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
total votes: 109
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.
Like I said, both games are terrific.
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.
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.
There is no fallibility, nor did you ever point any out. Additionally, I explained why its apples to oranges and you made no reply.I point out the fallibility of your "people playing right now" argument and all you can say is apples and oranges.
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.
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, , 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.Face it dude. You lost the argument. And seriously, your reaction is more than a little illogical.
Last edited by z0sa; 03-09-2009 at 01:37 PM.
I didn't think so, but...I mean its not that hard to understand why someone might entertain a different opinion on the matter.
Those out there saying cod4 is way better are on crack
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.
Last edited by z0sa; 03-09-2009 at 01:54 PM.
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.
cod 4 = revolutionary, new standard set.
waw = evolution of that standard.
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.
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.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 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".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.
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?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.
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.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, , 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.
http://beyondthedpad.wordpress.com/2...-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-...d-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 s s 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?
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 03-10-2009 at 09:55 AM.
double post
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.
I said "way 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. 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.Which is interesting, considering in the same thread you talk about how people shouldn't push their opinions about gaming on others.
Did you quote me on that one?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.
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.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.
Very untrue, log on at 3am tonight and see how many people are playing, it will be <30,000 in playlists.And there are still over 100,000 people at any given time playing CoD4.
Why lie about the numbers?
I never made any assumption. CoD4 will die out due to Modern Warfare 2, not WaWYou are making a faulty assumption to think that WaW will continue to receive higher population numbers than CoD4.I challenge you to prove CoD 4 has ever had more players 2 weeks after WaW was released.
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 ty 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.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?
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 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.If so, I don't think you understand gamers,
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 if feel CoD4 would be garnering more playtime, you invalidate your argument.
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.People are still playing CoD4 in vast numbers, as I never have trouble finding a server.
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 you're talking about.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".
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?
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.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.
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?The last game that received a high number of perfect scores was for the Nintendo 64. 10 years ago.
Ocarina of Time > CoD 4, thats about the only real thing I gathered from this.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?
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'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.
^^^ 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 ing newbie reviewer, its the same in CoD 4 ffs). Jesus half that was bull mistakes he thought he saw from playing the game probably 2 hrs and getting pwned the whole time.
WaW, its the evolution of the revolutionary standard CoD 4 set.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?
Last edited by z0sa; 03-10-2009 at 11:26 AM.
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
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.
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"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.
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.
I'm sorry, this statement is so hypocritical I just had to quote it separately. Hilarious.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.
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.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.
Sorry, I don't own a 360.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?
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 never made any assumption. CoD4 will die out due to Modern Warfare 2, not WaW
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.
Madden - 2k Football. Next.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.
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.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 ty 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.
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: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.
"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 le."
Anyway, what the 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.
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."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 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.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.
Exactly. Thanks for pointing out how little numbers mean when talking about the quality of a 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.
What, exactly, did I state is going to happen?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 you're talking about.
Number of players are pointless. If more people are playing Halo 3 than WaW, does that mean it's a better game?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.
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.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?
It's certainly an evolution, but that doesn't mean all of it's evolutionary steps were forward progress.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.
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?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?
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?Ocarina of Time > CoD 4, thats about the only real thing I gathered from this.
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.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"
Wow, and you accuse others of making assertions with no facts or proof to back them?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 ing newbie reviewer, its the same in CoD 4 ffs). Jesus half that was bull mistakes he thought he saw from playing the game probably 2 hrs and getting pwned the whole time.
Your opinion. Not fact. Learn the difference and stop making these ridiculously hypocritical statements.WaW, its the evolution of the revolutionary standard CoD 4 set.
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.
Mind boggling isn't it?I enjoy the fact that your entire argument for WaW's superiority rests solely on the number of people playing,
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
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?"Although WaW is by no means a bad game"
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)
Last edited by z0sa; 03-10-2009 at 05:45 PM.
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.
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?
so...
Resident Evil 5 looks cool
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by z0sa; 03-16-2009 at 07:38 PM.
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/Prod...oduct_id=71812
http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/Prod...oduct_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 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/Prod...oduct_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/acti...y;critic-score
Critic average score for CoD4: 9.4
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/acti...y;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".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
