i was wondering which one is better becasue modern warfare got a higher score then world at war. do alot of people still go online for the older version?
The reason why Modern Warfare received a better score is because formula it used was fresh for the franchise. World at War lives up to the whole phrase; if it ain't broke then why fix it. World at War is a very good game. But it doesn't do have a dramatic difference from Modern Warfare. Besides being set in WWII, and some additional multiplayer perks; the gameplay feel identical.
In all honesty choose what era you like to play in. There's still a lot of people that play Modern Warfare, and World at War is drawing in a fresh crowd.
god i hate that WaW got a lower score. If it had come out first do you think it would have had the score it got? no, it would've gotten COD4's score and would've been considered better. Then COD4 would come out and it would have a lower score for being a copy in a different era
god i hate that WaW got a lower score. If it had come out first do you think it would have had the score it got? no, it would've gotten COD4's score and would've been considered better. Then COD4 would come out and it would have a lower score for being a copy in a different eradjmillard2
You hate that reviewers take into account originality? Of course if you completely copy an older game and just reskin it for a different era it shouldn't get a better score.
You can't compare them. One is modern as in today weapons and warfare and the other is WWII. You have to judge World at War with other WWII games, and in that case World at War is the best WWII game out there. And Modern Warfare is the best "futuristic" game out there.
Modern Warfare has it's action placed in our days and the WaW happens in the world war 2 period....they both are great games capable of keeping you playing at least untill the campaign it's over. I can't tell which one is better, i guess it depends on what everybody likes better.
You can't compare them. One is modern as in today weapons and warfare and the other is WWII. You have to judge World at War with other WWII games, and in that case World at War is the best WWII game out there. And Modern Warfare is the best "futuristic" game out there.SirCokerThe9th
I disagree, the forumula is so simmilar that they need to be compared. COD 4 and COD: WaW are closer related to each other than COD: WaW and any other WWII game, so I would argue that it makes more sense to compare prequel and sequel than sequel and genre.
they are the same it depens on what u like, do u like old weapons and ww2 games? or do u prefer more modern games? The game is basicly the same, oh and yeh zombie mode is sick:P
I agree with everyone, it's impossible to get away from that sense of familiarity with WaW, perhaps because it is so similar to modern warfare in gameplay/multiplayer, or perhaps because it is another WW2 shooter, and lets face it, WW2 has now been done to death, how many games have we happily pwned Germans with an M1 garand? or the trusty M40? i personally think it's the latter. Modern Warfare was such a massive hit because it was fresh, something we haven't seen before and something we can all undoubtedly relate to in one way or another, perhaps more so then storming the Reichstag listening to dodgy choir music. who knows. My verdict, Modern Warfare all the way.
Modern Warfare is slightly better because Infinity Ward came up with the blueprint for the game, the Treyarch used the same blueprint nd also came up with a great game, both have great multiplayer and all right campaigns...I give the edge to COD 4 because the formula was first used in that game.
does anyone know why rainbow six vegas got a higher score than cod4 and everyone likes cod4 so much better. could someone please tell me why and which one you think is better.
Log in to comment