[QUOTE="Logan1616"]Hey you guys, what do you think about the guns in both games as well? Do you like the old school tommy gun or the new school MP5?cokecanw00t
I prefer CoD Modern Warfare, but I do like the (old school tommygun) substantially more than the MP5. Yeah, I agree. I LOVE M16, M4, G3, G36C, MP44 (In both games although it's the STG in WaW but it's the same) but I LOVE LOVE LOVE the tommy gun with round drum.
now that i can agree with. I throughly enjoyed WaW's campiagn but 4 did have a more action movie kind of feel to it and I did really enjoy that. ceells87
Yeah, like WaW environment and everything was extremely historically accurate (to me) and felt real. But like the helicopter crashing, sneaking behind enemy lines, saving the world from nuclear destruction was awesome in CoD4.
[QUOTE="ceells87"]now that i can agree with. I throughly enjoyed WaW's campiagn but 4 did have a more action movie kind of feel to it and I did really enjoy that. Logan1616
Yeah, like WaW environment and everything was extremely historically accurate (to me) and felt real. But like the helicopter crashing, sneaking behind enemy lines, saving the world from nuclear destruction was awesome in CoD4. I know what you mean you have the epic escape from the enemy after shooting al ahsad's arm off, even having to carry an allie, the closest thing you get to that in CoD World at War is running through like five minutes of sewers.
Do you guys think that the maps on CoD Modern Warfare are better than on CoD World at War?cokecanw00t
Better? I don't know. I mean, how do you compare maps? I like CoD4's map selection more, but I also like some from WaW. If they were to bring some from WaW into MW2 they could "modernize," them, that'd be pretty cool I think.
Modern Warfare pretty much got the Call of Duty name real big, so that instead of people thinking that "Oh, that WWII game? That was pretty good I guess" to "Oh! Call of Duty! Those games are amazing." WaW felt a little rushed, but besides that there isn't much problem with it. I like Modern Warfare though, cuz that setting is rarely used (Only one I can think of is Counter Strike) and is also a little more polished.
[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="ceells87"]now that i can agree with. I throughly enjoyed WaW's campiagn but 4 did have a more action movie kind of feel to it and I did really enjoy that. cokecanw00t
Yeah, like WaW environment and everything was extremely historically accurate (to me) and felt real. But like the helicopter crashing, sneaking behind enemy lines, saving the world from nuclear destruction was awesome in CoD4. I know what you mean you have the epic escape from the enemy after shooting al ahsad's arm off, even having to carry an allie, the closest thing you get to that in CoD World at War is running through like five minutes of sewers. Haha yeah, and then just having a bunch of filthy and poopy water come splashing on you, how fun! :P
Modern Warfare pretty much got the Call of Duty name real big, so that instead of people thinking that "Oh, that WWII game? That was pretty good I guess" to "Oh! Call of Duty! Those games are amazing." WaW felt a little rushed, but besides that there isn't much problem with it. I like Modern Warfare though, cuz that setting is rarely used (Only one I can think of is Counter Strike) and is also a little more polished.Ze_Common_Cold
[QUOTE="Logan1616"]It's a debate you guys, not an argument. They're different. Both sides can bring up details and arguments they'd like to make and both sides can refute. To those who don't like these threads, don't post. There's your solution. Onto the point though, which is better?Logan1616
a debate is an arguement man. one side against the other. its an arguement to prove that one side is better than the other. and that is what this is.ive noticed that everytime someone says call of duty w@w you try to tear them down and say cod4 is better. in your opinion you like cod4, good for you it was a good game,but you dont like w@w, why because infinity ward didnt make it. but uses the same features
No, I like it, not as much as CoD4 though. Plus, you're wrong. A debate is a meeting of intellectuals to discuss a topic. But, arguments are made within an actual debate.
in a debate are you not trying to prove that your side is right and trying to disprove the other,if your not trying to do that then you are not debating. in a debate you also try to prove that the other side is wrong for its reasons. i think you got your stuff mixed up. so in a presidential debate you dont agree with the guy running against you. you try to disprove him and say that hes not right. that your better for the postion because of your reasons
[QUOTE="Ze_Common_Cold"]Modern Warfare pretty much got the Call of Duty name real big, so that instead of people thinking that "Oh, that WWII game? That was pretty good I guess" to "Oh! Call of Duty! Those games are amazing." WaW felt a little rushed, but besides that there isn't much problem with it. I like Modern Warfare though, cuz that setting is rarely used (Only one I can think of is Counter Strike) and is also a little more polished.Logan1616
That basically sums it up for me too. :) yeah CoD 4 Modern Warfare is what got me started in the franchise in the first place. I never played the first 3 more than once or twice.
Gears 2? Get the f*** outta here. CoD series owns Gears in the f***ing face. Go shut the f*** up. Gears 2=Biggest disappointment of all time and Cliffy B should come out of the closet already. Gears FTL.
World at War. It had a more enjoyable campaign. I would care less when either game takes place. Im in it for the fun. I didn't like either game's multiplayer.
a debate is an arguement man. one side against the other. its an arguement to prove that one side is better than the other. and that is what this is.ive noticed that everytime someone says call of duty w@w you try to tear them down and say cod4 is better. in your opinion you like cod4, good for you it was a good game,but you dont like w@w, why because infinity ward didnt make it. but uses the same features
patrickhorta87
No, I like it, not as much as CoD4 though. Plus, you're wrong. A debate is a meeting of intellectuals to discuss a topic. But, arguments are made within an actual debate.
in a debate are you not trying to prove that your side is right and trying to disprove the other,if your not trying to do that then you are not debating. in a debate you also try to prove that the other side is wrong for its reasons. i think you got your stuff mixed up. so in a presidential debate you dont agree with the guy running against you. you try to disprove him and say that hes not right. that your better for the postion because of your reasons
That's what you try to accomplish in a debate yes. But none the less it's a meeting of intellectuals. But I got the sense that you were implying that debating is just yelling and arguing, which it's not, and that's why I said that. So I just mis-interpreted what you said. Perception gets me sometimes.
[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="Ze_Common_Cold"]Modern Warfare pretty much got the Call of Duty name real big, so that instead of people thinking that "Oh, that WWII game? That was pretty good I guess" to "Oh! Call of Duty! Those games are amazing." WaW felt a little rushed, but besides that there isn't much problem with it. I like Modern Warfare though, cuz that setting is rarely used (Only one I can think of is Counter Strike) and is also a little more polished.cokecanw00t
That basically sums it up for me too. :) yeah CoD 4 Modern Warfare is what got me started in the franchise in the first place. I never played the first 3 more than once or twice. You should give CoD2 a swirl. It was an excellent game for PC, and one of the best, if not the best Xbox 360 launch games. But CoD4 took it to be an "elite" franchise.
[QUOTE="vashkey"]World at War. It had a more enjoyable campaign. I would care less when either game takes place. Im in it for the fun. I didn't like either game's multiplayer. Really? You didn't like the multiplayer of either game? May I ask which multiplayer games you play?
I just couldn't find myself being sucked into CoD World at War like I was when playing CoD Modern Warfare. I think It's because I'm more of a free-roam gamer instead of a level-to-level. My point is that in CoD 4 Modern Warfare the levels are smaller, but there is more free choices whether to go straight though the streets or fight secretly through the buildings, It's your choice, unlike in CoD World at War where you must make your way down one street to your goal, you always have someone to follow in CoD World at War, unlike in CoD 4 Modern Warfare where you are the leader, and you have to make your own way. That's one reason I think that CoD World at War's campaign is harder than that of CoD Modern Warfare. Does anyone else agree?
[QUOTE="vashkey"]World at War. It had a more enjoyable campaign. I would care less when either game takes place. Im in it for the fun. I didn't like either game's multiplayer.Logan1616
Really? You didn't like the multiplayer of either game? May I ask which multiplayer games you play? Honestly, I don't a large variety of multiplayer games on live. I love Halo 3. I'd really enjoy the Gears games if they werent so glitchy. Really, their really well set up, it's just that they did a poor job at testing the game. I thought Grand Theft Auto IV's was enjoyable. Fun for a little while. The main reason Im not very fond of Call of Duty 4's and World at War's multiplayer is because they pretty much thrive on being unbalanced. You got the kill streak bonuses which make it hard for player on the losing team all the more difficult to turn the game aroun. And the unlockable perks and weapons make it to where the veteran players have that much more an advatage against new players or people who just don't constantly play like they do. It's enjoyable, but I preffered Call of Duty 2's multiplayer.
[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="vashkey"]World at War. It had a more enjoyable campaign. I would care less when either game takes place. Im in it for the fun. I didn't like either game's multiplayer.vashkey
Really? You didn't like the multiplayer of either game? May I ask which multiplayer games you play? Honestly, I don't a large variety of multiplayer games on live. I love Halo 3. I'd really enjoy the Gears games if they werent so glitchy. Really, their really well set up, it's just that they did a poor job at testing the game. I thought Grand Theft Auto IV's was enjoyable. Fun for a little while. The main reason Im not very fond of Call of Duty 4's and World at War's multiplayer is because they pretty much thrive on being unbalanced. You got the kill streak bonuses which make it hard for player on the losing team all the more difficult to turn the game aroun. And the unlockable perks and weapons make it to where the veteran players have that much more an advatage against new players or people who just don't constantly play like they do. It's enjoyable, but I preffered Call of Duty 2's multiplayer. Call of Duty 2 was fun, yes. But I mean, try going stealthy. It sounds to me like you've a good idea of what to do, but people just use UAV's, streak rewards, and better guns to their advantage. Try this: Your Favorite Sub-Machine Gun Silenced (I'd recommend MP40 or Type 100) Favorite Pistol Bandolier Camouflage Steady Aim/Deep Impact Flank the enemy, don't go head on because most have stopping power and will mow you down. Flank, kill from behind, get a UAV, and wreak havok.
[QUOTE="cokecanw00t"]I just couldn't find myself being sucked into CoD World at War like I was when playing CoD Modern Warfare. I think It's because I'm more of a free-roam gamer instead of a level-to-level. My point is that in CoD 4 Modern Warfare the levels are smaller, but there is more free choices whether to go straight though the streets or fight secretly through the buildings, It's your choice, unlike in CoD World at War where you must make your way down one street to your goal, you always have someone to follow in CoD World at War, unlike in CoD 4 Modern Warfare where you are the leader, and you have to make your own way. That's one reason I think that CoD World at War's campaign is harder than that of CoD Modern Warfare. Does anyone else agree? Ah yes, I can specifically remember in CoD4's single player. It's the Level after you rescue War Pig, but now it's in the day and you have to go through the actual city. You can fight with your teammates through the street, or go into buildings and assault them. That's another aspect of CoD4 which I like.
[QUOTE="patrickhorta87"][QUOTE="Logan1616"] No, I like it, not as much as CoD4 though. Plus, you're wrong. A debate is a meeting of intellectuals to discuss a topic. But, arguments are made within an actual debate.Logan1616
in a debate are you not trying to prove that your side is right and trying to disprove the other,if your not trying to do that then you are not debating. in a debate you also try to prove that the other side is wrong for its reasons. i think you got your stuff mixed up. so in a presidential debate you dont agree with the guy running against you. you try to disprove him and say that hes not right. that your better for the postion because of your reasons
That's what you try to accomplish in a debate yes. But none the less it's a meeting of intellectuals. But I got the sense that you were implying that debating is just yelling and arguing, which it's not, and that's why I said that. So I just mis-interpreted what you said. Perception gets me sometimes.
well being a history buff i like all the ww2 stuff but i also like the modern part because its new and fresh.
in a debate are you not trying to prove that your side is right and trying to disprove the other,if your not trying to do that then you are not debating. in a debate you also try to prove that the other side is wrong for its reasons. i think you got your stuff mixed up. so in a presidential debate you dont agree with the guy running against you. you try to disprove him and say that hes not right. that your better for the postion because of your reasonspatrickhorta87
That's what you try to accomplish in a debate yes. But none the less it's a meeting of intellectuals. But I got the sense that you were implying that debating is just yelling and arguing, which it's not, and that's why I said that. So I just mis-interpreted what you said. Perception gets me sometimes.
well being a history buff i like all the ww2 stuff but i also like the modern part because its new and fresh.
I like a lot of the stuff CoD: WaW does too, but just prefer CoD4 over it by a pinch.
[QUOTE="cokecanw00t"]I found myself skipping the cut scenes for CoD World at War that I hadn't seen yet. Can anyone else relate? Yeah, I didn't find them as engaging. I liked some of them, but others were rather dull.
[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="MrArmageddon8"]The only thing good about WAW is the German MP victory speech.cokecanw00t
Umm...what? Are you talking about the end where time is slowed down and you raise the flag? Yeah, can you confirm what you're talking about because I'm confused.
What was you guys favorite missions on CoD World at War, and CoD Modern Warfare? Mine were The Reich (driving the Germans into the Reich), and War Pig.
Just picked up COD4 for 360 i already owned it on PC.
Reason being PC has a bunch of filthy hackers, and i never was a fan of terytech or w/e there called, i saw some videos of WoW looks the same as COD-3 witch i regret buying.
What was you guys favorite missions on CoD World at War, and CoD Modern Warfare? Mine were The Reich (driving the Germans into the Reich), and War Pig.cokecanw00t
Yeah, I liked the Reichstag as well. In CoD4, War Pig was good, Ultimatum too, Ghillie in the Mist (Pwns hardcore) and I always have liked the one where the guy's son kills himself, forgot what it's called though.
Just picked up COD4 for 360 i already owned it on PC.
Reason being PC has a bunch of filthy hackers, and i never was a fan of terytech or w/e there called, i saw some videos of WoW looks the same as COD-3 witch i regret buying.
[QUOTE="cokecanw00t"]What was you guys favorite missions on CoD World at War, and CoD Modern Warfare? Mine were The Reich (driving the Germans into the Reich), and War Pig.Logan1616
Yeah, I liked the Reichstag as well. In CoD4, War Pig was good, Ultimatum too, Ghillie in the Mist (Pwns hardcore) and I always have liked the one where the guy's son kills himself, forgot what it's called though. Oh yeah, where you have to chase him down for like thirty minutes to an hour based on difficulty to just have him kill himself. Yeah, lol I liked that one too.
[QUOTE="shawn7324"]I say neither. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 & Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 are much better online multiplayer games.Logan1616
Really? For what reasons? Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is really great game, it's just mostly what your into Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is more of a slow-paced tactical shooter, when CoD is more of a straight-forward shooter. In my opinion they are both equally great games.
[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="cokecanw00t"]What was you guys favorite missions on CoD World at War, and CoD Modern Warfare? Mine were The Reich (driving the Germans into the Reich), and War Pig.cokecanw00t
Yeah, I liked the Reichstag as well. In CoD4, War Pig was good, Ultimatum too, Ghillie in the Mist (Pwns hardcore) and I always have liked the one where the guy's son kills himself, forgot what it's called though. Oh yeah, where you have to chase him down for like thirty minutes to an hour based on difficulty to just have him kill himself. Yeah, lol I liked that one too. Yeah, lol. And although it was stupid that he shot himself, I was like "OH ****what are they gonna do now?"
[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="shawn7324"]I say neither. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 & Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 are much better online multiplayer games.cokecanw00t
Really? For what reasons? Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is really great game, it's just mostly what your into Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is more of a slow-paced tactical shooter, when CoD is more of a straight-forward shooter. In my opinion they are both equally great games. I've played both, and I like Vegas, but it's not nearly as deep or fun as CoD in my opinion. Plus, more people play CoD games, which proves they're more popular. GRAW games in my opinion had bad multiplayer, but enjoyable single player.
[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="cokecanw00t"][QUOTE="Logan1616"] Really? For what reasons? Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is really great game, it's just mostly what your into Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is more of a slow-paced tactical shooter, when CoD is more of a straight-forward shooter. In my opinion they are both equally great games. I've played both, and I like Vegas, but it's not nearly as deep or fun as CoD in my opinion. Plus, more people play CoD games, which proves they're more popular. GRAW games in my opinion had bad multiplayer, but enjoyable single player. I thought the GRAW games single player was awful, the Co-Op & Multiplayer is just awesome. Best team based Tactical Shooter available. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 however has it all, every part is great Single Player, Co-Op, & Multiplayer.
[QUOTE="shawn7324"][QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="cokecanw00t"] Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is really great game, it's just mostly what your into Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is more of a slow-paced tactical shooter, when CoD is more of a straight-forward shooter. In my opinion they are both equally great games. I've played both, and I like Vegas, but it's not nearly as deep or fun as CoD in my opinion. Plus, more people play CoD games, which proves they're more popular. GRAW games in my opinion had bad multiplayer, but enjoyable single player. I thought the GRAW games single player was awful, the Co-Op & Multiplayer is just awesome. Best team based Tactical Shooter available. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 however has it all, every part is great Single Player, Co-Op, & Multiplayer. Yeah, but that's why you shouldn't compare them to CoD. They are tactical shooters. CoD is a series based on run and gun tactics and is more a twitch based shooter. If you read the title, it says which CoD game is better. Not "Compare CoD to other shooters." But CoD 4 and CoD: WaW are more popular anyway so I don't care. :)
[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="cokecanw00t"][QUOTE="Logan1616"] Really? For what reasons? Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is really great game, it's just mostly what your into Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is more of a slow-paced tactical shooter, when CoD is more of a straight-forward shooter. In my opinion they are both equally great games. I've played both, and I like Vegas, but it's not nearly as deep or fun as CoD in my opinion. Plus, more people play CoD games, which proves they're more popular. GRAW games in my opinion had bad multiplayer, but enjoyable single player. Without a doubt COD is insanely popular, but I never really got into it as much as I did those 2 & I'm not the only one either. However those like myself are rare.
[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="shawn7324"][QUOTE="Logan1616"] I've played both, and I like Vegas, but it's not nearly as deep or fun as CoD in my opinion. Plus, more people play CoD games, which proves they're more popular. GRAW games in my opinion had bad multiplayer, but enjoyable single player. I thought the GRAW games single player was awful, the Co-Op & Multiplayer is just awesome. Best team based Tactical Shooter available. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 however has it all, every part is great Single Player, Co-Op, & Multiplayer. Yeah, but that's why you shouldn't compare them to CoD. They are tactical shooters. CoD is a series based on run and gun tactics and is more a twitch based shooter. If you read the title, it says which CoD game is better. Not "Compare CoD to other shooters." But CoD 4 and CoD: WaW are more popular anyway so I don't care. :) Screw the title, just posting my opinion like everyone else looking just at multiplayer shooters completely.
[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="shawn7324"][QUOTE="Logan1616"] I've played both, and I like Vegas, but it's not nearly as deep or fun as CoD in my opinion. Plus, more people play CoD games, which proves they're more popular. GRAW games in my opinion had bad multiplayer, but enjoyable single player. I think CoD is more popular because in Rainbow Six Vegas 2 on casual mode your dead after 3-5 shots it's more of a skill game in my opinion. I thought the GRAW games single player was awful, the Co-Op & Multiplayer is just awesome. Best team based Tactical Shooter available. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 however has it all, every part is great Single Player, Co-Op, & Multiplayer. Yeah, but that's why you shouldn't compare them to CoD. They are tactical shooters. CoD is a series based on run and gun tactics and is more a twitch based shooter. If you read the title, it says which CoD game is better. Not "Compare CoD to other shooters." But CoD 4 and CoD: WaW are more popular anyway so I don't care. :)
[QUOTE="shawn7324"][QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="shawn7324"] I thought the GRAW games single player was awful, the Co-Op & Multiplayer is just awesome. Best team based Tactical Shooter available. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 however has it all, every part is great Single Player, Co-Op, & Multiplayer. Yeah, but that's why you shouldn't compare them to CoD. They are tactical shooters. CoD is a series based on run and gun tactics and is more a twitch based shooter. If you read the title, it says which CoD game is better. Not "Compare CoD to other shooters." But CoD 4 and CoD: WaW are more popular anyway so I don't care. :) Screw the title, just posting my opinion like everyone else looking just at multiplayer shooters completely Sorry to disturb your debate, I'll move on & let you all get back to your discussion..
Log in to comment