and absolute destruction of war. You are also kept intrigued as you switch between the many different roles in the game, from the SAS, to the Marines, to doing things like taking control of a AC-130 gun ship.

On top of that COD4 is just fucking awesome fun

I agree. I own both, and I have to say that the only thing that keeps me from pawning WaW is Nazi Zombies.

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.

Will it have a zombie minigame? I read a preview about MW2 that didn't mention anything about zombies.

 

[TaborMallory]

Once Modern Warfare 2 comes out, it'll render World At War completely and utterly useless if it has its own zombie minigame.

Will it have a zombie minigame? I read a preview about MW2 that didn't mention anything about zombies.

It's a pretty big if, but there's no harm in hoping

 

[Tyler_Durden]

yes
and cod 4 to me seemed to have quicker and lighter aiming making it easier to quick scope someone.

 

[ygetoff]

Once Modern Warfare 2 comes out, it'll render World At War completely and utterly useless if it has its own zombie minigame.

Will it have a zombie minigame? I read a preview about MW2 that didn't mention anything about zombies.

It's a pretty big if, but there's no harm in hoping

Hey, our misguided hope is the only thing we have!

 

[jimBOFH]

Not a fan of WaW, personally, and I have played both.
Firstly- they're extremely similar games. WaW included a couple of new features, mainly vehicles, but nothing special. So it comes down to the setting to a large degree- and I am sick of playing through WWII in video games. Day of Defeat, Call of Duty 1 and 2, Medal of Honour, Battlefield 1942- the list goes on. So for me personally, I think Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is the better game. That said, if Call of Duty 4 had never come out, I'm sure I'd think World at War was the best FPS ever.

 

[Captain_Caveman]

CoD 4 is better.

everyone knows this. WaW had a smaller budget, less development time, a smaller team, a different company that's not know for excellence. I mean the guns in WaW sound like people hitting tin cans w/ spoons.

 

[tk1989]

World at War is basically the same game tried and tested about 20 times already; a bog standard WW2 game.

COD4 is more than just a war game, its an experience. You witness the atrocities of war, such as an execution and a nuclear explosion from a first person perspective, giving you an impression of the horror, fear and absolute destruction of war. You are also kept intrigued as you switch between the many different roles in the game, from the SAS, to the Marines, to doing things like taking control of a AC-130 gun ship.

On top of that COD4 is just fucking awesome fun

You haven't played WaW.

It is that obvious.

What, why? Because.. well... I have? I just think that everything it did had been really done before and COD4 just did it so much better. It really sucked you in to the game, unlike WaW (for me anyway).

 

[Thegoodfriar]

No tanks = Win

 

[DeadRow]

CoD4. WaW just felt like a very poor copy+paste job on the game play. The bugs annoyed the shit out of me, I've heard a few patches have come out but can't be arsed to re-install WaW. I guess I'm slightly biased as I'm fed up of all the WWII shooters that have come out over the years.

Also no tanks.

there is tanks in WAW, on Single Player.

I know, they are in the mutliplay as well.. which is why I said CoD4 was better in my opinion?

 

[Datsle]

What, why? Because.. well... I have? I just think that everything it did had been really done before and COD4 just did it so much better. It really sucked you in to the game, unlike WaW (for me anyway).

Because you do execute people/watch them get executed, you even get real life footage of executions.

And the whole "different roles" part,

You switch between the US and the Russians?

You control the guns on a rescue plane in one mission.


And sure NOW you might say it is Copy/Paste,
But like someone said, WaW dev. started before CoD4.


Im not going to argue which is best however, i like them both.