I personally prefered World at War, although you can't go wrong either way. What time period would you prefer to fight in, Modern or World War 2? That may help you decide.
Call of Duty 4's multiplayer has a greater number of people, though. (However, you'll have no problem finding games in WaW)
There are still 13k + servers on there. And that's with the filters set at no hardcore mode, punkbuster on, no FF, with players in game, and with no full servers showing. That's a lot of people.
It's all your preference. They're both basically the same game(except for the zombie mode in CoDWaW). Like what the dude above said would you like modern warfare combat or WWII. I prefer Modern, WWII is to overplayed
CoD4 was better in my opinion. But i liked the modern warfare more probably because im so sick of WWII now... but the single player campaign was more engaging and the multiplayer was more fun in my opinion in CoD4.
CoD 4 by far... There are many, many people still immersed in the online play. WWII is better portrayed in the earlier CoD games, so if thats what you're looking for, get 2 or 3.
cod4 for sure not only is it cheaper it looks great and runs better then waw plus it has a awesome but short single player and the multiplayer is faster paced and more fun with them ore asvanced weapons IMO
I personally prefered World at War, although you can't go wrong either way. What time period would you prefer to fight in, Modern or World War 2? That may help you decide.
Call of Duty 4's multiplayer has a greater number of people, though. (However, you'll have no problem finding games in WaW)Doom_HellKnight
I personally prefered World at War, although you can't go wrong either way. What time period would you prefer to fight in, Modern or World War 2? That may help you decide.
Call of Duty 4's multiplayer has a greater number of people, though. (However, you'll have no problem finding games in WaW)Doom_HellKnight
Also, since they're both basically the same, you might want to get CoD 4 b/c it's cheaper.
I'd go with CoD4. The singleplayer campaign was entertaining and there is still a very large and active online community. Granted, I only played the beta multiplayer of WaW, but I wasn't too impressed.
[QUOTE="kruesader"]CoD4 is superb, and FYI, the next CoD will most likely be called Call of Duty 5, so don't get confused.theafiguy
The one currently out is Call of Duty: World At War. The next COD is....Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Google it. I know what it is. Infinity Ward and Treyarch (sp?) take turns developing each game, IW doing the numbered (better) ones. It is thought that Call of Duty will split into two franchises, the Modern Warfare one and the original WWII/Historical shooter game.
The WaW campaign was better than I expected. Although it made me realize just how worthless a sniper rifle is in the CoD formula. The basic premise in a CoD campaign is assault the enemy and advance. If you assault from a distance, the enemy will keep respawning. And in WaW, they respawn very fast. Only when you do a head-on assault will the enemy stop respawning to give you a window to advance. The only exception is during the few scripted sniper action sequences. They throw these in because they know the sniper is otherwise useless in the game's basic formula.
CODwaw is junk in comparison to COD4. First of all, the SP is so hard and stupid in Veteran mode, I am starting to hate the game. You are killed in CODwaw in veteran mode in some rediculous fashions I can't even stand it. Like you could change your position all you want and the enemy could still pop out take a shot and kill you before you can even pull the trigger even though you're aiming straight at them and supposedly they dont' know where you are!! and no I am not slow in shooting if that's what you're thinking, the game is just that rediculous. if you don't believe me, try it. As far as MP, which is the bread and butter of the game, COD4 is better although CODwaw copies the same experience from COD4. So COD4 all the way IMHO.
Log in to comment