Modern Warfare -vs- World at War

[PARAGON GT]

Which one is the better game?

Recently I was talking with my B-I-L about the two games, and he was commenting that he thought that Modern Warfare was a better game than World at War and he gave me various reasons why he thought so.

Well yesterday I received World at War just recently from my M-I-L as a "Daddy gift". She said that the guy at the store told her that it was a good game, and if I wasn't sure if I wanted it, I could exchange it (if it wasn't open) for something else to my liking.

I also received Res-5, which I'm definitely going to keep, but I can't decided what to do with COD WAW. Should I keep it, or exchange it for the previous version which I hear quite a few people feel is a better game.

Also, aside from voting, could you give reason for why you did so? Thanks.

 

[Stevisiov]

I certainly feel that Modern warfare is the better game, its quite old now but I am sure you will still be able to have some fun with it. I am sure there are plenty of people still online.

If you can wait that long, modern warfare 2 is coming out later this year, it might be an idea to wait till then. 👍

 

[Zrow]

Get Gears of War 2.

Oh, that wasn't part of the question. Well, just know that Modern Warfare is a fantastic game.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

I say keep WaW, sure the story is not as good, but it makes up for it with some of the refinements. Besides, where else can you and buds kill Nazi zombies without getting in trouble?

 

[Max_DC]

I can't vote here, because it's a little more complex.

Overall I prefer COD4, yet in many aspects WaW is better imo.

I could list many pro's and con's instead I keep it short :

You should have both games. So keep WaW and buy COD4 in a month or two. Then get MW2 in autumn.

WaW is in 2nd WW - that means old weapons and a campaign without many surprises - if you haven't played WW2 shooters to death until now, there is no reason not to like WaW, both singleplayer and multiplayer represent the best of the best in WW2 shooters.

Still, COD4 totally rocks - a refreshing modern campaign with many wow-moments and intense Hollywood action and great multiplayer,still played by thousands of people every day.

So... BOTH... that's the only way to go if you ask me. I actually bought them both at their release and STILL play both in multiplayer until today.

 

[Christian_C]

WaW is in 2nd WW - that means old weapons and a campaign without many surprises - if you haven't played WW2 shooters to death until now, there is no reason not to like WaW, both singleplayer and multiplayer represent the best of the best in WW2 shooters.

Apart from the fact that they catered for the 10 year olds that like their attachments by including: silencers, aperture sights (effectively a red dot sight but cross hairs with a black dot in the center (something that was definitely not available in WWII) and on some guns acog scopes which were also not available in WWII. I have no issues with the attachments like: drum mags, bipods and bayonets.

This to me ruins the game from a realistic point of view and makes modern warfare a much better game. Another reason to dislike world at war is the fact that the guns have almost zero recoil and seem to be more accurate than the much more modern guns in MW.

The maps are also much better in MW as the maps in WAW only seem to cater for one game mode whereas the maps in MW are well designed for all types of game modes.

In my opinion you should sell WAW and buy MW as its in general a much better game and you won't have to cope with all the 10 year olds on WAW.

Also if you want a properly realistic WWII shooter go and buy Brothers in arms hells highway, sure the graphics may not be GT5 level but its probably one of the most realistic shooters that you can buy on console at the moment.

 

[Moglet]

Modern Warfare is miles better than WaW. WaW was fun in single player or co op mode but multiplayer online was terrible. The guns are out of balance (you're stuffed unless you use a semi auto), the dogs are too difficult to kill, the grenades are useless, the tanks are too difficult to take down even with Sonic Boom and satchels, and the single shot rifles have to be levelled up before they can become sniper rifles. How fun.

MW is much more balanced and is easier to get into for new players. There are still lots of people online too.

 

[Syntax error]

Albeit I’ve only played both titles on PC and not on xbox, I agree with Moglet’s comments regarding the games.

MW is far more enjoyable, I still go back and play it pretty frequently (just last night actually) however WAW now just collects dust on a shelf as I won’t be replaying it at all. I’m actually a pretty big fan of WW2 shoots in general but I found WAW to be pretty bland in a genre that has so many possibilities. The weapons didn’t really feel right either.

MW on the other hand is face paced, full of action. It is easy to pick up and play with out too much investment but at the same time, doesn’t seem to get old. Single player has a great story and really makes you feel like you are part of a larger war, and multiplayer is just plain old fashioned mayhem.

 

[Moglet]

WAW now just collects dust on a shelf as I won’t be replaying it at all.

Same here, I'm planning on trading it in on both consoles soon, I only bought it on both so I could play my friends from work.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

I actually think COD:WAW is a lot better than COD4 especially the multiplayer with the 4 player co-op campaign, gore, 4 player co-op zombie mode, tanks, death cards, and dogs. Its everything I have wanted from the COD series and more. When you play the co-op campaign you can turn on deathcards that allow paintball weapons, headshots make enemies explode, shoot teammates to revive them, all enemies are zombies, and much more. In terms of multiplayer fun COD:WAW is a lot better than COD4. I must not be the only one thinking that because currently its the 2nd most played game on xboxlive while COD4 is the 3th most played game. It also just came out with 4 new maps including another zombie map.
COD:WAW is also the 2nd top played game on xboxlive. COD:4 is the 3rd top played game. Halo 3 is the top played game.

 

[Kryz11]

I am sure Xbox offers way better game..

Unless you are casual gamer go with Modern W.

But if you are more of hardcore ... excuse me.. a true gamer I bett there are way better games..

After COD1.. game has gone downhill and casual.. I just cant stand it.

 

[Dragonistic]

After COD1.. game has gone downhill and casual.. I just cant stand it.

Finally someone else who thinks the first was the best!

My vote here goes to MW. The only mode in MP thats really better in WaW is Ground War, because of the larger maps available for it. It's not a considerable amount better because many of the maps even on GW are still flawed. COD4 is much more balanced, and just generally better.

 

[PARAGON GT]

I ended up cracking open WAW to give it a go. Figured I would once I found MW on craigslist for $30. And it can't hurt having a couple different games in the library.

 

[Moglet]

COD:WAW is also the 2nd top played game on xboxlive. COD:4 is the 3rd top played game. Halo 3 is the top played game.

What has this got to do with anything? I actually enjoy MW much more now that most of the morons who camp or use lag to their advantage have moved onto WaW and just drive round in the tanks all the time.

 

[mPWRD]

Both have their advantages, but COD4 is better. I can't really figure out what is better, but I just like Modern Warfare more.

 

[nk4e]

Both have the same engine..or you can wait till get MW2!

 

[Skygrasper550]

Both have the same engine..or you can wait till get MW2!

true, Treyarch is a sister studio of Infinity Ward..,

IMO you really can't compare the two games, both have their own "charms". I'll just point a few..,

COD4 was great because of its time setting, as the title suggests, "Modern Warfare" .., yeah, we're getting tired of WWII shooters, games like US Socom Navy Seals and Battlefield 2 were OK, not bad but OK.., what Infinity Ward brought to us what just the thing we "needed".., since this is modern, the story becomes open-ended because the events in this game are happening right now or have not yet happened. one more thing is that you can upgrade weapons in multiplayer.., red dot sights, suppresors and grenade launchers on your M4A1's, everyone?? this game is without doubt a winner.., even though COD5 is out I still play this..,

COD5, on the other hand, brings us back to WWII.., fans of COD4 will definitely say "ugh, not WWII again" .., but when you play COD5, it would certainly feel different compared to other WWII shooters.., this game is "brutal" and I mean it.., attack dogs are still here, with the addition of enemy soldiers armed with bayonets rushing at you with no hesitation.., both work in the same way.., COD5's multiplayer is also great, it has the WWII equivalent of kill streak bonuses in COD4.., what's become a helicopter after a 7-kill streak has turned into attack dogs. Oh yes.., if you want to hear Keifer Sutherland's and Gary Oldman's voices, and see bodies cut in half and arms and feet flying when enemies get killed by grenades, Panzerschreks or mortars, this is the game for you. IMO this game feels more realistic than COD4..,


my choice on the poll?? GET BOTH. 👍

 

[Michelin2]

Modern Warfare is way ahead IMO 👍

Looking forward to the realease of the new game!!!

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

As I said above I prefer WAW especially for the 4 player co-op campaign and 4 player co-op zombie mode.
Hopefully WAW will at least inspire and motivate the new COD game to have 4 player co-op. Otherwise I will just keep WAW and rent MW2.

 

[mr_VOLCANO]

After COD1.. game has gone downhill and casual.. I just cant stand it.

Cant understand this... COD1 was to me the worst of the hole series. AI was so bad that it felt like a half finnished game to me..

 

[Ram-Rod]

I don't really think you can compare the two, mostly because one is a WW2 shooter and the other isn't. That said, they both are very well-done games.

I found the single player in both games to be of top notch quality. Both of them provide you with intense action that will engage you to come back for more. I have to pick WaW in this respect, because of the Co-op feature, something that Call of Duty has desperately needed. That said, you won't be disappointed in either choice as far as single player.

For me, as someone who has played CoD4 multiplayer for 16 total days of online time, I found the multiplayer segment to be where MW starts running circles around WaW. They both follow the same basic principle, however things such as really overpowered SMG's and zero sense of weapon balance, is why I never even got to level 65, before putting it down and leaving it for Battlefield and CoD4 again. MW is a really well-balanced game, with (almost) every weapon equally balanced. One bad thing that both multiplayers have, is an almost non-existent spawn system. People will randomly spawn behind or in front of you, making playing aggressive almost impossible. Even though they both run on the same engine (correct me if I'm wrong), WaW somehow manages to have even worse spawns that MW. Some people complain that the maps in WaW are too big, all though I don't see too much of a problem with it. It can be annoying at some times, but it's nothing to not buy the game about.

Overall, I really don't like to compare these two, however I would have to say that Modern Warfare is a superior game, at least in the multiplayer sense.

 

[Dead_Poetic]

Ram-rod's right. W@W is a good game, especially when you consider how much you get. Co-op, nazi zombies, etc. BUT, when focusing strictly on multiplayer, W@W just isn't balanced right. EVERYONE uses an MP-40 because its two shots to kill someone and from the hip, you get headshots 50 percent of the time. It is just ridiculous. Not to mention, you get so much more bull crap from W@W online. By bull crap i mean, missed melees, shots not hitting people when you're relatively sure they should have, just more unfair stuff that happens. That is why i recently traded my 360 copy in and got MW again. MW is just so much more balanced.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

Ram-rod's right. W@W is a good game, especially when you consider how much you get. Co-op, nazi zombies, etc. BUT, when focusing strictly on multiplayer, W@W just isn't balanced right. EVERYONE uses an MP-40 because its two shots to kill someone and from the hip, you get headshots 50 percent of the time. It is just ridiculous. Not to mention, you get so much more bull crap from W@W online. By bull crap i mean, missed melees, shots not hitting people when you're relatively sure they should have, just more unfair stuff that happens. That is why i recently traded my 360 copy in and got MW again. MW is just so much more balanced.

Everyone in COD4 uses the M16. WAW everyone uses the M60. Each game has a specific weapon everyone will use. I always use a different gun than what everone else is using.
As for the spawing I had the exact opposite of you. I used to get spawn killed over and over again in COD4 in the beta and in the full game. It is very rare for me to get spawn killed in WAW at all. To each his own.

 

[nk4e]

Everyone in COD4 uses the M16. WAW everyone uses the M60. Each game has a specific weapon everyone will use. I always use a different gun than what everone else is using.
As for the spawing I had the exact opposite of you. I used to get spawn killed over and over again in COD4 in the beta and in the full game. It is very rare for me to get spawn killed in WAW at all. To each his own.

I used the R700 in COD4 mainly unlike the famous 50. Cal Sniper rifle in COD4. But in W@W, I stuck with the Springfield unlike going to the other bolt action rifles.

 

[Dead_Poetic]

Everyone in COD4 uses the M16. WAW everyone uses the M60. Each game has a specific weapon everyone will use. I always use a different gun than what everone else is using.
As for the spawing I had the exact opposite of you. I used to get spawn killed over and over again in COD4 in the beta and in the full game. It is very rare for me to get spawn killed in WAW at all. To each his own.

I never said anything about spawning. It is worse in CoD4. And while a lot of people may use the m16 in cod4, its still easy to counter. If you run up on someone with an m16, and force them to fire from the hip, its not difficult to kill them. The mp40 jugger combo that most people on W@W use is much more difficult to defend against.

 

[Moglet]

Everyone in COD4 uses the M16. WAW everyone uses the M60. Each game has a specific weapon everyone will use. I always use a different gun than what everone else is using.

Barely anyone I play against these days uses the M16, not seen it being used for a very long time now you mention it.

 

[barryl85]

I use the MP40 in WAW !!

In Modern warfare it depends what map i'm on - i'll use the P90 or the MP5

 

[HAD2]

Modern warfare is harder & alot better!!! COD 4 all day 👍

 

[ExigeEvan]

I can only judge by what I've played on 4 player but I find that WaW is a far more fun game than MW.

I find the guns way too smooth in MW, you can just point, shoot, and hold while you spray the oponent with led. WaW is alot more difficult in that respect because the guns have horrific recoil. I also enjoy the maps alot more.

 

[Moglet]

I can only judge by what I've played on 4 player but I find that WaW is a far more fun game than MW.

I find the guns way too smooth in MW, you can just point, shoot, and hold while you spray the oponent with led. WaW is alot more difficult in that respect because the guns have horrific recoil. I also enjoy the maps alot more.

None of the guns in MW can have the trigger held down to fill the opponent with lead, if you try that you just get killed! The nearest thing to it is the M4 and even then if you want to take out someone in the distance you need to fire in bursts. Which I do to take out snipers frequently.