COD World at War or Gears of War 2?

[Sethos]

You wrote all that to say so little? Damn

[Ayepecks]

Sigh... why was I expecting more out of you than yet another rude response? :rolleyes:

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

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!

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

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.

[Mathachew Veteran]

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

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

Pshh! Yesterday I played coop and started shooting with a ray gun! A ray gun!!! :p

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

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?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

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.

[Sethos]

Why not just end that silly discussion, let opinions be opinions and let the poll speak for itself? Then we can all go have a drink and watch some TV :p

[Ayepecks]

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.

[Sethos]

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:

[Ayepecks]

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 Subscriber²]

@ 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.

[Ayepecks]

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.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

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:

[JHAirforce05]

I would go with Gears 2. I was not to impressed with CoD 5.

[GameOverRob]

Gears 2 both both have their faults!

[Astra.Xtreme]

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