Why must everyone compare the two? They came out at completely different times and they feel very similar.. Also there's like 500 of these threads why not just use those?
If you are looking for a better campaign experience, get Cod5, despite having a mediocre online experience, Treyarch really did out do themselves on immersing you into World War II. If you are looking for a better multiplayer experience, get Cod4. In Cod5 you spawn right in front of enemies, you spawn in the middle of firefights, the hit detection on most guns is terrible, some guns are WAY TOO overpowered (MP40) and the online community is pretty bad, considering that half of the World at War community got the game only because their mommies or daddies bought the game for them for Christmas.
4 by far, unless you want to keep getting pwned by tanks ( *waits for someone to say " omg tanks r teh easy to kill! U only need 8 satchel charges and 4598489695496896376 rockets to destroy one!"). The zombie mode is fun though.
see people...4 was the beginning of the franchise to most people but the call of duty series truly started with call of duty 2 on the 360 platform....that game was the reason i bought the 360...then treyarch did 3 and i was depressed because they screwed the game terribly and the infinity ward did 4 and created the ranking system that really set the franchise off, the real call of duty feel is in WWII. While i loved Call of Duty 4 also, its a fresh feel to have an even better call of duty game that actually takes place in wwII where the franchise began.
I don't like either's multiplayer. I found both's campaigns to be quite enjoyable despite being rather short. I'd go with World at War though simply because it has co-op making it a tad bit more enjoyable.
Log in to comment