i think that cod4 is better cos you get better guns and stuf to put on them and the missions are better so if your where thinking of buying waw you a fu**er
Think of it this way: If WaW had also been developed by Infinity Ward, half the people on here wouldn't be saying that it sucked in comparison to MW.
Personally, I enjoyed WaW. It was still WWII, yes, but it explored the sides of the war that are often overlooked. WaW takes the best features from MW, and adapts it to a more classical "Greatest Generation" setting.
the scales are finely balanced but for me COD4 wins through simply because are we not just redoing old missions. WORLD AT WAR is just another WW11 shooter. I fail to see how you can progress by going back. sorry.
Charlie, sit back and look at how much better WORLD AT WAR really is compared to COD4.
1. Flamethrower
2. 3 primary grenades not one.
3. U can revive people on their last stand.
4. More, and better guns.
5. Better maps.
6. Better story mode & makes more sense.
7. Bipods, bayonets, aperature sights, suppressers, telescope sights, grips, sawed of shotgun barrels, rifle grenades, grenade launchers, when COD4 only has- red dot, silencer, ACOG, and a grip....OWNED!!!
okay yeah Modern Warfare was definitely a breakthrough, and i was sort of disappointed at the lack of fresh material in WaW, but its still a great game. It has everything Modern Warfare does and more, so you cant say its worse. Less original? Definitely. But less fun, bloodpumping and generally awesome? nope.
World of warfare looks awesome and since its based on the also awesome COD4 then it'll be better than the first because its changing the story and making improvements
plus multiplayer with cars...come on, who wouldn't enjoy seeing the enemy splatter on their windshield
Call of Duty 4 is much better. Call of Duty 5 is just an expansion of Call of Duty 2 or Medal of Honor Pacific Assault. Nothing new just a better updated graphic engine. I just can't beleive I forked out 65.00 dollars for it. Bought it 2 weeks ago being on vacation since then and feels like there is no pressure to finish it. Not impressed at all. Buddies in Afghanistan are waiting for my return so I can tell them if it worth buying well I'm going to give them my copy.
cod4 is loads better in every way exept for the guns i like the guns betta on cod5 but the maps are too confusing and i like the dogs easy points just knife em
And besides on World at War those dogs are too damn overpowered, the weapons suck, the artillery strikes are ridiculously long, Last Stand lasts too f**king long, the vehicles suck, theres probably a dozen under the map glitches. Need i go on?
My opinion
Setting: Gotta go with modern warfare. to me World at Wars setting is pretty dull....woods, and trees not that interesting.
Weapons: World at War personally. First of all there is no difference in accuracy. Who doesn't want a flame thrower and Molotov's?
Missions: Hard choice but World at War is better in my opinion. Escaping a drowning cargo ship isn't as hard WHEN IT DOESN'T SINK UNTIL YOU GET ON THE CHOPPER! Besides who doesn't want to fight in one of the most bloodiest battles in history: D day
Story: Modern warfare because of its ending.....so sad when everyone dies at the end SPOILER ALERT! ops too late....
Characters: Modern Warfare......thats a no brainier to me.
Multiplayer: Wow toughest choice of the entire game.... Modern warfare...because of its more intense battles.
Co-op: You know!
Cheats: World at War....seriously who thinks super contrast is a cheat?
Originality: Really both games are not original at all. But I don't like ties so I'm going with World at War. Zombies, not to mention the lost forgotten flamethrower in WW2.
By 1 point World at War wins in my opinion 5-4
Before everyone else yells stuff at me like (U NUBZ CD4 IS WYZ BETRS)Think of this. ITS EVERYBODYS OPINION