H
halo 3 pwner
Guest
me and my friend are having a debate about which game is better?(obviously waw) right?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
E
Ermac77freddy
Guest
LOL OBVIOUSLY MODERN WARFARE 2 LOL COD WAW
S
Steelersfan13
Guest
I've never play COD4 so I have to say COD WaW
i have to agree with Dimitri G. Treyarch is absolutely nothing without IW's gifted idea of modern warfare and the multiplayer success. All they did was copy off the idea and added the infamous Nazi Zombies, which is why most people would say it's more fun than Call of Duty 4, as well as the addition of vehicles in multiplayer, but for me, the best is Call of Duty 4, until MW2 comes out.
D
Dimitri G
Guest
Please not this debate again. I will just post my debate i had with a friend about a couple months ago.
Perhaps the most annoying aspect of the return to World War II is the corresponding return to World War II weaponry. After a year of being spoiled by Call of Duty 4’s high-tech gadgetry, the arsenal in World at War feels like a collection of dusty museum relics.
I want guns that shoot accurately, reload quickly and kill effectively – historical accuracy be damned. I want a silenced sniper rifle with laser scope and digital camouflage, not the gas-powered, service-issue doohickey favored by grandfathers and great-grandfathers everywhere. I want a rocket launcher, not a “bazooka.”
The two games’ multiplayer modes are almost identical, but Modern Warfare was the blueprint on which World at War was conceived. Adding a few extra perks and some exotic Japanese temple maps can’t hide that fact. They also can’t hide that the text fonts and screen HUDs were copied over from Modern Warfare, too, despite making no sense whatsoever in a 1940s environment.
And the attack dogs? I’ll take an air strike
Perhaps the most annoying aspect of the return to World War II is the corresponding return to World War II weaponry. After a year of being spoiled by Call of Duty 4’s high-tech gadgetry, the arsenal in World at War feels like a collection of dusty museum relics.
I want guns that shoot accurately, reload quickly and kill effectively – historical accuracy be damned. I want a silenced sniper rifle with laser scope and digital camouflage, not the gas-powered, service-issue doohickey favored by grandfathers and great-grandfathers everywhere. I want a rocket launcher, not a “bazooka.”
The two games’ multiplayer modes are almost identical, but Modern Warfare was the blueprint on which World at War was conceived. Adding a few extra perks and some exotic Japanese temple maps can’t hide that fact. They also can’t hide that the text fonts and screen HUDs were copied over from Modern Warfare, too, despite making no sense whatsoever in a 1940s environment.
And the attack dogs? I’ll take an air strike
D
Dory54T
Guest
DUDE, Call of duty 4 is great. Its got a better story line and its multi player is insane!
return HBK!!!
New member
World at War far better. Call of Duty 4 requires a lot of camping and almost no skill. You die quickly, the guns are too powerful, and too many people glitch it and there are also way more pussys on COD4. AND THERE'S NO NAZI ZOMBIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!