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

Why World at War is better: Call of Duty 4 piled on the drama pretty thick, so World at War had a tough act to follow. You can keep your anonymous order barkers, however, because developer Treyarch saw fit to hire A-list, professional yellers: Kiefer Sutherland and Gary Oldman!

Screw Soap McTavish... World at War’s faceless protagonists have to answer to Jack Bauer and Sirius Black! These iconic actors resonate with the audience immediately, as well as bring plenty of acting chops to the proceedings. - Chris

Why Modern Warfare is better: I’ll admit that Kiefer Sutherland does add acertain gravitasto the Call of Duty experience. And Gary Oldman? Wow! If he hadn’talready starredin three Legend of Spyro games (alongside Elijah Wood and Wayne Brady), I’d be totally and not at all sarcastically impressed!

Call of Duty 4’s story and characters are the best for the simple reason that they’re the only Call of Duty story and characters anyone has ever cared about. Previous entries were stocked with generic and interchangeable soldiers that lost their lives before you could learn their names. Gaz and Captain Price, on the other hand, are instantly memorable; their fates are truly meaningful. And while World at War is stuck telling the same story we’ve heard a thousand times before, Modern Warfare seems as fresh and immediate as today’s headlines. – Charlie

Why World at War is better: Call of Duty 4’s multiplayer is considered a broadband masterpiece by many, and rightly so. World at War, however, adds new features that people demanded – four player online co-op, capture the flag, secondary gun mounts on vehicles, more custom slots, more weapons, more maps and more perks, dammit! Do I even need to mention that they included a survival mode involving the reanimated corpses of fallen Nazis, or are you ready to concede defeat? - Chris

Why Modern Warfare is better: The two games’ multiplayer modes are almost identical, but Modern Warfare was the blueprint on which World at War was conceived. Adding a few extra perks and some exotic Japanese temple maps can’t hide that fact. They also can’t hide that the text fonts and screen HUDs were copied over from Modern Warfare, too, despite making no sense whatsoever in a 1940s environment.

And the attack dogs? I’ll take an air strike, thanks. - Charlie

Why World at War is better: The competitive co-op mode is, hands down, one of the greatest things I’ve played all year. Jostling for points with friends online drastically changes the entire dynamic of the single player campaign from “just stay alive” to “kill it first!” - Chris

Why Modern Warfare is better: You know Modern Warfare doesn’t have co-op. All you’ve proven with the inclusion of this category, sir, is that you are an ass. - Charlie

GamesRadar+ was first founded in 1999, and since then has been dedicated to delivering video game-related news, reviews, previews, features, and more. Since late 2014, the website has been the online home of Total Film, SFX, Edge, and PLAY magazines, with comics site Newsarama joining the fold in 2020. Our aim as the global GamesRadar Staff team is to take you closer to the games, movies, TV shows, and comics that you love. We want to upgrade your downtime, and help you make the most of your time, money, and skills. We always aim to entertain, inform, and inspire through our mix of content - which includes news, reviews, features, tips, buying guides, and videos.