COD World at War or Gears of War 2?


COD WaW or Gears 2  

76 members have voted

  1. 1. What's better, Gears 2 or COD: WaW?

    • Gears of War 2
      56
    • Call of Duty: World at War
      20


Recommended Posts

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.

Same weapons - I'm fed up of using the damn thompsons and MP4* guns. Of course I don't expect any new weapons to make an appearance, I'm just saying its boring as hell playing another game with them.

I don't need to play the SP to know which part of the war it takes place in. Medal of Honour has already made games which includes the eastern and pacific fights, they sucked, as does COD5.

Umm yeah menus are important. Why do you think PC gamers were so annoyed with UT3 being multiplatform (other than the game changes), oh yeah! they dumbed down the menu for consoles. So yeah, they are important (Y)

Like I said in the COD5 vs L4D topic, if you want a proper "zombie mode", play L4D. Again though it just proves everyone hyping this damn mode up when its really not that great. Read the COD5 vs L4D topic if you need a reminder!

Don't even get me started on the glitches either..It just goes to show they didn't test enough after porting the game from COD4 hence why all these holes are left in!

I never called it the "exact same game", I said it was a rehash of COD4 with minor changes that don't warrant a full price tag, and it doesn't!

Same weapons - I'm fed up of using the damn thompsons and MP4* guns. Of course I don't expect any new weapons to make an appearance, I'm just saying its boring as hell playing another game with them.

I don't need to play the SP to know which part of the war it takes place in. Medal of Honour has already made games which includes the eastern and pacific fights, they sucked, as does COD5.

Umm yeah menus are important. Why do you think PC gamers were so annoyed with UT3 being multiplatform (other than the game changes), oh yeah! they dumbed down the menu for consoles. So yeah, they are important (Y)

Like I said in the COD5 vs L4D topic, if you want a proper "zombie mode", play L4D. Again though it just proves everyone hyping this damn mode up when its really not that great. Read the COD5 vs L4D topic if you need a reminder!

Don't even get me started on the glitches either..It just goes to show they didn't test enough after porting the game from COD4 hence why all these holes are left in!

I never called it the "exact same game", I said it was a rehash of COD4 with minor changes that don't warrant a full price tag, and it doesn't!

Same weapons - I'm fed up of using the damn thompsons and MP4* guns. Of course I don't expect any new weapons to make an appearance, I'm just saying its boring as hell playing another game with them.

Just stating nothing can be done about it, and it can't.

You can't make up guns that don't exist.

I don't need to play the SP to know which part of the war it takes place in. Medal of Honour has already made games which includes the eastern and pacific fights, they sucked, as does COD5.

Uh that's kind of hinting that you haven't played the SP, yet you somehow feel it sucks?

Umm yeah menus are important. Why do you think PC gamers were so annoyed with UT3 being multiplatform (other than the game changes), oh yeah! they dumbed down the menu for consoles. So yeah, they are important (Y)

Uh what does a PC game menu have to do with two console games menus?

Nothing wrong with COD4 menu, so why change it for COD5?

Like I said in the COD5 vs L4D topic, if you want a proper "zombie mode", play L4D. Again though it just proves everyone hyping this damn mode up when its really not that great. Read the COD5 vs L4D topic if you need a reminder!

Yeah if you want a whole zombie game.

My point was there's extra content in COD5, not that COD5 has a better zombie mode than L4D.

As for everything else, you clearly hate the game, fair enough.

But I'm just trying to give Treyarch a bit more credit than some of you guys being totally harsh on them when there's piles of actually terrible games being released.

Just stating nothing can be done about it, and it can't.

You can't make up guns that don't exist.

I'm not asking them to either, I just said its boring.

Uh that's kind of hinting that you haven't played the SP, yet you somehow feel it sucks?

And a great mod once says "just because I wasn't in the war doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on it". I can have my say on plenty of games when I have indeed played it, watched plenty of footage and read about the game to know what I'm talking about. Do I need to play the enitre SP before I have an opinion? No. This is just like Uncharted again, I played the demo and gave an opinion. Then bought the game and the opinion is exactly the same. Deal with it, it can happen!

Uh what does a PC game menu have to do with two console games menus?

Nothing wrong with COD4 menu, so why change it for COD5?

You made it out like menus weren't important and you couldn't be further from the truth. They are 100% important, so I'm correcting you. What games I choose to explain to you doesn't matter, I was giving an example.

Yeah there is nothing wrong with the menu, I never said that either, I just said leaving it the same as COD4 just shows even more how lazy they were to change it.

As for the rest, yeah I do hate COD5 and I have given my reasons. What are you doing in this topic when I haven't seen you actually take part in the discussion at hand. Where's your opinion on GoW2? This isn't a fan club for COD5 and why we shouldn't be giving it a hard time.

This has nothing to do with other "terrible" games out just now. We're discussing GoW vs COD5 (Y) Maybe you ought to do the same?

And a great mod once says "just because I wasn't in the war doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on it". I can have my say on plenty of games when I have indeed played it, watched plenty of footage and read about the game to know what I'm talking about. Do I need to play the enitre SP before I have an opinion? No. This is just like Uncharted again, I played the demo and gave an opinion. Then bought the game and the opinion is exactly the same. Deal with it, it can happen!

You can have an opinion on whatever you want but in a topic where you're trying to help someone choose a game, if you haven't even played the SP mode of one of the titles, yet are giving advice on it your opinion is skewed.

And we all know how different demos can be from retail. They represent a fraction of the game, and in a lot of cases an old build at that.

You made it out like menus weren't important and you couldn't be further from the truth. They are 100% important, so I'm correcting you. What games I choose to explain to you doesn't matter, I was giving an example.

Yeah there is nothing wrong with the menu, I never said that either, I just said leaving it the same as COD4 just shows even more how lazy they were to change it.

As for the rest, yeah I do hate COD5 and I have given my reasons. What are you doing in this topic when I haven't seen you actually take part in the discussion at hand. Where's your opinion on GoW2? This isn't a fan club for COD5 and why we shouldn't be giving it a hard time.

This has nothing to do with other "terrible" games out just now. We're discussing GoW vs COD5 (Y) Maybe you ought to do the same?

It's not the COD5 fanclub, but the people who've actually put time into the game don't want the original poster getting one sided views from people dismissing a full game and commenting heavily on everything that's wrong with it, when they've hardly played it.

Seeing as you like GoW2 better, I'm sure you'd be disappointed to see swarms of people giving out opinion on the game with very little play time.

Maybe I can only give advice on COD5 as I haven't played GoW2 enough? That is partly the case, and rightfully so I haven't been shooting off about GoW2 as I haven't played enough of it to give good personal advice.

Why not just leave the thread if you don't want to actually contribute. Sharing opinions is not illegal, and neither is arguing/debating about them. Neither Munky or Audio is doing anything wrong, let them be.

Yes Mr. Staff ... OH WAIT! :rofl:

What does that have to do with anything? Is there even any purpose to you being in this topic, except trying to irritate? Go troll somewhere else.

@ Audioboxer: You say there's nothing wrong with essentially being the same game with a different environment, but wouldn't you rather it at least attempt to improve on the previous game(s) in the series?

@ Audioboxer: You say there's nothing wrong with essentially being the same game with a different environment, but wouldn't you rather it at least attempt to improve on the previous game(s) in the series?

Yeah if they'd been able to be adventurous and succeed I would be happy and wouldn't play it down. If it were say, COD in space or something :p

I got riled up as I believe Treyarch did do a competent job in bringing us a new COD, yet people still seem to have the "hate on Treyarch" vibe, and I admit, most of us did have it BEFORE release.

You know, back in the day when everyone said they'd fail miserably, no one would buy the game, and all those other shed tears about the future of COD.

Fact is, they played it safe, didn't fail and delivered a worthwhile game. Just think it's a little harsh how dismissive some people are of the game/developers, when really, if you liked COD4 the core mechanics remain intact, so the only real reason in my eyes to be put off is due to the era.

Or just you're plain and simply happy with COD4 for now - But I still don't see why that's a reason to tear COD5 a new one?

A statement that can't really be answered but I'll chuck it up anyway, maybe IW wanted to do the next Modern Warfare title 100%, and if that's the case where else could Treyarch really have gone? There are other options, and okay, they did pick WW2, but they choose an area of WW2 not that heavily documented in games.

Again, I don't think Call of Duty: World at War is a horrible game. I just think it's pretty bland. It doesn't have the flair that Modern Warfare did, and it really is just a new coat of paint (environment) over an old game. You can't simply keep releasing the same game and expect people to praise you for it... at some point you've got to take a shot out there. World at War didn't improve anything, in my opinion, and that should be the goal for any sequel, as I said before.

And I don't really know that their area of World War II wasn't really documented in games. We had Pacific Assault and a few other forgettable World War II shooters in there that were set in a similar environment.

Again, I don't think Call of Duty: World at War is a horrible game. I just think it's pretty bland. It doesn't have the flair that Modern Warfare did, and it really is just a new coat of paint (environment) over an old game. You can't simply keep releasing the same game and expect people to praise you for it... at some point you've got to take a shot out there. World at War didn't improve anything, in my opinion, and that should be the goal for any sequel, as I said before.

And I don't really know that their area of World War II wasn't really documented in games. We had Pacific Assault and a few other forgettable World War II shooters in there that were set in a similar environment.

:yes:

I personally thought that campaign for WaW is god awful. It's frustrating when you get killed by an enemy that is behind you standing next to one of your guys and then have to do the whole mission over again. The AI seemed just ridiculous and they might as well made it so you were a one man team since you end up killing everybody yourself anyway.

Besides that, I like the multiplayer feel of CoD.

Overall:

Multiplayer: WaW > GoW2

Campaign: WaW <<<<<<< GoW2

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      175
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!