Medal of Honor Airborne VS Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

MOH:A is awesome, its a shame there are so few levels, but each level does take a LONG time to complete. If they had even just a few more id be happy. Havn't tried online yet, wont connect to any games (i guess i need to download a patch).

COD4 looks awesome but can't say anything about it till i play it. I look foreward to it. At first i wasn't happy to hear of the change to modern combat, but since seeing what they have done with it i'll definatly be buying it.

i agree with the above, its hard to compare two totally different War eras.

both games are IMO the best each war-era has to offer, i LOVED Airborne but felt it was a little too short.

i've only just started playing COD4 and im blown away by it, but im also told the SP is quite short.

both have strong multi-player, COD4 has the advantage of an upgrade/unlock system which would add to the fun.

I usually frown upon linear games under ten hours long, so I had to take some pretty extreme measures to fully convey my disgust regarding CoD4. I don't want to go into details, but it suffices to say that the clean-up crew never managed to get all of the brown out.

But that said, I'd take five great hours over eight meh hours. Airborne is a fine game, but it's sort of like filling out a form. You just sort of do it and then it's over and you hand it in, and probably forget it ever happened after a few days. That is exactly how I felt about Airborne. It only has six missions but I can literally only remember three of them. It had some great ideas but a ton of poor execution.

CoD4 is really just following that old gaming maxim 'if it ain't broke, make loads and loads of them'. You've played it before. Twice. But it's stilla great experience, just short.

As a single player game, I'd take CoD4 for quality, Airborne for quantity and call ita tie. They both lose.

As a multiplayer game, CoD4 wins without rival.