whats with all the hate for call of duty world at war

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Snakewiseman
Snakewiseman

1287

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Snakewiseman
Member since 2009 • 1287 Posts

Why does everyone give call of duty world at war such a hard time the gameplay is better online than cod 4 mod warfare

Avatar image for mrmusicman247
mrmusicman247

17601

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 mrmusicman247
Member since 2008 • 17601 Posts
false
Avatar image for PoisoN_Facecam0
PoisoN_Facecam0

3734

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 PoisoN_Facecam0
Member since 2009 • 3734 Posts
falsemrmusicman247
QFT...
Avatar image for Nephilim83
Nephilim83

4378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#4 Nephilim83
Member since 2008 • 4378 Posts
I don't play it online, but I know this much: When you go from a game with awesome weapons and a faster pace to one with crappier weapons and a more sluggish pace its hard to willingly move forward. I was really disappointed with WaW. I loved the weapons and constant action in COD4. The weapons in WaW fire slow and aren't very powerful. And it kind of lags in places as far as action goes. Plus, COD4 was such a great game its kinda hard to show something like that up. Especially with another stupid WWII drama. I did like the sniper scenes, though. ;)
Avatar image for Diddies
Diddies

2415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#5 Diddies
Member since 2007 • 2415 Posts

Modern is generally more fun to people.

Avatar image for thelastguy
thelastguy

12030

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 thelastguy
Member since 2007 • 12030 Posts

Because everybody is sick and tired of WW2

The market is over saturated with WW2 shooters

Avatar image for mdmilius
mdmilius

132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 mdmilius
Member since 2004 • 132 Posts

Like others, I am just tired of the WWII games. That, and I think that COD4 is simply a superior product in every way (gameplay, story, multiplayer, etc).

Avatar image for samuraiguns
samuraiguns

11588

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 samuraiguns
Member since 2005 • 11588 Posts

World War II is as dead as communism in the eyes of Treyarch. :roll:

I want somene to see what I did there.

Avatar image for Yannakos
Yannakos

585

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#9 Yannakos
Member since 2008 • 585 Posts

COD alone has about 4 WW 1 + 2 games, it is really starting to become "been there done that".

Avatar image for Ninja_Zombie83
Ninja_Zombie83

1893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#10 Ninja_Zombie83
Member since 2009 • 1893 Posts

Why does everyone give call of duty world at war such a hard time the gameplay is better online than cod 4 mod warfare

Snakewiseman

I actually agree that W@W is better. I need more plot than bad guys wanting to do bad things and they need to be stopped. WWII itself is a better story and gives me a better feeling of fighting in a war with a squad. Online they took what MW had and added to it. Although everyone is right when they say "WWII has been done...a lot...like lot lot lot." everytime its done, it has a better story/plot than the MW approach and it has more than one point of view. MW's plot?: "omg terrorists doing evil for the sake of being evil!". I just can't get into that.

Too many of the guns on MW feel the same to me and 3 bullets from any gun do the same thing. W@W doesn't have a single "i win" gun, unlike MW's M16, M4 etc. You don't even need a sniper rifle unless you are so far away you can't be seen, just toss on a red dot with ANY gun and fire off 2-3 bullets at a time and it does the job. The fact that guns reload slower, fire rate is much more different and they don't do as much damage, gives it more strategy. For example, grab an AK or G3 point it at any range fire and its going to hit perfectly where the aim is, if you miss its ok because it takes less than a split second to reload. W@W you can't just pick up a rifle and fire 3 shots from down town, you will probably miss since the aim won't be dead on, and if you have to reload and you are in a hot area, its probably going to cost you your life.

Honestly I think people like MW because its easier to kill people. Maps are dull, buildings (and everything for that matter) are very square and it doesn't have that "war" feel to me. It looks like you are in someones backyard or ghost town, but warzone...not by a long shot. W@W maps looks like the $***'s been hitting the fan for a while.

Avatar image for Lt_Raven82
Lt_Raven82

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Lt_Raven82
Member since 2005 • 25 Posts

Game play is much more solid on cod4 and also dont know bout anyone else but im STILL sick of WWII games...

Avatar image for Nephilim83
Nephilim83

4378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#12 Nephilim83
Member since 2008 • 4378 Posts
[QUOTE="Ninja_Zombie83"][QUOTE="Snakewiseman"]

Why does everyone give call of duty world at war such a hard time the gameplay is better online than cod 4 mod warfare

I actually agree that W@W is better. I need more plot than bad guys wanting to do bad things and they need to be stopped. WWII itself is a better story and gives me a better feeling of fighting in a war with a squad. Online they took what MW had and added to it. Although everyone is right when they say "WWII has been done...a lot...like lot lot lot." everytime its done, it has a better story/plot than the MW approach and it has more than one point of view. MW's plot?: "omg terrorists doing evil for the sake of being evil!". I just can't get into that. Too many of the guns on MW feel the same to me and 3 bullets from any gun do the same thing. W@W doesn't have a single "i win" gun, unlike MW's M16, M4 etc. You don't even need a sniper rifle unless you are so far away you can't be seen, just toss on a red dot with ANY gun and fire off 2-3 bullets at a time and it does the job. Single player in MW is so short (but still good) that its impossible to become attached to any of the action. By the time you know whats going on, the mission is over. I like the fact that weps fire differently and handle differently in W@W. No, they don't do as much damage but at least thats dependant on your range, unlike MW. The fact that guns reload slower, fire rate is much more different and they don't do as much damage, gives it more strategy. For example, grab an AK or G3 point it at any range fire and its going to hit perfectly where the aim is, if you miss its ok because it takes less than a split second to reload. W@W you can't just pick up a rifle and fire 3 shots from down town, you will probably miss since the aim won't be dead on, and if you have to reload and you are in a hot area, its probably going to cost you your life. Honestly I think people like MW because its easier to kill people. Maps are dull, buildings (and everything for that matter) are very square and it doesn't have that "war" feel to me. It looks like you are in someones backyard or ghost town, but warzone...not by a long shot. W@W maps looks like the $***'s been hitting the fan for a while. MW looks like an old Walmart thats been closed down, or a ghetto thats been evicted. Maybe thats the look that they were shooting for since its "Modern". One thing that I think they really should add to their games from now on are destructive environments. They shoot for that "realistic" feel, but a pineapple at a wall should kinda put a dent in the thing, since bullets can travel through it and all.

Man...... I didn't read any of that, but I sure hope you got your point across. lol
Avatar image for Ninja_Zombie83
Ninja_Zombie83

1893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#13 Ninja_Zombie83
Member since 2009 • 1893 Posts
yeah I've got a thing for over-ranting. I'll see if i can't sum it up.
Avatar image for Nephilim83
Nephilim83

4378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#14 Nephilim83
Member since 2008 • 4378 Posts
yeah I've got a thing for over-ranting. I'll see if i can't sum it up.Ninja_Zombie83
lol, its cool. Its nice to see somebody with a little passion from time to time! W@W rants FTW!!
Avatar image for warbmxjohn
warbmxjohn

6014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#15 warbmxjohn
Member since 2007 • 6014 Posts

COD4 plays better than W@W. But they are almost the same game, only the modern weapons seem to have a smaller spread. Which to me make the game funner, and seems to play better.

Avatar image for XD4NTESINF3RNOX
XD4NTESINF3RNOX

7438

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#16 XD4NTESINF3RNOX
Member since 2008 • 7438 Posts
cod 4 lasted me like forever cod5 lasted like maybe a month :?
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#18 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
So Infinity Ward takes CoD to a new direction with huge success. Then Treyarch make us realize just how tired and bored we were with World War 2. I don't care that it's taking place from the Japan side of things... yea, it's a different set of stories, but so what? It's still WW2, and at least this gamer (and I'm sure more among you) are sick and tired of it already. Seriously, we get it... america kicked copious amounts of ass and we beat a legitimate villain back then. But it's time to move on from that already. :|
Avatar image for yellerbelly
yellerbelly

1008

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 yellerbelly
Member since 2008 • 1008 Posts
Both get equal amounts of love from me.
Avatar image for kezlehan
kezlehan

651

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 kezlehan
Member since 2005 • 651 Posts
I preferred COD4 just because it was something different. Obviously it's the same shooting and killing everyone and what not, but different environments and different time period makes it a break of fresh air. COD W@W was back to the same WW2 time and setting. Boring. Sure the online is great fun, but it just feels to much of the same for me.
Avatar image for kingdre
kingdre

9456

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#21 kingdre
Member since 2005 • 9456 Posts

People got tired of WWII shooters.

Avatar image for aijou_
aijou_

334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#22 aijou_
Member since 2006 • 334 Posts

I don't think people hate WAW. it's just that Modern warfare is more fun.

Avatar image for M0wen10
M0wen10

7555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 55

User Lists: 0

#23 M0wen10
Member since 2009 • 7555 Posts

I don't dislike World at War, but COD 4 is a lot better IMO. It hosts better graphics, gameplay and the multiplayer is much better.

Avatar image for NaughtyRag
NaughtyRag

2309

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 NaughtyRag
Member since 2009 • 2309 Posts

mw was the best online shooter during its prime..

treyarch makes bad games.. w@w was a complete copy of mw only put in a ww2 setting..

the spamming of nades during single player annoyed people beyond belief.. online was par at best.. zombie mode was boring to a lot, and fun to others..

overall it just wasn't a good game..

people tend to overlook the important things that make a game good or not, when it has coop or when they enjoy some bonus feature that was put into it..

Avatar image for fritter7
fritter7

242

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 fritter7
Member since 2007 • 242 Posts

World War II is as dead as communism in the eyes of Treyarch. :roll:

I want somene to see what I did there.

samuraiguns
O I C WHUT U DID THAR. And I agree with what you did there :D Hopefully Treyarch will stick with the rumors and make something about Vietnam / Cold war. So then they'll be doing communism INSTEAD of WWII (yeah I know that was communism too :P)
Avatar image for Lord_of_Terrans
Lord_of_Terrans

196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 Lord_of_Terrans
Member since 2004 • 196 Posts
WaW Have betty, i like betty more than claymore. Plus MW is strange... how can i snipe someone with the RPD by doing 1 shot at a time feel strange (with the iron sight + handle)
Avatar image for Nodashi
Nodashi

1124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#27 Nodashi
Member since 2003 • 1124 Posts

The weapons feel better.

That and I like new games for a full game price, not a mod for other game I already have. WaW is not different enought to be a new game, they milked their cow too much.

Avatar image for Keir21
Keir21

5918

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 43

User Lists: 0

#28 Keir21
Member since 2006 • 5918 Posts
I liked the online for WAW because i felt it was more tactical due to slow weapons.
Avatar image for Nephilim83
Nephilim83

4378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#29 Nephilim83
Member since 2008 • 4378 Posts
[QUOTE="fritter7"][QUOTE="samuraiguns"]

World War II is as dead as communism in the eyes of Treyarch. :roll:

I want somene to see what I did there.

O I C WHUT U DID THAR. And I agree with what you did there :D Hopefully Treyarch will stick with the rumors and make something about Vietnam / Cold war. So then they'll be doing communism INSTEAD of WWII (yeah I know that was communism too :P)

How could you make a hectic, action-packed FPS about the Cold War? Spies and informants didn't really get to play with heavy calilbur machine guns. They had to be descrete (so no big explosions), and they were almost always alone. Cold War = fail. IMO (lets leave the cold war to Big Boss) ;)
Avatar image for Ryder123
Ryder123

1984

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#30 Ryder123
Member since 2005 • 1984 Posts

^ The Korean War and Vietnam fit under the Cold War Era.

Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#31 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
[QUOTE="Nephilim83"][QUOTE="fritter7"][QUOTE="samuraiguns"]

World War II is as dead as communism in the eyes of Treyarch. :roll:

I want somene to see what I did there.

O I C WHUT U DID THAR. And I agree with what you did there :D Hopefully Treyarch will stick with the rumors and make something about Vietnam / Cold war. So then they'll be doing communism INSTEAD of WWII (yeah I know that was communism too :P)

How could you make a hectic, action-packed FPS about the Cold War? Spies and informants didn't really get to play with heavy calilbur machine guns. They had to be descrete (so no big explosions), and they were almost always alone. Cold War = fail. IMO (lets leave the cold war to Big Boss) ;)

Somebody's never heard of the (good) Splinter Cell games, apparently.
Avatar image for thekey
thekey

5097

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#32 thekey
Member since 2003 • 5097 Posts

Why does everyone give call of duty world at war such a hard time the gameplay is better online than cod 4 mod warfare

Snakewiseman
This has most likely been said before. But I will say it again. The whole World War 2 thing is so played out. (Thats one of the main reasons why CoD4 was so much more popular. Because it wasn't WWII) WAW plays some what like Modern Warfare. That and the fact that infinaty ward developed modern warfare so well. And all lot of people including myself think treyarch is not as good of a developer.
Avatar image for adizorz
adizorz

1410

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 adizorz
Member since 2008 • 1410 Posts

its just that thing in the back of your head that you know that tryarch is milking a franchise and putting out a game that doesn't live up to the franchise, still a decent game but its not call of duty 4.

Avatar image for rjxtian
rjxtian

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#34 rjxtian
Member since 2005 • 2638 Posts
I don't hate it; I don't even own it. This thread has made me think that I'll be careful when buying a WW Shooter. I'd like to see a Civil War game with a "Short Campaign Mode"; where you choose which side uses Muskets, and which side gets M16s
Avatar image for supa_badman
supa_badman

16714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#35 supa_badman
Member since 2008 • 16714 Posts
Both get equal amounts of love from me. yellerbelly
QFT.