Join The Community
Why World at War is better: I won’t go into the ludicrous logistics of finding anabandoned laptopon a fifth floor fire escape, then carrying it around for the duration of an Eastern European blitzkrieg. Suffice to say, World at War’s comparatively realistic Death Cards unlock cheats that enhance the experience. Call of Duty 4’s alterations are largely cosmetic – how many ounces of fun did you manage to squeeze out of the Super Contrast mode?
Why Modern Warfare is better: Hmm, let’s see. Would I rather wage war with an infinite supply of bullets and multiplying grenades... or a knife and some rocks? Would I rather handicap my enemies with the power of slow motion... or strengthen them until even an explosion can do them no harm? Would I rather transform the color and style of the entire world... or splatter a few paint balls on the side of a tree?
The choice is clear. If you want to make your Call of Duty game more unforgiving and more frustrating, go ahead and use theWorld at War cheats. Or, you know, simply change the difficulty setting. If you want to make your Call of Duty game more fun, more surprising and more unbelievably bizarre (Ragtime Warfare!), use theModern Warfare cheats. - Charlie
Why World at War is better: Lack of originality will probably be Call of Duty: World at War’s primary criticism. You can bet your ass, though, that if they had deviated too much from the formula, you’d have twice as many people hurling rocks at their screens. How can you argue with getting more of what works?
I’m sure people won’t stop decrying the return to WWII, but the evolution that Modern Warfare started hasn’t regressed. Everything you loved about that game is still here, returned to the setting that you must admit you also love. Plus, the single player campaign feels more mature (both bloody and salty-tongued), the co-op is astounding, and the change to the Pacific Front does make a difference. - Chris
Why Modern Warfare is better: Call of Duty 4 bleeds originality. Everything about the game feels new and daring. The updated setting, which avoids feeling like a tacked on gimmick or a Tom Clancy xerox. The compelling characters, who win you over through actions and presence, not endless reams of badly written dialogue. The addictive multiplayer, which revolutionizes console competition with role playing rewards like perks and cinematic set pieces like air strikes.
I can go on and on... The graphics, which appear unnervingly close to life at times, and bombastically over the top at others. The mission design, which actually puts you inside the perspective of a dying hero – twice. The little touches, like snapping a dog’s neck or crawling through enemies’ legs in a ghillie suit.
Call of Duty: World at War is an excellent World War II shooter, but that’s the problem – it’s yet another World War II shooter. They just added a few palm trees this time. I don’t know if that’s enough. - Charlie
DISCLAIMER: Honestly, both of these guys enjoy both of these games. If you’re a Call of Duty fan, how can you not? The immature arguments and petty generalizations you've just read are intended only as a spark to debate. In other words, leave your scathing (or supportive) comments below!
Nov 14, 2008
Find ALL the hidden collectibles and unlock ALL the cheats – our videos show you how
A video guide to every secret item and secret mode in the game
We settle the rivalry once and for all. Then our readers open the wounds all over again
Got an opinion? Join the still simmering debate in our comments
