Call of Duty Modern Warfare Vs. Call of Duty World at War
- KittyBalls
- 3 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 5
- Fans: 1
Hey guys, just wanted to know, which of these two games are your favirote. List the Pro's and Con's for Both Games.
My personal favirote is World at War, because of the nazi zombies, gave me hours of fun, but the multiplayer wasnt much different, so I just went back to Modern Warfare for Multiplayer. Cant forget the storyline either, can we? Anyways I though the World at War Storyline was a bit too boring, and a bit too hard even on normal setting. But for Modern warfare it was challenging, but not as hard.
So yeah, List your opinions guys, Thanks.
76- brodie8288
- 7 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 27
- Fans: 8
Modern Warfare took the Call Of Duty series and turned it on it's ear.....so that alone may make it seem better than World At War. But the best things about World At War aren't so much flat-out in the open, as they are behind the scenes. It's gritty, it's dark, there's small moments of extreme, unexpected happenings, and personally, I think it's got one of the best sniper levels in any game. I enjoyed the multiplayer maps a tiny bit better on Modern Warfare, but only because I gave that more time than World At War. If I gave WaW a bit more attention upon initial release, I'm sure I would've enjoyed it more.
So....I like World At War better, if not for the feel, then just for the story.for me this is a very easy answer, defenetly modern warfare.
Although i have to say that the storyline of the world at war game, was pretty neat, the multi player game of modern warfare was much more fun. i have played both the games, but there was something with world at war, that just couldn't keep me playing.
Specially in the online multi player mode, the perks and extra's are much more fun in modern warfare, also the weapons in mw1 are much better and give a better handling. After being used of playing modern warfare, going to world at war was a bit of a shock, i don't like the weapons, and the extra's like the dogs, just don't do it to me. It's much more fun, getting an helicopter.
Also, i like to play as a sniper, so, when i need to choose, i prefer the 50.cal instead of one from the 1940's.
I have marked the 10th of november on my calendar.For the modern warfare2 game, i can't wait.
Greetings
steffer- xravexheavenx
- 9 posts
- Joined: 11 months ago
- Hubs: 17
- Fans: 3
I like World at War a lot better because of the older weapons.
I would have to go with Modern Warfare because it was modern. There are just too many world war 2 games out there, it's getting repetative.
37- Wonder_Woman
- 297 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 0
- Fans: 19
World at war hands down, come on nazi zombies?
critnour wrote:
I would have to go with Modern Warfare because it was modern. There are just too many world war 2 games out there, it's getting repetative.
That's completely true
i mean, aren't people getting tired of them?
i too like to kill some germans and so, but the thing that is starting to set me back is that in almost any of the wwo2 games, all levels or maps are the same like.
It is great that huge parts of that war are used, this also learns people some extra history in a fun way. But there almost always the same in much games.
Like for instance, the landing of normandie, the fallaise gap,...
operation market garden in Holland, and so forth.
Now i live in Belgium, and we sure have had our part of the fight, but in how many games, you find something about the battles here, except for the Ardennes offensive. (see band of brothers episode5)
There where even worse fights in Brussels, Antwerp....but nothing about that in those games, and that's what sucks to me.
Therefore i like modern warfare more, it is something new, finally we're able to play with modern weapons, and everybody can relate to the time and place of the game, cause we see those things every single day in the news. This ads a great feeling of reality.
