they are basically the same, except the era is different. Im getting world at war because that is all my friends play now. i kind of like semi auto guns, so i guess its just a matter of preference.
World at War is better. There is a diverse range of guns and there's no definite number one like there was in CoD4. It also includes more game modes and tanks, which can be fun if you're not a scrub. There are more perks and dogs own helicopters. There's also the loss of limbs and heads and it's just more satisfying to kill someone when there arm gets blown off.
Cod4 is better for several reasons but the main thing that I don't like is hardcore mode. Using most weapons it takes way to many hits to kill someone. The weapon stats may show that a weapon is almost maxed out on damage but you wouldn't know that when you are shooting someone and you have to shoot them several times to put them down. Not to mention the weapons sound like crap.
It just seems to me like they didn't pay enough attention to the weapon details when they developed this game. Don't get me wrong though, I still enjoy playing it but there are more things I would change about waw then I would about modern warfare.
And again I'll say it's personal preference. I really don't see a difference from a technical viewpoint. Someone mentioned that the servers suck, but it's the same as in COD 4.
I like both equally. If I fancy playing some WW2 style shooting, I play World At War. If I fancy some modern day shooting, I play Modern Warfare. And I have a blast with each.
And again I'll say it's personal preference. I really don't see a difference from a technical viewpoint. Someone mentioned that the servers suck, but it's the same as in COD 4.
I like both equally. If I fancy playing some WW2 style shooting, I play World At War. If I fancy some modern day shooting, I play Modern Warfare. And I have a blast with each.
Log in to comment