You realise it was only meant to be a CoD4.5? Anyway, I feel WaW really perfected the MP, CoD4 came down to M16, MP5, M6OE34 and Barret .50. But I like the modern theme better. I hope MW2 actually uses something modern, like thermal vision.
So far, I've only played WaW for 2 hours but CoD 4 has already got a huge lead over WaW. Compar ing the same hours of play for CoD4 to CoD5, I honestly prefered 4's first hour better. It felt polished, it felt like you were starting something awesome and you knew you'd enjoy it. As soon as you go down from the Helicopter, you just love the characters. The small jokes they make at the start is cool like the one about the good news being the threat of nuclear destruction while the bad news was that a rookie was joing the team. It had awesome personality. In WaW, it was pathetic. It starts with some sort of hybrid with Modern Warfare style debriefing combined with some history channal. I wa storn straight out of the setting as opposed to MW which pulled me straight in. Then we see some interogation. I suppose they want me to feel sypathy for the soldier but I just don't care. What was his name? And then everything explodes and your thrust into the fight already. I don't know why they decided to do that. It'd have been cooler if they got you back to be checked out and when you look back at the island, the bases all blow up and in the flames you just see 'World at War.' Maybe they do, I don't know, still haven't finished the first level. EDIT: They do but it barely gets anything compared to what MW did. Got invited to a multiplayer game by a friend. I'll give it a little longer until I really cast my vote for the game. TL;DR, games ok so far, nothing absolutly outstanding.
In my opinion, for someone who beat both campaigns on veteran, I would have to say that WaW had a more challenging campaign in some parts, but CoD 4 is by far the best campaign ive ever played. For online, and someone who plays as much as I do, in WaW, the spawn systems suck. I dont even know how many times you can get spawned killed in a medium/large sized map. But overall, I am going to say that I like WaW more because of how I'm doing on it. I got the best Hardcore Team Deathmatch team in the game, sponsored, and get payed for doing it. So thats why I choose WaW over 4
The only thing that World at War has over Call of Duty 4 is Co-op and **** Zombies, the story was good but mediocre compared to 4's story and the multiplayer is glitchy and annoying with it's new features, most notably the tanks. If it wasn't for **** Zombies and a new campaign, this game would live in CoD4's shadow even more so, although I refuse to play **** Zombies with people I don't know because most people use glitches were the Zombies can't even touch you. A lot of people say that CoD: WaW campaign was bad, but I believe that people just had too high of standards for it, considering it was developped by a different company that appearently did the game "wrong" from what I hear ever time they took a shot at it. It seemed that WaW tried to be CoD4 campaign-wise though during the first Russian mission, which sucked because it tried too hard to be "All Guillied up".
I'll agree to you about one thing, WaW is trying way too hard to be CoD4. Which is a huge shame as the prospect of two companies working on one franchise can be awesome. Two different ways of playing the same game. The way I see it, Treyarch lost all confidence in themselves or they didn't want to bother with adding their own touch. Now, I do think they got the Call of Duty feel wrong. I remember in other Call of Dutys(ies?), every time I die, I get a little neat quote. Those were the only thing that kept me sane on the hard missions. Just reading them as the background goes grey, your guy collapses and you see the enemies shooting your dead body. That was part of the Call of Duty experience. When I'm in the middle of a firefight, I need to reload so I drop down and start to reload and a guy comes out nowhere and kills you. That was also the Call of Duty experience. Now, in CoD5, I can reload without worry and when I die, it's an instant change from standing up to lying on your side with some weird contrast thing going on. You may think, well, those are only small changes. It's the gameplay that makes Call of Duty. Well, can you imagine Halo in Gears style? The minor things really make a game. They just give the game a little bit of personality. Instead, they decided to rip out some of Call of Dutys personality, why? I don't know. BTW, Vendetta is actually a pretty good mission. All Gillied up is much better due to more heart pumping moments but Vendetta is a good mission.
I would definitely go with CoD4, mainly because I like the time period better and It's just an overall more fun game.
COD: WaW may have added perks to its arsenal but the weapon seleection is low. there's no customization to weapons as far as looks and no golden unlockables (as far as I know). furthermore, multiplayer sucks because of many glitches on every map.
1. Its not cod5 or cod5 waw. It is just cod waw. I liked world at war better. The campaign is better to me because it is a variety of jungle based, trench based, and city based fighting, unlike cod4 were you were in the city most of the time. I also like waw's multiplayer a lot because there doesn't seem to be as much BS and there is a larger skill gap or so it seems.
Call of Duty 4. Original, great online, one of the best campaigns I have ever played, just awesome. Why NOT Waw: -Not-original -Terrible Campaign -Zombie Mode is fun for a couple of days -Dogs are annoying as hell (worse than Choppers) -Full-o-glitches -Maps suck -Made by Treyarch.