COD World at War or Gears of War 2?

[sambrentnall]

Id say Gears of War 2, the single player is mind blowing and the online play has now been reolved (for me anyway) Everytime i put on COD 5 i just end up getting frustrated and play COD 4 instead!

[Ayepecks]

What :|

My bad, what I meant was it has multiple modes, but only one is really any good and what people play (DM).

[plan-9]

Tough call. I beat both games. Albeit, COD was on the wii, which is done very good. I prefer it over the 360 version simply because of the far better controls.

Gears2, was a bit of a letdown for me. Hell I just bought another 360 primarily for gears2. I beat it in a couple days. I prefered the 1st one over it. It is very very easy. I didnt get any huge wow factors either, the first one there were plenty.

COD, well its a ww2 game..though done a bit differently. It really is a good game. The action is very intense especially the final level. Story wise..well its your typical ww2 shooter.

Id probably have to say get both. Both are worth playing..renting may be better for gears2 unless you want multiplayer. It can easily be beat in a few days.

[gamerboy]

So COD4 only has one mode?

No... CoD5 has only one mode and that mode is acting like CoD4. Besides the setting there is absolutely nothing different between the two games.

Tough call. I beat both games. Albeit, COD was on the wii, which is done very good. I prefer it over the 360 version simply because of the far better controls.

Gears2, was a bit of a letdown for me. Hell I just bought another 360 primarily for gears2. I beat it in a couple days. I prefered the 1st one over it. It is very very easy. I didnt get any huge wow factors either, the first one there were plenty.

COD, well its a ww2 game..though done a bit differently. It really is a good game. The action is very intense especially the final level. Story wise..well its your typical ww2 shooter.

Id probably have to say get both. Both are worth playing..renting may be better for gears2 unless you want multiplayer. It can easily be beat in a few days.

Did you play the gears campaign on casual? That is the only mode that I could see being "very very easy".

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

No... CoD5 has only one mode and that mode is acting like CoD4. Besides the setting there is absolutely nothing different between the two games.

Nope, absolutely nothing.

You know, COD5 is set in Modern Warfare, I forgot, well spotted (Y)

[gamerboy]

Nope, absolutely nothing.

You know, COD5 is set in Modern Warfare, I forgot, well spotted (Y)

please inform me of major differences besides that one is set in modern times and one went BACK to WWII. The oninline play i know for a fact is the same. all of the perks, classes, ranks etc.. are the same as they were in cod4.

[Sethos]

My bad, what I meant was it has multiple modes, but only one is really any good and what people play (DM).

Right ...

God the ignorance in this thread is slowly exceeding critical mass :rofl:

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

please inform me of major differences besides that one is set in modern times and one went BACK to WWII. The oninline play i know for a fact is the same. all of the perks, classes, ranks etc.. are the same as they were in cod4.

:blink:

That IS the major difference you'd expect, what else are you looking for? Aliens? An offroad racer?

Play the campaign in COD4, then the campaign in COD5 and come back and tell me they are the same.

Online shares similarities, but please tell me any iteration to a series that VASTLY changes online (there may be a few yes). Don't "fix" what isn't broken, and if you are going to attempt to overhaul and **** it up, bye bye fans.

I guess you also missed the fact that COD5 does not have COD4 multiplayer maps, you know, maps, one of the most important things about an online experience.

[Sethos]

And where are all the posts saying Gears of War 2 is just a rehash of GoW 1? Those games are a lot more alike than CoD 4 and 5.

[t0mbi]

Sethos, well noted! :) there are way more similar than cod 4 and 5

[ßéár]

I say GoW2, I think the campaign is better, and it's just more fun for me. Now if it was COD4 Vs GOW2. that would be hard...

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

GoW2 (even if it is broken, its so much better).

[gamerboy]

:blink:

That IS the major difference you'd expect, what else are you looking for? Aliens? An offroad racer?

Play the campaign in COD4, then the campaign in COD5 and come back and tell me they are the same.

Online shares similarities, but please tell me any iteration to a series that VASTLY changes online (there may be a few yes). Don't "fix" what isn't broken, and if you are going to attempt to overhaul and **** it up, bye bye fans.

I guess you also missed the fact that COD5 does not have COD4 multiplayer maps, you know, maps, one of the most important things about an online experience.

so explain why if the modern warfare setting was such a popular setting, why did they change back to WWII? They "fixed" what didn't need to be fixed.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

so explain why if the modern warfare setting was such a popular setting, why did they change back to WWII? They "fixed" what didn't need to be fixed.

And so is WW2 popular, unless you have forgotten about how many WW2 games there are/have been.

Okay online, people were whining viciously about going back to WW2, but look at COD4 sales. We're talking what, about 10 million or something across platforms? Many of the buyers of COD aren't the type of people who sit online going ape because it wasn't modern warfare again.

WW2 is already a proven success, the risk in doing a WW2 game is minimal, so you're not going to alienate your audience - Look at the COD5 sales.

[gamerboy]

how many of those sales do you suppose came form the success purely of cod4. Many people simply bought it because cod4 was a great game. You can't defend a game going back to WWII by saying its a minimal risk. As you stated before it's a series therefore it should follow in the same timeline.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

how many of those sales do you suppose came form the success purely of cod4. Many people simply bought it because cod4 was a great game. You can't defend a game going back to WWII by saying its a minimal risk. As you stated before it's a series therefore it should follow in the same timeline.

And there's something wrong with that?

That's how game series work my friend. You build up a massive fanbase of loyal followers who keep buying iterations of your games because they got what they liked previously, and they expect your next game to follow suit again.

And no, a series does not need to strictly follow any timeline, especially not when the story campaign of each title is independent of each other.

And even when story does tie in, the MGS1-4 timeline goes

MGS3-MGS1-MGS2-MGS4 - But the games came out in the order 1-4.

Quite frankly the sour grapes over this going WW2 and being developed by Treyarch is off the wall, so basically, just stick with COD4 and wait on COD6. COD5 is a success and a good game, if you don't want to take part in it your decision.

However you're convincing no one the game is a failure, cause quite frankly it's not.

[gamerboy]

And there's something wrong with that?

That's how game series work my friend. You build up a massive fanbase of loyal followers who keep buying iterations of your games because they got what they liked previously, and they expect your next game to follow suit again.

And no, a series does not need to strictly follow any timeline, especially not when the story campaign of each title is independent of each other.

And even when story does tie in, the MGS1-4 timeline goes

MGS3-MGS1-MGS2-MGS4 - But the games came out in the order 1-4.

Quite frankly the sour grapes over this going WW2 and being developed by Treyarch is off the wall, so basically, just stick with COD4 and wait on COD6. COD5 is a success and a good game, if you don't want to take part in it your decision.

However you're convincing no one the game is a failure, cause quite frankly it's not.

I don't think it's a failure. I think that a person is better off buying cod4 because the games are too similar to be worth buying cod5.

[Ayepecks]

Right ...

God the ignorance in this thread is slowly exceeding critical mass :rofl:

Pot, meet kettle?

Your criticisms of Gears of War 2 are an absolute joke. And I doubt you have played online since it was patched, given your statements.

Call of Duty: World at War's campaign is pathetically short and pales in comparison to Gears of War 2's. And to even argue that World at War's co-op campaign is remotely as enjoyable as Gears of War 2 through co-op is an absolute lie. The game does absolutely nothing new and is a weak clone of Call of Duty 4. Gears of War 2, on the other hand, actually took complaints about its campaign in Gears of War and went out and fixed them. What did World at War do? Make the A.I. even worse?

So after that it comes down to multiplayer and what you prefer... well, Gears of War 2's multiplayer is pretty damn awesome in my book. Call of Duty's, on the other hand, is the same old stuff I've come to expect from shooters. Gears of War 2 adds a strategic aspect to online shooters that I feel Call of Duty lacks.

Gears of War 2 improved upon the original Gears of War in almost every way, with the exception of multiplayer matchmaking not working very well at launch. It added more saves, more locations, better vehicle levels (but still not great, IMO), achievement progression, more multiplayer modes (that actually improve upon the previous ones) and an improved storyline. What did World at War offer? A trip back to World War II? Attack dogs? CTF's return? I mean, come on!

But, hey, don't take my word for it. Go look at the reviews on GameRankings or Metacritic and tell me which one beats the other by almost 10 points, on average.

[Skulltrail-old]

CoDMW2 will own all :yes:

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Pot, meet kettle?

Your criticisms of Gears of War 2 are an absolute joke. And I doubt you have played online since it was patched, given your statements.

Call of Duty: World at War's campaign is pathetically short and pales in comparison to Gears of War 2's. And to even argue that World at War's co-op campaign is remotely as enjoyable as Gears of War 2 through co-op is an absolute lie. The game does absolutely nothing new and is a weak clone of Call of Duty 4. Gears of War 2, on the other hand, actually took complaints about its campaign in Gears of War and went out and fixed them. What did World at War do? Make the A.I. even worse?

So after that it comes down to multiplayer and what you prefer... well, Gears of War 2's multiplayer is pretty damn awesome in my book. Call of Duty's, on the other hand, is the same old stuff I've come to expect from shooters. Gears of War 2 adds a strategic aspect to online shooters that I feel Call of Duty lacks.

Gears of War 2 improved upon the original Gears of War in almost every way, with the exception of multiplayer matchmaking not working very well at launch. It added more saves, more locations, better vehicle levels (but still not great, IMO), achievement progression, more multiplayer modes (that actually improve upon the previous ones) and an improved storyline. What did World at War offer? A trip back to World War II? Attack dogs? CTF's return? I mean, come on!

But, hey, don't take my word for it. Go look at the reviews on GameRankings or Metacritic and tell me which one beats the other by almost 10 points, on average.

Spot on dude, I agree with pretty much everything you have said. Although I actually really enjoyed the vehicle parts in GoW2, although some of them felt like they went on for a little too long. Still, it was awesome the changes they made and how much it compares to Gears 1. If you buy into COD5 you pretty much support every other rehash thats released these days, you don't even have the grounds to complain about it imo. Its the same war over again, same old weapons and game modes, on top of the same engine and menus. Ugh the list goes on..COD5 is a joke imo :no:

There's nothing wrong with WW2 shooters, but when you straight up cut and paste a game from last year and change so little, its not acceptable. How can you defend something which is so blatantly a rehash of COD4 but then give other games by EA (for example Battlefield) so much **** :/

Definitely gonna null and void some people's opinions after a few discussions over the past week concerning rehashes with all this COD5 nonsense (N).

[Nic]

You cannot compare the two, except in the FPS genre.

[Sethos]

Pot, meet kettle?

Your criticisms of Gears of War 2 are an absolute joke. And I doubt you have played online since it was patched, given your statements.

Call of Duty: World at War's campaign is pathetically short and pales in comparison to Gears of War 2's. And to even argue that World at War's co-op campaign is remotely as enjoyable as Gears of War 2 through co-op is an absolute lie. The game does absolutely nothing new and is a weak clone of Call of Duty 4. Gears of War 2, on the other hand, actually took complaints about its campaign in Gears of War and went out and fixed them. What did World at War do? Make the A.I. even worse?

So after that it comes down to multiplayer and what you prefer... well, Gears of War 2's multiplayer is pretty damn awesome in my book. Call of Duty's, on the other hand, is the same old stuff I've come to expect from shooters. Gears of War 2 adds a strategic aspect to online shooters that I feel Call of Duty lacks.

Gears of War 2 improved upon the original Gears of War in almost every way, with the exception of multiplayer matchmaking not working very well at launch. It added more saves, more locations, better vehicle levels (but still not great, IMO), achievement progression, more multiplayer modes (that actually improve upon the previous ones) and an improved storyline. What did World at War offer? A trip back to World War II? Attack dogs? CTF's return? I mean, come on!

But, hey, don't take my word for it. Go look at the reviews on GameRankings or Metacritic and tell me which one beats the other by almost 10 points, on average.

It's almost sad you keep using a personal opinion as cold, hard facts and try to shove it down people's throat, really is Ayepecks. Never have I stated Gears of War 2 wasn't a good game! I have just stated, the BS you are currently saying about Call of Duty 5 could be applied to Gears of War 2 as well. Even most of what you stated I could argue goes for Call of Duty 5 as well because I like the game, you obviously don't.

Though I'm not going to argue with you, seen the members over the years argue with you and it's like running head first into a brick wall and you will probably use more personal opinions as facts :)

And I agree with Munky, many people's opinion are null and void for me after all this - his included though.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Its the same war over again, same old weapons and game modes, on top of the same engine and menus.

lolwhat?

You expect them to add laser guns to WW2?

You can't modify the past Munky, of course it has the same guns seen in past WW2 games.

Only in future war games can you make **** up.

Same war again? Wait, is one not taking place in WW2 and another in the future? It's also a different part of WW2 than most other WW2 shooters take part in, you'd know that if you played the SP campaign.

Same engine complaint? You expect them to build a new engine in a year?

Same menus? Yeah menus are the most important part of the game.

Same game modes? Just about every FPS game takes the same online modes, with minor iterations. Guess you forgot you don't call in a helicopter in COD5, or that you have a zombie mode, etc.

It truly is indeed the same exact same game.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Audioboxer

[Mathachew Veteran]

Easy: Gears of War 2

[Ayepecks]

It's almost sad you keep using a personal opinion as cold, hard facts and try to shove it down people's throat, really is Ayepecks. Never have I stated Gears of War 2 wasn't a good game! I have just stated, the BS you are currently saying about Call of Duty 5 could be applied to Gears of War 2 as well. Even most of what you stated I could argue goes for Call of Duty 5 as well because I like the game, you obviously don't.

Though I'm not going to argue with you, seen the members over the years argue with you and it's like running head first into a brick wall and you will probably use more personal opinions as facts :)

And I agree with Munky, many people's opinion are null and void for me after all this - his included though.

I never said my opinion was any more valid than that of anyone else. But here you sit in multiple threads stating how much worse Gears of War 2 is, and how awesome Call of Duty: World at War is, yet you have yet to give a single reason why you think the game is better -- or even good! What point is an opinion thread if you don't share your opinions?

So, get on me all you want, but I'm only doing what the topic starter asked. If you don't want to have an honest discussion without getting your feelings hurt, that's fine by me. I've never once stated -- at any time -- that my opinion is better than any other opinion. Heck, I'm sure there are tons of people here that disagree with my opinion, but they'll at least give me that.

And no crap I will use more more personal opinions than facts... that is what this conversation is about! But notice how I used facts about what's changed to back up what I said? All you've done is say 'everything you said can be attributed to the inverse' and given absolutely NO justification for it.

Yes, I've debated/argued with many members here. But almost all of the time it's all in good fun, and no one gets their feelings hurt or is offended. Maybe you should stop resorting to personal slights and actually partake in the discussion at hand. Just wondering -- but can you even breathe up there atop your high horse with the air so thin? You're no better than me, and I'm no better than you, so get off it and discuss like a gentleman or don't discuss at all.

For the record: I don't think Call of Duty: World at War is a bad game. I just think it's a very bland one that does nothing to improve upon its predecessors, which should be the goal of almost any sequel or continuation of a series. The topic poster asked which one to get, though, so I made my opinion clear.