Why does everyone give call of duty world at war such a hard time the gameplay is better online than cod 4 mod warfare
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Why does everyone give call of duty world at war such a hard time the gameplay is better online than cod 4 mod warfare
World War II is as dead as communism in the eyes of Treyarch. :roll:
I want somene to see what I did there.
I actually agree that W@W is better. I need more plot than bad guys wanting to do bad things and they need to be stopped. WWII itself is a better story and gives me a better feeling of fighting in a war with a squad. Online they took what MW had and added to it. Although everyone is right when they say "WWII has been done...a lot...like lot lot lot." everytime its done, it has a better story/plot than the MW approach and it has more than one point of view. MW's plot?: "omg terrorists doing evil for the sake of being evil!". I just can't get into that.Why does everyone give call of duty world at war such a hard time the gameplay is better online than cod 4 mod warfare
Snakewiseman
Too many of the guns on MW feel the same to me and 3 bullets from any gun do the same thing. W@W doesn't have a single "i win" gun, unlike MW's M16, M4 etc. You don't even need a sniper rifle unless you are so far away you can't be seen, just toss on a red dot with ANY gun and fire off 2-3 bullets at a time and it does the job. The fact that guns reload slower, fire rate is much more different and they don't do as much damage, gives it more strategy. For example, grab an AK or G3 point it at any range fire and its going to hit perfectly where the aim is, if you miss its ok because it takes less than a split second to reload. W@W you can't just pick up a rifle and fire 3 shots from down town, you will probably miss since the aim won't be dead on, and if you have to reload and you are in a hot area, its probably going to cost you your life.
Honestly I think people like MW because its easier to kill people. Maps are dull, buildings (and everything for that matter) are very square and it doesn't have that "war" feel to me. It looks like you are in someones backyard or ghost town, but warzone...not by a long shot. W@W maps looks like the $***'s been hitting the fan for a while.
Game play is much more solid on cod4 and also dont know bout anyone else but im STILL sick of WWII games...
Why does everyone give call of duty world at war such a hard time the gameplay is better online than cod 4 mod warfare
I actually agree that W@W is better. I need more plot than bad guys wanting to do bad things and they need to be stopped. WWII itself is a better story and gives me a better feeling of fighting in a war with a squad. Online they took what MW had and added to it. Although everyone is right when they say "WWII has been done...a lot...like lot lot lot." everytime its done, it has a better story/plot than the MW approach and it has more than one point of view. MW's plot?: "omg terrorists doing evil for the sake of being evil!". I just can't get into that. Too many of the guns on MW feel the same to me and 3 bullets from any gun do the same thing. W@W doesn't have a single "i win" gun, unlike MW's M16, M4 etc. You don't even need a sniper rifle unless you are so far away you can't be seen, just toss on a red dot with ANY gun and fire off 2-3 bullets at a time and it does the job. Single player in MW is so short (but still good) that its impossible to become attached to any of the action. By the time you know whats going on, the mission is over. I like the fact that weps fire differently and handle differently in W@W. No, they don't do as much damage but at least thats dependant on your range, unlike MW. The fact that guns reload slower, fire rate is much more different and they don't do as much damage, gives it more strategy. For example, grab an AK or G3 point it at any range fire and its going to hit perfectly where the aim is, if you miss its ok because it takes less than a split second to reload. W@W you can't just pick up a rifle and fire 3 shots from down town, you will probably miss since the aim won't be dead on, and if you have to reload and you are in a hot area, its probably going to cost you your life. Honestly I think people like MW because its easier to kill people. Maps are dull, buildings (and everything for that matter) are very square and it doesn't have that "war" feel to me. It looks like you are in someones backyard or ghost town, but warzone...not by a long shot. W@W maps looks like the $***'s been hitting the fan for a while. MW looks like an old Walmart thats been closed down, or a ghetto thats been evicted. Maybe thats the look that they were shooting for since its "Modern". One thing that I think they really should add to their games from now on are destructive environments. They shoot for that "realistic" feel, but a pineapple at a wall should kinda put a dent in the thing, since bullets can travel through it and all. Man...... I didn't read any of that, but I sure hope you got your point across. lolyeah I've got a thing for over-ranting. I'll see if i can't sum it up.Ninja_Zombie83lol, its cool. Its nice to see somebody with a little passion from time to time! W@W rants FTW!!
COD4 plays better than W@W. But they are almost the same game, only the modern weapons seem to have a smaller spread. Which to me make the game funner, and seems to play better.
mw was the best online shooter during its prime..
treyarch makes bad games.. w@w was a complete copy of mw only put in a ww2 setting..
the spamming of nades during single player annoyed people beyond belief.. online was par at best.. zombie mode was boring to a lot, and fun to others..
overall it just wasn't a good game..
people tend to overlook the important things that make a game good or not, when it has coop or when they enjoy some bonus feature that was put into it..
O I C WHUT U DID THAR. And I agree with what you did there :D Hopefully Treyarch will stick with the rumors and make something about Vietnam / Cold war. So then they'll be doing communism INSTEAD of WWII (yeah I know that was communism too :P)World War II is as dead as communism in the eyes of Treyarch. :roll:
I want somene to see what I did there.
samuraiguns
World War II is as dead as communism in the eyes of Treyarch. :roll:
I want somene to see what I did there.
O I C WHUT U DID THAR. And I agree with what you did there :D Hopefully Treyarch will stick with the rumors and make something about Vietnam / Cold war. So then they'll be doing communism INSTEAD of WWII (yeah I know that was communism too :P) How could you make a hectic, action-packed FPS about the Cold War? Spies and informants didn't really get to play with heavy calilbur machine guns. They had to be descrete (so no big explosions), and they were almost always alone. Cold War = fail. IMO (lets leave the cold war to Big Boss) ;)World War II is as dead as communism in the eyes of Treyarch. :roll:
I want somene to see what I did there.
O I C WHUT U DID THAR. And I agree with what you did there :D Hopefully Treyarch will stick with the rumors and make something about Vietnam / Cold war. So then they'll be doing communism INSTEAD of WWII (yeah I know that was communism too :P) How could you make a hectic, action-packed FPS about the Cold War? Spies and informants didn't really get to play with heavy calilbur machine guns. They had to be descrete (so no big explosions), and they were almost always alone. Cold War = fail. IMO (lets leave the cold war to Big Boss) ;)Somebody's never heard of the (good) Splinter Cell games, apparently.This has most likely been said before. But I will say it again. The whole World War 2 thing is so played out. (Thats one of the main reasons why CoD4 was so much more popular. Because it wasn't WWII) WAW plays some what like Modern Warfare. That and the fact that infinaty ward developed modern warfare so well. And all lot of people including myself think treyarch is not as good of a developer.Why does everyone give call of duty world at war such a hard time the gameplay is better online than cod 4 mod warfare
Snakewiseman
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment