Quantcast

Is Call of Duty: World at War better than Call of Duty 4?

Our editors pick sides and do battle. Which shooter will emerge victorious? You decide!

Words: GamesRadar US
« Back to Article

 
112 Comments
Order Comments: Newest First | Oldest First
twosy  - 1 year 8 days ago 
moden war 4 ever
34skyline  - 1 year 8 days ago 
Hands Down Call Of Duty 4
Unnanounced  - 1 year 8 days ago 
W@W and CoD4 are just as good as each other. you only play the one your friends are on at the time.
ajt1234  - 1 year 8 days ago 
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
CRFan22  - 1 year 8 days ago 
see now? if we had just left WaW to Activision we wouldnt be replying to this thread. nuff said.
nightcrawler31  - 1 year 7 days ago 
first!!!
oreomonkey:how is waw original? it already happened!
madtix  - 1 year 7 days ago 
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.
thetruth1972  - 1 year 6 days ago 
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.
lovinmyps3  - 1 year 6 days ago 
i give it to cod4 simply because its NOT wwII
camo510  - 1 year 5 days ago 
i'm not much of a CoD person myself and Cod4 acctually bored me a bit... W@W seems more... thrilling, but i dont no, i havent played it.
HardCoreGamer10  - 1 year 4 days ago 
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!!!
jesus-of-suburbia  - 1 year 2 days ago 
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.
Mike91192  - 1 year 1 day ago 
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
MLGpirate  - 1 year 1 day ago 
WaW is better than COD4 no doubt about it
slyster  - 11 months 27 days ago 
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.
stuzimuzipuzi  - 11 months 23 days ago 
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
Cwf2008  - 11 months 15 days ago 
Call of Duty World at War just sucks. Period. Call of Duty 4 is probably the best game released this century.
Cwf2008  - 11 months 15 days ago 
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?
Roic13  - 11 months 14 days ago 
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
Enanobofo  - 11 months 11 days ago 
100th Comment
Woo-Hoo!!!!
lol
Call of Duty 4
All da way!!!!!!
Related Games
Mass Effect 2 News: Social Apps, Character... N4G
PC News from N4G
Dec 1, 2009
DICE lighting artist lists Mirror's Edge 2 on... N4G
360 News from N4G
Dec 1, 2009
Which Console Gets The Dante's Inferno Demo... N4G
PS3 News from N4G
Dec 1, 2009
Get A Free Game With PSPgo! Happy Holidays N4G
PSP News from N4G
Dec 1, 2009
500 MAG Beta Codes Up for Grabs N4G
PS3 News from N4G
Dec 1, 2009