What PS3 Game Should I Buy?

[Thunder Dan]

I only have 2 games, and need to get another one. I know basically nothing about what good games there are out there.

Which one is the best? What should I buy?

[PM5K]

Probably would help to know which two you already have.

If both of them are Resistance and MGS4 I can't recommend much.

Maybe Little Big Planet...

[Thunder Dan]

Probably would help to know which two you already have.

If both of them are Resistance and MGS4 I can't recommend much.

Maybe Little Big Planet...

College Football and GTA4

[Cry Havoc]

Other - Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.

[Thunder Dan]

Other - Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.

so that is better than the new one?

[Cry Havoc]

so that is better than the new one?

I think so, and most people I have talked to agree with me. CoD4 is just better looking, better playing, and more balanced. Although WaW is by no means a bad game, CoD4 is still the standard of the "new" multiplayer FPS game.

If you're looking for a single player experience, go with Fallout 3. Otherwise, CoD4 all the way.

[Thunder Dan]

I think so, and most people I have talked to agree with me. CoD4 is just better looking, better playing, and more balanced. Although WaW is by no means a bad game, CoD4 is still the standard of the "new" multiplayer FPS game.

If you're looking for a single player experience, go with Fallout 3. Otherwise, CoD4 all the way.

with call of duty do you have to team up with other people to play it? I go online and play games, but I don't really have the time to sit down for 3 hours and lay out strategy and stuff

[BlackSwordsMan]

cod 4 is way better than WAW
but if I had to choose up there fall out 3

[mardigan]

Bioshock or Deadspace.

[dirk4mvp]

with call of duty do you have to team up with other people to play it? I go online and play games, but I don't really have the time to sit down for 3 hours and lay out strategy and stuff

There's a free for all mode. And 4 is way better than waw.

[baseline bum]

My picks would be:

1) Bioshock
2) Call of Duty 4

Those are the two best games released in the last 10 years.

[baseline bum]

with call of duty do you have to team up with other people to play it? I go online and play games, but I don't really have the time to sit down for 3 hours and lay out strategy and stuff

Single-player is amazing on COD4. If you have your PS3 hooked up to an HDTV or a computer monitor, COD4 is also spectacular graphically.

Bioshock is especially amazing with a good stereo setup on your system.

[CuckingFunt]

with call of duty do you have to team up with other people to play it? I go online and play games, but I don't really have the time to sit down for 3 hours and lay out strategy and stuff

I loved the CoD4 single player campaign. It's pretty short, and the bulk of replay appeal is in the multi-player features, but I'm not a big online player and would still recommend the title.

[SAtown]

with call of duty do you have to team up with other people to play it? I go online and play games, but I don't really have the time to sit down for 3 hours and lay out strategy and stuff

CoD 4 online is easy to just pick up and play. It's a little difficult at first because most people have millions of hours of experience and better weapons because of their rank, but it's really addicting. Teaming up with people (matchmaking) is fast, and the games start in no time. There's really no strategy involved, as homos just use the grenade launcher to get 2:1 kill ratios (they use their 2 grenades and they're useless after that). Just run and shoot people

Another game I'd recommend is MLB the SHOW. I'm not a baseball fan at all, never been, but fluidity and depth of the game is incredible. It's probably the only sports game that's worth the $50-$60 bucks since NFL 2k on dreamcast (NFL2k5 was a whopping $19.99)

[Thunder Dan]

CoD 4 online is easy to just pick up and play. It's a little difficult at first because most people have millions of hours of experience and better weapons because of their rank, but it's really addicting. Teaming up with people (matchmaking) is fast, and the games start in no time. There's really no strategy involved, as homos just use the grenade launcher to get 2:1 kill ratios (they use their 2 grenades and they're useless after that). Just run and shoot people

Another game I'd recommend is MLB the SHOW. I'm not a baseball fan at all, never been, but fluidity and depth of the game is incredible. It's probably the only sports game that's worth the $50-$60 bucks since NFL 2k on dreamcast (NFL2k5 was a whopping $19.99)

I think I'm going to pick up COD4 on the recommendations. thanks everyone

[baseline bum]

I think I'm going to pick up COD4 on the recommendations. thanks everyone

You won't be disappointed.

[Mixability]

FYI: If you're looking for some cheap games and other stuff, I have some items I want to unload.

See the first post in this thread for a rough list of what I have to offer.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118575



:angel

[manufor3]

mlb the show is addicting

[z0sa]

eh, I'd definitely say waw is > cod4. the sudden drop from 100,000+ players online in cod4 to 30,000 or less as compared to waw's 200,000+ players most of the time a few months now after the game was released proves this. Those out there saying cod4 is way better are on crack. WaW might not be a huge leap forward for CoD-kind, but the debate isn't about originality, it's about the fun factor. Besides, considering how everyone loves 4, why would they drastically alter the next installment just because eras changed. There's a whole game-full of new guns which shoot more realistically than 4, there's more nades and no perks were deleted afaik, the maps have more detail/are generally larger including tanks on some, single player has co-op and speaking of which let's not forget nazi zombies. waw > mw in pretty much every facet IMO.

but cod 4 is a great pickup as well, I would say it more depends on your preference of period than anything because both games are terrific.

[Thunder Dan]

eh, I'd definitely say waw is > cod4. the sudden drop from 100,000+ players online in cod4 to 30,000 or less as compared to waw's 200,000+ players most of the time a few months now after the game was released proves this. Those out there saying cod4 is way better are on crack. WaW might not be a huge leap forward for CoD-kind, but the debate isn't about originality, it's about the fun factor. Besides, considering how everyone loves 4, why would they drastically alter the next installment just because eras changed. There's a whole game-full of new guns which shoot more realistically than 4, there's more nades and no perks were deleted afaik, the maps have more detail/are generally larger including tanks on some, single player has co-op and speaking of which let's not forget nazi zombies. waw > mw in pretty much every facet IMO.

but cod 4 is a great pickup as well, I would say it more depends on your preference of period than anything because both games are terrific.

Call of Duty WAW is WW2 era right? and 4 is more recent right?

[z0sa]

Call of Duty WAW is WW2 era right? and 4 is more recent right?

4 is "Modern Warfare": you got the usual shit you'll see in any modern themed game like m16, ak47, mp5, etc.

World at War is ww2: you get the most popular weapons from the main ww2 powers like USA, Germany, Japan, etc.

They both play remarkably similar despite having 2 different developers, but in general, all the physics/gun related shit in WaW is better than 4. Additionally, the maps of WaW are in a different league from the generally symmetrical and bland layouts of most CoD 4 maps.

[Cry Havoc]

Those out there saying cod4 is way better are on crack.

Or they have differing opinions. Like those found here:

http://cod4source.com/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare-vs-call-of-duty-5-world-at-war-infinity-ward-or-treyarch

or the votes here:

http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1319508/?view=results&msg=voted

or this poll:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=127578

Or the various review sites that state that WaW is awesome, but not quite at the level of CoD4.

In fact, if you can find a single poll or review that states that WaW is clearly better than 4, I would be very surprised and stand corrected.


4 is "Modern Warfare": you got the usual shit you'll see in any modern themed game like m16, ak47, mp5, etc.

World at War is ww2: you get the most popular weapons from the main ww2 powers like USA, Germany, Japan, etc.


Also, you've got it backwards. World War 2 is the "usual shit". Modern Warfare is actually a new take on the FPS genre.

[balli]

Yeah, the general consensus is that 4 is the better game. If you like WaW more, cool, but to suggest there's something wrong with the clear majority who prefer 4, is asinine.

And the physics are not better in WaW. I'm not positive since I don't own the game, but I'm pretty sure I read something about Treyarch being too simple to wrap their heads around incorporating 4's rag-doll physics into WaW.

Furthermore, I know, based on the Beta that Treyarch didn't do nearly as good a job with the weaponry details. Particularly with the pistols which are over-powered, pop-up too fast and too close to the screen and aren't nearly as natural or as good looking as those found in 4.

Neverminding the amount of detail 4 put into their other guns, which was not replicated as well in WaW.

Thunder Dan- I would just say this if you haven't gone out and gotten a game yet. Don't even begin to second guess your decision to get 4. WaW might be great, but you need to own cod 4. Havoc is right, it's a generational masterpiece. WaW is a knockoff. Oh and by the way, z0sa suggested nobody's playing it? As we speak, on the live network, there are 143,123 people playing cod 4.

[Evan]

resistance 2 is awesome online and Resident Evil 5 comes out Friday which I have already pre-ordered.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

CoD4

[Evan]

by the way...if you get bored shitless of games fast like I do I suggest getting gamefly.com. Great service but shipping times suck.

[z0sa]

Or they have differing opinions. Like those found here:

http://cod4source.com/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare-vs-call-of-duty-5-world-at-war-infinity-ward-or-treyarch

This is one person's opinion, and it's more like a rambling blog than an actual review. I disagree with just about all of his views.


or the votes here:

http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1319508/?view=results&msg=voted

This is such a small sample of votes it honestly means very little. Of the hundreds of thousands of copies sold of either game, I think its more asinine to say a poll of 400 random people who may not even own or have played extensively either game anywhere near represents what the real numbers might be.


Or the various review sites that state that WaW is awesome, but not quite at the level of CoD4.

Anyone game review is going to score WaW low on originality points, otherwise generally the game is scored very high. Game Informer, the most popular game magazine in the USA, scored it 8.75/10, while CoD 4 was a 10/10. To me, the difference is CoD 4 is very original, WaW takes the same formula and engine and applies it to a different era. I actually covered this in a previous post, dunno why I'm repeating myself.


In fact, if you can find a single poll or review that states that WaW is clearly better than 4, I would be very surprised and stand corrected.

Who needs a poll or review? If I was home, I could login and tell you the 5x or more players playing WaW compared to CoD4. Log on yourself. The people are speaking right now to you, and their answer is clear: WaW is a better game.



Also, you've got it backwards. World War 2 is the "usual shit". Modern Warfare is actually a new take on the FPS genre.

Modern warfare has been done for 20 years, and just citing Counter-Strike as an easy example: ground-breaking old school modern warfare FPS that's 10 years old and was extremely popular in its day.

[balli]

Who needs a poll or review? If I was home, I could login and tell you the 5x or more players playing WaW compared to CoD4. Log on yourself. The people are speaking right now to you, and their answer is clear: WaW is a better game.
I have about 4 friends who are all playing WaW these days over 4. I doubt a single one of them would say WaW is the better game. They play it, because they each have about a million hours invested into 4, so that's a pretty vanilla argument as to why one's better.

And there's not 5 times as many people playing. On any given day WaW has moderately more people playing it over cod 4, but the differences in the amount of unique user's are small. Furthermore, I think xbox anyway, said that most of the WaW traffic is coming from Britain, as they're obsessed with WW2 still. And we all know how shitty it can be playing with Brits.


And I'll just end with what I said yesterday-


Yeah, the general consensus is that 4 is the better game. If you like WaW more, cool, but to suggest there's something wrong with the clear majority who prefer 4, is asinine.

[z0sa]

Yeah, the general consensus is that 4 is the better game. If you like WaW more, cool, but to suggest there's something wrong with the clear majority who prefer 4, is asinine.

The clear majority prefer 4? Care to back that up with some hard numbers? You can't. I know because I own both games and play both, and the little "xxxx users online" has alerted me to which game the people prefer.

[z0sa]

I have about 4 friends who are all playing WaW these days over 4. I doubt a single one of them would say WaW is the better game. They play it, because they each have about a million hours invested into 4, so that's a pretty vanilla argument as to why one's better.

And there's not 5 times as many people playing. On any given day WaW has moderately more people playing it over cod 4, but the differences in the amount of unique user's are small. Furthermore, I think xbox anyway, said that most of the WaW traffic is coming from Britain, as they're obsessed with WW2 still. And we all know how shitty it can be playing with Brits.


And I'll just end with what I said yesterday-

I have 10+ friends who all say WaW is better, 10 > 4 so thats a moot point. Your brit claim needs some backup before I use it as proof more people like WaW. And I will gladly go on at 7pm tonight on either game and compare the amount of users in each. It will be more than a "moderate" difference, it will be at least double and perhaps much more than that.

You shouldn't state your opinions as fact to other people, it annoys them. Reviews of games are meant to influence people on what to buy, not as a tool to compare games. Small scale polls, which may only reach a very small percentage of the people playing, mean absolutely nothing to an objective perspective. The only meaningful way to judge a game's popularity is by sales and people playing it online - in which case, WaW is the victor in at least half that positively. If WaW sucked worse than 4, people wouldn't be playing it online in massive numbers much larger than 4. People would have stuck with 4 til MW2 came out, or something better.

[balli]

More people saw Beverly Hills Chihuahua in theaters this year, than saw The Wrestler. Therefore Beverly Hills Chihuahua was a much better movie and Mickey Rourke sucks.

You shouldn't state your opinions as fact to other people, it annoys them.
What have you been doing?
Again I'll say,
Yeah, the general consensus is that 4 is the better game. If you like WaW more, cool, but to suggest there's something wrong with the clear majority who prefer 4, is asinine.

[balli]

Or the better movie analogy. In 1998 more people watched Star Wars the Phantom Menace than watched Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back. Therefore the Phantom Menace is an infinitely better film.

[z0sa]

More people saw Beverly Hills Chihuahua in theaters this year, than saw The Wrestler. Therefore Beverly Hills Chihuahua was a much better movie and Mickey Rourke sucks.

Apples to oranges.


Yeah, the general consensus is that 4 is the better game. If you like WaW more, cool, but to suggest there's something wrong with the clear majority who prefer 4, is asinine.

No, the general consensus is that WaW is a better game. I've got numbers backing me up, you have...?

[z0sa]

Or the better movie analogy. In 1998 more people watched Star Wars the Phantom Menace than watched Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back. Therefore the Phantom Menace is an infinitely better film.

Both blow hard chunks equally

[balli]

Both blow hard chunks equally
Nothing to say about the logic involved huh.
I've got numbers backing me up
Weak and illogical ones, predicated on which is more popular right now. i.e. The year and a half newer one. Do you think every flavor of the month is the best game ever?

you have...?
An objective critical sense.

[z0sa]

What have you been doing?

I made it very clear, in each of my posts, when my opinion was exercised, especially the initial one which was intended to derail any msigivings Thunder Dan had about WaW.

[z0sa]

Weak ones, predicated on which is more popular right now. i.e. The year and a half newer one.

Then why the sudden dropoff in CoD 4 players? :lmao you're building a straw man. First off, if the game sucks, there's not still 200,000 players on during primetime months after the game has been released. People would go back to playing CoD 4 or just not play CoD at all if they were bored with 4. Instead, CoD 4 continues to lose players and WaW continues to field 200,000+ on any given night.


An objective critical sense.

A malfunctioning one, perhaps, considering you cannot understand why you must base a very wide statement like "general consensus" in hard numbers, hard numbers which are easily obtained even.

[z0sa]

Nothing to say about the logic involved huh.

Apples to oranges. I could have sworn I already said this ...

[balli]

Apples to oranges.
No it's not. You're basing which game is better on how many people are playing the newly released sequel as opposed to the two year old original.

Oh and how come cod 4 won game of the year while WaW wasn't even in the discussion?

[z0sa]

No it's not. You're basing which game is better on how many people are playing the newly released sequel as opposed to the two year old original.

Movies = apples
Games = oranges

People go see a movie once, that is how you base how popular it is. Games can be played infinitely, more players online = more popular game. People could still play CoD 4 however long they want, and some do. The majority have moved on to a better game and the numbers prove it.

Therefore, general consensus opinion = WaW. Far too many people bought it and play it every day when they could just go back to or buy CoD 4 instead.


Oh and how come cod 4 won game of the year while WaW wasn't even in the discussion?

Do you have any clue how many different media entities field Game of the Year awards? Just you saying it like there's only one lends me to believe you're not as informed as you'd like to admit.

[balli]

Do you have any clue how many different media entities field Game of the Year awards? Just you saying it like there's only one lends me to believe you're not as informed as you'd like to admit.
Yeah, lots of websites choose their own game of the year (they all chose cod 4, not one chose WaW) but only one gets it written on the box. Y'know, that why when you buy CoD 4 these days, it's sold as the game of the fucking year edition. On both platforms. Who's misinformed?

http://www.times2scale.com/ekmps/shops/times2scale/images/call_of_duty_4_modern_warfare_-_game_of_the_year_edition.jpg

[z0sa]

Yeah, lots of websites choose their own game of the year (they all chose cod 4) but only one gets it written on the box. Y'know, that why when you buy CoD 4 these days, it's sold as the game of the fucking year edition.

:lmao just because you own the Game of the Year version, doesn't mean every website and magazine voted it there. I'm almost positive GI didn't, and they are absolutely huge.

[hater]

which is the best multiplayer PS3 game?

[balli]

From Game Informer:

IDK what they chose, probably CoD 4, but


When Call of Duty 4 debuted on our cover six months ago, the feeling around the office was that the game had an excellent shot at Game of the Year honors. After playing through the final build, it’s clear in my personal opinion that this is the favorite moving into the last days of 2007.


Simply put, Call of Duty 4 is one of the absolute best games to grace any platform to date.


Infinity Ward has delivered on every front, and there is no question in my mind that this is the best action shooter that I have ever played.

And then wait for it, since GI is huge and all:


Following a title as massively successful as Call of Duty 4 is no short order. World at War finally gives us a reason to visit the Pacific Theater with its fun cooperative and multiplayer modes. But the “been there, done that” single-player missions and overall derivative tone keep this very good game from achieving the greatness of its predecessor.
http://www.gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/41345423-3188-4B05-9F3C-5F3F08A1D143.htm?CS_pid=200529

[z0sa]

I own a game of the year version, the problem is, it has literally nothing to do with our discussion. If game of the year is a big deal to you, fine, but I'm just generalizing here, no one really gives a damn as long as the game is fun.

Besides, CoD being Game of the Year twice when WaW is a carbon copy is stupid, and separate completely from our debate. It's just like "4 rings bitch" from a spurs fan, does nothing for the conversation about now.

[z0sa]

From Game Informer

Yet it still got an 8.75, which is the 5th highest rating any game may receive and only because they count by .25 - otherwise it's about the second highest ranking receivable. I've already mentioned its not an original game, which more than makes up for that extra 1.25. The fact its still rated so high says a lot about how fun the game truly is. If anything, I think the GI review and rating prove my points.

[balli]

GI proves your point, though it specifically goes out of it's way to say WaW is not as good as CoD 4, which they labeled as the best FPS ever?

LMAO, GMAFB. I'll see you later man. You're hopeless.

[z0sa]

But the “been there, done that” single-player missions and overall derivative tone keep this very good game from achieving the greatness of its predecessor.

Derived from CoD 4, still a very good game. Like I said, anyone who says CoD 4 is way better is on crack.

[z0sa]

GI proves your point, though it specifically goes out of it's way to say WaW is not as good as CoD 4, which they labeled as the best FPS ever?

LMAO, GMAFB. I'll see you later man. You're hopeless.

They go out of their way to state its "been there, done that" missions (because ww2 has been done over and over and doesnt have new ideas coming to the fray every new game) and its overall derivative tone (meaning its similarity to CoD 4), not the gameplay itself, which is a step forward and more entertaining than ever. This is proven by the still high 8.75 rating.

Again, the article proves my points. I never said WaW is original. I said the main thing I'm worried about is fun factor, and WaW has more of it - which only makes sense, its a newer better version.

The general consensus, based purely off the numbers and NOT my own opinion, points clearly to WaW. Again, if it was not a good game in its own right, people would not be playing it in hugely massive numbers months after its release.

[balli]

Oh and...
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26803490&page=1

http://www.video-game-forums.com/polls/68989-cod4-vs-cod-waw.html

[Thunder Dan]

stop fighting guys

I haven't had a chance to go to the store yet, but I think I'm going to get MLB and Call of Duty 4.....I've never played a CoD game so maybe I'll start there and work myself into it

[z0sa]

Oh and...
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26803490&page=1

total votes: 109


http://www.video-game-forums.com/polls/68989-cod4-vs-cod-waw.html

Total votes: 58

At least 25% voted for WaW in each poll, that's not even the amount of votes for CoD 4. In other words, those two polls probably encompass .01% of the entire CoD playerbase.
Let me know when you get something that even remotely backs up your wide statements.

[z0sa]

stop fighting guys

I haven't had a chance to go to the store yet, but I think I'm going to get MLB and Call of Duty 4.....I've never played a CoD game so maybe I'll start there and work myself into it

Like I said, both games are terrific.

[balli]

Zosa, you're a weirdo. I show you a review of WaW (from the website you called "huge") that pointedly says it's not as good as cod 4. You claim that means it's better.

You ask for numbers and I show you two polls from video game websites. 2/3s of the people voting call cod 4 the better game. And all you say is that the sample size isn't big enough. Not to mention your dis-crediting of whatever polls/reviews Havoc posted.

I point out the fallibility of your "people playing right now" argument and all you can say is apples and oranges.

Face it dude. You lost the argument. And seriously, your reaction is more than a little illogical.

[z0sa]

Zosa, you're a weirdo. I show you a review of WaW (from the website you called "huge") that pointedly says it's not as good as cod 4. You claim that means it's better.

You ask for numbers and I show you two polls from video game websites. 2/3s of the people voting call cod 4 the better game. And all you say is that the sample size isn't big enough. Not to mention your dis-crediting of whatever polls/reviews Havoc posted.

:lmao at you, totally. You are asking me to change MY standards to fit yours, and why MY standards are wrong. MY standards are extremely high, and 500 people out of millions of players is far too small a sample size, PERIOD. I mean cmon, I'm throwing out solid numbers straight from the games themselves. The polls cannot even clarify if a majority of the voters played both games equally or extensively enough to make a noteworthy opinion.

Additionally, it's clear'y inferred from that sentence gameplay and fun factor are NOT the reasons they scored it lower than CoD 4, they did so because it seems "run of the mill" in its missions and is derivative "carbon copy" of CoD 4. Despite being a run of the mill carbon copy in their own words, it still received an 8.75. If this doesn't go along with my whole "the game isn't as original but is more fun than CoD 4", I don't know what does.


I point out the fallibility of your "people playing right now" argument and all you can say is apples and oranges.

There is no fallibility, nor did you ever point any out. Additionally, I explained why its apples to oranges and you made no reply.

30,000+ people still playing Counter-Strike every day on Steam proves when people like a game, they keep playing it no matter what else is out. When they feel something better comes along, they move on. The people have spoken against you and the above statement. Your one opinion is swamped by the hundreds of thousands of others.


Face it dude. You lost the argument. And seriously, your reaction is more than a little illogical.

My reaction? My opinion is different than yours, and you mistake that for a reaction to your opinion. You reacted to me saying anyone who thinks CoD 4 is way better than WaW is on crack. 10 is not way better than 8.75. I have more than made it clear why the game would be rated lower but could still be more fun and improved upon. These writers cater to hundreds of thousands of readers and still rated it high despite very low originality - because they knew, hell, the gameplay is better than ever, its a whole host of brand new weapons and its interesting using familiar perks with these new guns, the maps are bigger and more detailed, SP rules and has coop and so does Nazi zombies, I mean its not that hard to understand why someone might entertain a different opinion on the matter.

[balli]

I mean its not that hard to understand why someone might entertain a different opinion on the matter.

I didn't think so, but...


Those out there saying cod4 is way better are on crack

[z0sa]

I didn't think so, but...

and I stand by that statement. The reviews for WaW are generally high, just not as high as CoD 4. To say a carbon copy of the game you love is way worse would be your right, just doesn't make you look very smart nor do the reviews field any evidence in that regard. I challenge you to find one review that says WaW is a bad game compared to CoD 4.

I for one, do not think WaW is a much better game, just a little better in every regard with a whole gamefull of new content. You won't find a single place I dis CoD 4 because i love the game, just firmly believe WaW is a step forward in terms of entertainment.

[balli]

I never said it was. I said it wasn't as good. But I didn't say you'd have to be on crack to disagree.

[z0sa]

I never said it was. I said it wasn't as good. But I didn't say you'd have to be on crack to disagree.

You implied something must be wrong with me by falsely stating the general consensus is for 4 and that it'd be asinine to believe otherwise.

[z0sa]

cod 4 = revolutionary, new standard set.
waw = evolution of that standard.

[Cry Havoc]

:lmao at you, totally. You are asking me to change MY standards to fit yours, and why MY standards are wrong. MY standards are extremely high, and 500 people out of millions of players is far too small a sample size, PERIOD. I mean cmon, I'm throwing out solid numbers straight from the games themselves. The polls cannot even clarify if a majority of the voters played both games equally or extensively enough to make a noteworthy opinion.

I wasn't posting polls to show that CoD4 is a better game. I posted to the polls in response to you stating that "anyone who thinks CoD4 is better is on crack." Which is interesting, considering in the same thread you talk about how people shouldn't push their opinions about gaming on others.


Additionally, it's clear'y inferred from that sentence gameplay and fun factor are NOT the reasons they scored it lower than CoD 4, they did so because it seems "run of the mill" in its missions and is derivative "carbon copy" of CoD 4. Despite being a run of the mill carbon copy in their own words, it still received an 8.75. If this doesn't go along with my whole "the game isn't as original but is more fun than CoD 4", I don't know what does.

And no one is debating that WaW isn't a good game. It's basically CoD4 in the WWII era, as has been stated numerous times. CoD4 typically gets the nod from what I've seen because there is greater balance during gameplay, as well as the fact that they didn't really improve on the formula much.


30,000+ people still playing Counter-Strike every day on Steam proves when people like a game, they keep playing it no matter what else is out. When they feel something better comes along, they move on. The people have spoken against you and the above statement. Your one opinion is swamped by the hundreds of thousands of others.

And there are still over 100,000 people at any given time playing CoD4. You are making a faulty assumption to think that WaW will continue to receive higher population numbers than CoD4. It's the newer game, and it's a relatively similar experience, so of course gamers are going to be playing it, it's NEW. Do you think if WaW came out 2 years ago and CoD4 was just released that more people would be playing WaW? If so, I don't think you understand gamers, and if feel CoD4 would be garnering more playtime, you invalidate your argument. People are still playing CoD4 in vast numbers, as I never have trouble finding a server. If there are more people playing CoD4 in a year, I'm sure you'll probably state that it doesn't matter, because WaW was sooooo good they just played it so much that they're tired of it and wanted to go back to CoD4 to play the "old school original". :lol



My reaction? My opinion is different than yours, and you mistake that for a reaction to your opinion. You reacted to me saying anyone who thinks CoD 4 is way better than WaW is on crack. 10 is not way better than 8.75.

That's the difference between a game that comes along three or four times per year (at least) and a game that comes along once a console generation, or a few times a decade, at most. The last game that received a high number of perfect scores was for the Nintendo 64. 10 years ago. I'm not going to go as far to say that CoD4 is better than The Legend of Zelda: the Ocarina of Time, but which game do you think more people are playing today?


I have more than made it clear why the game would be rated lower but could still be more fun and improved upon. These writers cater to hundreds of thousands of readers and still rated it high despite very low originality - because they knew, hell, the gameplay is better than ever, its a whole host of brand new weapons and its interesting using familiar perks with these new guns, the maps are bigger and more detailed, SP rules and has coop and so does Nazi zombies, I mean its not that hard to understand why someone might entertain a different opinion on the matter.

Because someone with a different opinion than ballijuana and myself is clearly taking drugs, as anyone with a fully-functional brain would automatically agree with us. :rolleyes

http://beyondthedpad.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare-vs-world-at-war/

One of the first things I noticed while playing online was the lack of realistic sound and the bland color palette that was used. For instance, all of the guns sound the same and no matter how close they get have the same amplitude. If you have ever played an online FPS this is a major flaw.

But it gets worse once you die since the re-spawn points on each map are horrendous, most times re-spawning you right in front of enemy fire.

http://loyalkng.com/2008/11/17/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare-vs-call-of-duty-5-world-at-war-infinity-ward-or-treyarch/

Of course everything looks good on paper, but how about actual gameplay? As much as Call of Duty 5: World at War adds over it’s predecessor, when it comes to play, things aren’t all what it seems. World at War’s campaign lacks in luster and emotion compared to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. With very few memorable moments, and even less character development. Playing through feels more like a barrage of meaningless meat bag’s that lack everything but a pointy stick. While in Modern Warfare, almost every other mission seemed to have something memorable, whether its escaping a sinking cargo ship, or trying to escape a nuke, it comes close to becoming hard to forget.

Multiplayer also brings problems that are hard to miss in Call of Duty 5: World at War. Many of the guns seem unbalanced, and instead, feel like there are only must use equipment, while everything else is just tossed in like sloppy bacon, just for eye candy. It’s a different story for Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Most, if not, all the equipment in game have a been balanced in every aspect, so no gun can out-shine another in every situation. Even with Call of Duty 5’s additional features, the fact that everyone is using the same exact weapons every single match, cancels out the features of what should have been impressive.

Bottom-line, Call of Duty 5: World at War should have been something more, but with the lacking of balance, and a well compromised scenario through the campaign brings the game to only one use. Nazi Zombie Co-op, and that’s it . If you’re looking for a real experience, and well balanced gameplay, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, is the way to go. Oi suzy!~

----

Also, I might call attention to your assertion that "modern warfare" is the old standby and "World War II" is the new thing in gaming. I cannot possibly fathom how you can think this, and it gives me serious doubts about how long you've been in gaming.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/932/932041p1.html

Call of Duty: World at War puts players in the familiar setting of World War II. For me, that immediately handcuffs what the game is going to be able to deliver. We've played through WWII how many times? It feels like well over a thousand. World at War, while it presents what is easily the most frenetic and chaotic World War II we've ever seen, still can't separate itself from the throngs of other releases based on the same time period. I've held an MP40 in my hands before, I've shot Panzerschecks before and I've seen the hallowed out shells of buildings in 1945 before. Again, World at War's campaign is a great experience with scripted events that are of a higher quality than most other series, but that doesn't change the feeling that you've played the scenarios before.

But that's really the only area where Call of Duty: World at War wins out. The finer details -- things like quotes from generals when you die, an epic soundtrack, or evoking emotion in the player by driving through the streets of a war torn country and seeing presumably innocent people executed -- simply don't make it into World at War.

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was last year's (Xbox 360) game of the year. World at War is simply missing that "it" factor to vault it into this year's discussion. It's certainly one of the best first-person shooters of the year, but as far as overall quality, World at War doesn't deliver the same connection or intensity to the player as its older sibling. For my hard earned dollar, it still doesn't get much better than Infinity Ward's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.

----


And no one in this thread has stated that WaW sucks. I've had fun playing it and even watching it. But the issue is, which is the better game?

[Cry Havoc]

double post

[jman3000]

I've played bothm, and I'd say that CoD4 > CoD5... easily.

Maybe it's just because I've become burnt out on WWII FPS's.

WaW had some pretty cool moments, but it just seemed like a second tier game as I was playing. Add that to the fact that EVERYBODY I've talked to about it said not to buy it, that it's just not worth it. Including ATRAIN on this site, and about 5 of my other friends I play with on LIVE.

[z0sa]

I wasn't posting polls to show that CoD4 is a better game. I posted to the polls in response to you stating that "anyone who thinks CoD4 is better is on crack."

I said "way better."


Which is interesting, considering in the same thread you talk about how people shouldn't push their opinions about gaming on others.

Maybe if you cared to comprehend my sentences, I wouldn't have to repeat my self. You ALL acted like WaW is a far worse game, stating things like "general consensus for 4" etc. which is just not true. Ya'll are the one pushing opinions like they're fact when the vast majority of CoD players agree that WaW is the game to play.



And no one is debating that WaW isn't a good game. It's basically CoD4 in the WWII era, as has been stated numerous times.

Did you quote me on that one?


CoD4 typically gets the nod from what I've seen because there is greater balance during gameplay, as well as the fact that they didn't really improve on the formula much.

Greater balance? Cite an example from your own observations. They improved the formula - I already touched on this, apparently you only care to make your own statements like they're facts and not read other's.


And there are still over 100,000 people at any given time playing CoD4.

Very untrue, log on at 3am tonight and see how many people are playing, it will be <30,000 in playlists.

Why lie about the numbers?


You are making a faulty assumption to think that WaW will continue to receive higher population numbers than CoD4.

I never made any assumption. CoD4 will die out due to Modern Warfare 2, not WaW :lmao for you not even pondering that and stating CoD4 will actually get more players than WaW ever :lol I challenge you to prove CoD 4 has ever had more players 2 weeks after WaW was released.



It's the newer game, and it's a relatively similar experience, so of course gamers are going to be playing it, it's NEW. Do you think if WaW came out 2 years ago and CoD4 was just released that more people would be playing WaW?

Considering WaW sold twice as fast as CoD 4, I don't think you want to go there buddy. Your other statement about 'NEW NEW NEW' is illogical, considering its the very next installment in the series. If it wasn't equally or more fun as the last installment hundreds of thousands more players wouldn't be playing it every day 4 months after launchdate. All the cold hard numbers: of sales and players online, all point to WaW being the better game. I cite Counter-Strike's still consistent 30,000+ players per day 10 years after 1.0 as proof players will continue to play a game no matter how shitty or old it is as long as its FUN. The people have moved on to WaW considering how much of a dropoff there was in CoD 4 as soon as it came out. Nowadays, you'll be lucky to see 60,000 people playing CoD 4 - WaW consistently fields 200,000 + and this is 120 days now after release. Again, illogical assumption on your part.

Let me add something to fill you in on how seriously gamers take their sequels, bro: In 1999, Final Fantasy VIII had over 1,000,000 returns because people didn't like the game compared to Final Fantasy VII.


If so, I don't think you understand gamers,

What qualifications do you have that I don't, holier than thou prick? The only thing I see is a whiner citing 500 people out of probably 5+ million who prolly get pwned in waw and thats why they wont leave cod4. I mean, LMAO at you saying CoD4 will eventually have more players than WaW. Total lack of critical thinking considering MW2's imminent release.


and if feel CoD4 would be garnering more playtime, you invalidate your argument.

just because you say so doesn't mean its true, looks like you need to learn your only one opinion and its not better than mine nor just because you possess does it mean its what the majority believes. In other words, no, none of the criteria you stated invalidates my argument oncesoever.


People are still playing CoD4 in vast numbers, as I never have trouble finding a server.

To me, this clearly points out how little you know about gamers. Even if there was <1000 people in playlists like the smaller scale games of Lost Planet etc its rare to have trouble finding a server - the games' population are <18 generally. There's still tens of thousands playing CoD 4, so of course that wouldn't be a problem. It means absolutely nothing in the context of this conversation.


If there are more people playing CoD4 in a year, I'm sure you'll probably state that it doesn't matter, because WaW was sooooo good they just played it so much that they're tired of it and wanted to go back to CoD4 to play the "old school original". :lol

First off, You already stated its going to happen. No if's and's or but's, it doesn't happen you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Second I will bet you $1 plus sig that that will never happen. If you can cite one time since January 1st (the new year) CoD 4 has had more players online, I will transfer the $1 into your paypal account. If WaW ever falls consistently below (one whole day) CoD 4 while both field at least 10,000 players, I will change my sig to whatever you want.

For you, if by the release of MW2 WaW still usurps CoD 4, you owe me $1. CoD 4 will eventually drop to very low or nonexistent numbers after MW2 is released, so I will say 1-2months following the latter's release, you will owe me whatever sig I wish since there will be no chance of CoD 4 ever surpassing WaW's players. Deal?





That's the difference between a game that comes along three or four times per year (at least) and a game that comes along once a console generation, or a few times a decade, at most.

Considering WaW is a carbon copy of CoD 4 in a different era according to both of our words, not sure about the point you're trying to make since I've clearly stated over and over which game is revolutionary and which game is the evolution of that revolution.


The last game that received a high number of perfect scores was for the Nintendo 64. 10 years ago.

CoD WaW received very high scores itself, just not as high as CoD 4. The difference is originality, WaW is more fun. Am I repeating myself?


I'm not going to go as far to say that CoD4 is better than The Legend of Zelda: the Ocarina of Time, but which game do you think more people are playing today?

Ocarina of Time > CoD 4, thats about the only real thing I gathered from this.




Because someone with a different opinion than ballijuana and myself is clearly taking drugs, as anyone with a fully-functional brain would automatically agree with us. :rolleyes

Yep, you saw right, you're eyes aren't lying, you can crawl in a fetal position and suck your thumb aka keep stating it like I said 'better', and not 'waybetter'

^^^ Not only that, I didn't even mean it against any one player in this thread, I actually was directing at the OP who no doubt read reviews on either game and may have had misgivings about the game's fun factor. THAT'S what I was trying to dispel with the whole "all the people saying 4 is way better are on crack"


I disagree with most of the reviewer's points, especially respawning which is only bad when your team sucks (thats PURPOSELY put in there you fucking newbie reviewer, its the same in CoD 4 ffs). Jesus half that shit was bullshit mistakes he thought he saw from playing the game probably 2 hrs and getting pwned the whole time.



And no one in this thread has stated that WaW sucks. I've had fun playing it and even watching it. But the issue is, which is the better game?

WaW, its the evolution of the revolutionary standard CoD 4 set.

[Thunder Dan]

So I went today and picked up MLB The Show, and COD4 which was on sale for $40- all in all I made out pretty good. I think I'm going to play MLB first, so if any of you guys have a name send it to me and maybe we can play. I'm guessing I'm going to suck at first, but I have a deep knowledge for the game and strategy of baseball so if you are reading this a week from now I probably wouldn't even waste your time playing because I'll probably just manhandle you and it wouldn't even be fun

[Cry Havoc]

I said "way better."

That's fine. I never said CoD4 was "way better". I never even said that it's unconditionally better. I said, from what I've read, seen, and played through personal experience, CoD4 is better.



Maybe if you cared to comprehend my sentences, I wouldn't have to repeat my self. You ALL acted like WaW is a far worse game, stating things like "general consensus for 4" etc. which is just not true.

We acted? Please show us this acting, because I'm not sure I've done any acting in this thread. In fact, the very first post I made in the thread said thus: "Although WaW is by no means a bad game"

In fact, if you find a single spot where I said anything about WaW that indicated it was less than a very good game, I'll admit I was wrong. Perhaps you are having a bit of comprehension difficulty yourself. You are the only one in the thread making over-dramatic statements to endorse your own opinion.


Ya'll are the one pushing opinions like they're fact when the vast majority of CoD players agree that WaW is the game to play.

I'm sorry, this statement is so hypocritical I just had to quote it separately. Hilarious.



Greater balance? Cite an example from your own observations. They improved the formula - I already touched on this, apparently you only care to make your own statements like they're facts and not read other's.

It's amazing to me that you can make statements like this with a straight face. I have clarified nearly all or all of my statements in this thread that they are clearly opinion based.


Very untrue, log on at 3am tonight and see how many people are playing, it will be <30,000 in playlists. Why lie about the numbers?

Sorry, I don't own a 360. :toast


I never made any assumption. CoD4 will die out due to Modern Warfare 2, not WaW :lmao for you not even pondering that and stating CoD4 will actually get more players than WaW ever :lol I challenge you to prove CoD 4 has ever had more players 2 weeks after WaW was released.

So, before MW2 is even released, are you willing to state it will have more gamers playing it than WaW? If that's the case, are you willing to say, by extension, that MW2 is the better game before it's even released?

I could also site the EA vs. 2k sports as an example of inferior gameplay selling more games and thereby getting more gamers playing it at the same time. Using sales to gauge the quality of a game is a horrible metric, although not always wrong.


Considering WaW sold twice as fast as CoD 4, I don't think you want to go there buddy. Your other statement about 'NEW NEW NEW' is illogical, considering its the very next installment in the series. If it wasn't equally or more fun as the last installment hundreds of thousands more players wouldn't be playing it every day 4 months after launchdate.

Madden - 2k Football. Next.


All the cold hard numbers: of sales and players online, all point to WaW being the better game. I cite Counter-Strike's still consistent 30,000+ players per day 10 years after 1.0 as proof players will continue to play a game no matter how shitty or old it is as long as its FUN. The people have moved on to WaW considering how much of a dropoff there was in CoD 4 as soon as it came out. Nowadays, you'll be lucky to see 60,000 people playing CoD 4 - WaW consistently fields 200,000 + and this is 120 days now after release. Again, illogical assumption on your part.

Ugh. You are impossible. I did not state unequivocally that CoD4 would eventually have more people playing it again than WaW. I said it was a possibility. And if MW2 sucks, there's still a chance that it might happen.


Let me add something to fill you in on how seriously gamers take their sequels, bro: In 1999, Final Fantasy VIII had over 1,000,000 returns because people didn't like the game compared to Final Fantasy VII.

What's the relevance of this? FF VII and VIII were both made by Square. CoD4 and WaW aren't even published by the same developer. Also, you might want to check out this little tidbit:

"Within two days of its North American release on September 9, 1999, Final Fantasy VIII became the top-selling video game in the United States, a position it held for more than three weeks.[30] It grossed a total of more than US$50 million within the first 13 weeks to follow,[31][32] making it the fastest-selling Final Fantasy title."

Anyway, what the hell do you mean, "returns?" Since when can you return a game to the retailer because "I don't like it"? Apparently that's something completely unknown to me where you play a game after buying it, then decide you want your money back. :lol



What qualifications do you have that I don't, holier than thou prick? The only thing I see is a whiner citing 500 people out of probably 5+ million who prolly get pwned in waw and thats why they wont leave cod4. I mean, LMAO at you saying CoD4 will eventually have more players than WaW. Total lack of critical thinking considering MW2's imminent release.

How about the half-dozen or so magazine articles I've included reviewing exactly why CoD4 is considered superior? YOU are the one making extremist claims like, "the majority of gamers prefer WaW to CoD4", despite every magazine, poll, and comparison I could find on the internet giving CoD4 the nod for better single player AND multiplayer gameplay. I'm not the one here claiming people are on crack for having one school of thought or another. Perhaps you should back your crass statements up with something other than "because I said so."


just because you say so doesn't mean its true, looks like you need to learn your only one opinion and its not better than mine nor just because you possess does it mean its what the majority believes. In other words, no, none of the criteria you stated invalidates my argument oncesoever.

And not a single thing you've said has any bearing on the evidence I've listed. You haven't said so much as a single relevant fact in this entire thread to show why WaW is a better game.


To me, this clearly points out how little you know about gamers. Even if there was <1000 people in playlists like the smaller scale games of Lost Planet etc its rare to have trouble finding a server - the games' population are <18 generally. There's still tens of thousands playing CoD 4, so of course that wouldn't be a problem. It means absolutely nothing in the context of this conversation.

Exactly. Thanks for pointing out how little numbers mean when talking about the quality of a game.


First off, You already stated its going to happen. No if's and's or but's, it doesn't happen you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

What, exactly, did I state is going to happen?


Second I will bet you $1 plus sig that that will never happen. If you can cite one time since January 1st (the new year) CoD 4 has had more players online, I will transfer the $1 into your paypal account. If WaW ever falls consistently below (one whole day) CoD 4 while both field at least 10,000 players, I will change my sig to whatever you want.

Number of players are pointless. If more people are playing Halo 3 than WaW, does that mean it's a better game?


For you, if by the release of MW2 WaW still usurps CoD 4, you owe me $1. CoD 4 will eventually drop to very low or nonexistent numbers after MW2 is released, so I will say 1-2months following the latter's release, you will owe me whatever sig I wish since there will be no chance of CoD 4 ever surpassing WaW's players. Deal?

I enjoy the fact that your entire argument for WaW's superiority rests solely on the number of people playing, when in fact you have completely annihilated any statistical significance that might have by openly admitting that WaW sold more games. A game that sold more will have more people playing, period.


Considering WaW is a carbon copy of CoD 4 in a different era according to both of our words, not sure about the point you're trying to make since I've clearly stated over and over which game is revolutionary and which game is the evolution of that revolution.

It's certainly an evolution, but that doesn't mean all of it's evolutionary steps were forward progress.


CoD WaW received very high scores itself, just not as high as CoD 4. The difference is originality, WaW is more fun. Am I repeating myself?

And you're asserting this as a complete fact, correct? I am stupid for attempting to state that I feel CoD4 is more fun, right?


Ocarina of Time > CoD 4, thats about the only real thing I gathered from this.

Really? Because unless there are 100,000+ gamers out there firing up their N64 today to play OoT, CoD 4 is clearly the better game, using your logic. Gameplay numbers = quality of game, amirite?


Yep, you saw right, you're eyes aren't lying, you can crawl in a fetal position and suck your thumb aka keep stating it like I said 'better', and not 'waybetter'

^^^ Not only that, I didn't even mean it against any one player in this thread, I actually was directing at the OP who no doubt read reviews on either game and may have had misgivings about the game's fun factor. THAT'S what I was trying to dispel with the whole "all the people saying 4 is way better are on crack"

Neither ballijuana nor myself have ever stated that one game was "way better" than the other. Find the post. I dare you. You're arguing against points we didn't make, which is probably why you feel that you have to repeat yourself.


I disagree with most of the reviewer's points, especially respawning which is only bad when your team sucks (thats PURPOSELY put in there you fucking newbie reviewer, its the same in CoD 4 ffs). Jesus half that shit was bullshit mistakes he thought he saw from playing the game probably 2 hrs and getting pwned the whole time.

Wow, and you accuse others of making assertions with no facts or proof to back them? :rolleyes


WaW, its the evolution of the revolutionary standard CoD 4 set.

Your opinion. Not fact. Learn the difference and stop making these ridiculously hypocritical statements.

[balli]

Number of players are pointless. If more people are playing Halo 3 than WaW, does that mean it's a better game?
And actually, today, for the first time in months, Halo overtook WaW for the top spot on the Live network. So how bout it z0sa? you better be prepared to call Halo the better game.

I enjoy the fact that your entire argument for WaW's superiority rests solely on the number of people playing,
Mind boggling isn't it?

[SAtown]

I'm guessing I'm going to suck at first, but I have a deep knowledge for the game and strategy of baseball so if you are reading this a week from now I probably wouldn't even waste your time playing because I'll probably just manhandle you and it wouldn't even be fun

If you have a deep knowledge of the game then you're probably going to enjoy the game very much. My ps3 tag is SAtown13 but it doesn't matter cuz I won't be getting on til August anyways :depressed

[z0sa]

You are making a faulty assumption to think that WaW will continue to receive higher population numbers than CoD 4


I did not state unequivocally that CoD4 would eventually have more people playing it again than WaW. I said it was a possibility.

:lol what a douche.


What, exactly, did I state is going to happen?

:lmao :lmao :lmao nothing like making an ass of yourself then denying it. I'm not sure how anyone should take your advice.


"Although WaW is by no means a bad game"

Although, while, and whereas serve a specific literary purpose in the english language when used in this way: to cast a negative shadow. So you were being negative indirectly, whats the difference?

Let's face it: my points are valid. you've shown me (highly rated) opinions of a small few individuals and thrown your own opinion out there. That's great, but in no way can you say or imply the general consensus is that 4 is better. 4 might be the more original game with, IYO, the better guns, but WaW has made distinct steps forward in graphics, sound, balance, not including they actually made a WW2 game interesting again - which, in my book, scores points in and of itself.

^^ Speaking of which... (quote coming soon)

[balli]

And actually, today, for the first time in months, Halo overtook WaW for the top spot on the Live network. So how bout it z0sa? you better be prepared to call Halo the better game.

[z0sa]

When did Halo 3 come out, late 2006? You still see massive numbers playing, maybe more than ever. Hm. Seems no matter what new games come out, Halo 3 holds its players in a tight grip.

Insert CoD 4. Total online population is at its lowest ever, usually only a fraction of WaW or Halo 3's. Using the example you just pointed out (how Halo 3 is an older game yet overtakes the much newer WaW for most players online), Is the huge difference between game populations because people are bored with it despite being Game of the Year and the Best FPS of all Time, or because a game that was similar, yet better came out?

[Evan]

so...

Resident Evil 5 looks cool

[Cry Havoc]

Interesting note....

I went to Gamestop today and happened to notice that both the 360 and Ps3 versions of CoD4 are selling for $54.99 used. Both copies of WaW are selling for 44.99 used.

I asked the Gamestop workers why the discrepancy in price, and all three of them stated that it was because CoD4 was in higher demand and still consistently getting more requests for used versions of the game in. All three of them also stated that WaW is not as good as CoD4.

Obviously it's just 3 people's opinions, so z0sa will attempt to disregard them. I wonder though... if the largest gaming retailer (outside of Wal-mart, I believe) lists a game that's 1.5 years old as more expensive than a much more recent game... what could that mean, hmmm?

Food for thought. :toast

[z0sa]

Interesting note....

I went to Gamestop today and happened to notice that both the 360 and Ps3 versions of CoD4 are selling for $54.99 used. Both copies of WaW are selling for 44.99 used.

I asked the Gamestop workers why the discrepancy in price, and all three of them stated that it was because CoD4 was in higher demand and still consistently getting more requests for used versions of the game in. All three of them also stated that WaW is not as good as CoD4.

Obviously it's just 3 people's opinions, so z0sa will attempt to disregard them. I wonder though... if the largest gaming retailer (outside of Wal-mart, I believe) lists a game that's 1.5 years old as more expensive than a much more recent game... what could that mean, hmmm?

Food for thought. :toast



orrrr it could be because GameStop Corporatio owns and operates Game Informer, which gave CoD 4 a higher score. If you compare prices in gamestop to their ratings in Game Informer (with a certain sense of practicality - which I'm unsure you possess), you will find a pattern begins to emerge.

Ahhh, feels good to know I was 3 steps ahead of you weeks ago. Not only that, you must know that each GameStop prices its used games differently?

Additionally, I have discussed and will gladly disclose the (san antonio area) gamestop close by MY home where both working employees stated, unequivocally, that CoD 4 is only better if you hate WW2 era weapons.

[Cry Havoc]

orrrr it could be because GameStop Corporatio owns and operates Game Informer, which gave CoD 4 a higher score. If you compare prices in gamestop to their ratings in Game Informer (with a certain sense of practicality - which I'm unsure you possess), you will find a pattern begins to emerge.

Ahhh, feels good to know I was 3 steps ahead of you weeks ago. Not only that, you must know that each GameStop prices its used games differently?

Additionally, I have discussed and will gladly disclose the (san antonio area) gamestop close by MY home where both working employees stated, unequivocally, that CoD 4 is only better if you hate WW2 era weapons.

:lmao

So let's see.

Every review I have posted has given CoD4 a higher score.

Every poll I have posted.

Every person I have asked.

Every single source of media or opinion I have ever been able to find says, "CoD4 is better." You have been able to produce ONE GAMESTOP IN ALL THE LAND and a few of your buddies who think otherwise.

Man, you're right. You're so far ahead of me it's not even funny.

http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=71812

http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=65504

Awww, look at that. The 1.5 year old game selling for the same price as the BRAND NEW GAME. Isn't that craaaaaaaazy? Doesn't that kind of blow the hell out of your, "Waaaaah CoD4 got a higher rating from GI so it's going to be priced higher" nonsense?

http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=72461

Oh, lookie there. CoD4 is BACKORDERED for the PC. Not WaW though. Hmm!

You're right man. You're owning me so hardcore. Really, I don't even know where to begin.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/callofduty4modernwarfare/review.html?mode=web&tag=scoresummary;critic-score

Critic average score for CoD4: 9.4

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/callofduty5/review.html?mode=web&tag=scoresummary;critic-score

Critic average score for WaW: 8.5

Looks like Gamestop isn't the only one rating CoD4 higher. Including the magazine you consider "huge". :toast

[z0sa]

:sleep that post was like a balloon, full of air and not much else. So what, a handful of people said its better. So what, it got a .9 less average score. Like I said, if the sequel was the exact same game and they were just trying to cash in, itd be scored much lower. Its not - its a completely new game experience and improved upon, its just unoriginal, so they scored it SLIGHTLY lower.

Funny that you mention only one gamestop and a handful of random people who may not even played the game, I mention one gamestop and the tens of thousands more playing waw and somehow I'm the dumbass.

btw, i have yet to see any of your arguments as to why the game is better, and its sad that you've let yourself get to a state where you believe the average reviewer score is the be all end all of a game.

you still wanna take that bet? :lmao

[Cry Havoc]

These are facts:

1) A shit ton more people play COD WaW than COD4 at any given time.

More people bought WaW. That makes the comparison between numbers of people playing irrelevant.

[Cry Havoc]

Does that negate the fact that more people are playing WaW? NO!

I wasn't comparing that's why.

Fair enough. You just didn't point it out in your other post. I figured the point might have sailed over z0sa's head.

[z0sa]

Fair enough. You just didn't point it out in your other post. I figured the point might have sailed over z0sa's head.

you're a whore.