I was just wondering because i heard that the new one was worse than the fourth. Just so you know im a big fan of the fourth one and was just wondering if it was good.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I was just wondering because i heard that the new one was worse than the fourth. Just so you know im a big fan of the fourth one and was just wondering if it was good.
People will argue that COD 4 is way better than W@W just because it's a modern setting. IMO - W@W is great, but on a different level because it's back in WWII era - using the same engine that COD 4 uses helps, the perks and unlockable weapons by advancing through the ranks is cool, just like COD 4 - the multi player maps are great looking, some better than others - of course I didn't like ALL the maps on COD 4 either.
If ur unsure, rent or borrow it 1st - I'll be suprised if you don't like it
.Â
for me WaW it has more to offer higher levels in MP,Co-Op mission and Nazi Zombies and the flamethrower kicks ass 2
also CoD4 was made using WaW engine WaW was in devleopment for 2Â years and a few months
Â
I would have rather they just added new weapons and maps to 4 and left it at that until COD5 came out. World at War while not a bad game just doesn't do it for me like COD4. I don't really like the weapons other than the bouncing betty. The maps are ok with the exception of having a billion places to get snyped from. The dogs are cool the first few times but become annoying after awhile and seem to say active for 10mins.
It's new and it's enough like COD4 to make people say it's great but really I think the biggest draw is it being new. Like someone else said if it would have came out before COD4 it would be different.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment