all games are not created equal

A very tough choice, but I had to go with World at War mostly because of some more challenging missions. I liked Nazi Zombies too. World at war also has some slightly better graphics and more realistic gameplay. Its also has co-op which is a cool experience to be fighting alongside a friend thorugh WWII.

Call of Duty 4 was the first game that Infinity ward had published since selling it to Treyarch for CoD3, and I have to say, they did a great job at the come back, not only did the break the expectations of war games to be about World War 2, they broke the bounds that Treyarch had done with Call of Duty 1-3 and World at War.
The game play on both is very similar, but what really catches my eye about CoD4 is the modern day setting, not to mention it was the first of the series to be rated M finally having enough captivation and realism to deserve that title. I also like the maps and online multiplayer.
Call of Duty 4 began many things, such as the shooting through walls, and the perks and leveling system.
However, don't get me wrong, World at War is fun, especially the added feature of blowing people apart and getting to see it happen, certainly making it more graphic.

Medal of Honor: Airborne really slipped under the radar. Despite that Call of Duty 5 is one of my favorite games, I have to say that Airborne is better and is the best Medal of Honor game without a doubt.  When I was younger, I would always look for the next World War 2 fps, after my dad made me get Medal of Honor Frontline for the gamecube and my brother got the first Call of Duty (also for gamecube) and most of them were sort of disappointing and then there was Airborne. It showed that you could upgrade your weapons (with some Call of Duty-like attatchments, only this came out first)throughout the story mode and you could even choose where to drop into the fight (being a parachuter makes that easier). So I waited and instead, they made a ripoff called Medal of Honor Vangaurd for Wii (which I bought also awaiting Brawl) which was HUGELY disappointing as the attatchments were limited to a sniper scope for your m1 Garand and a Drum magazine for your Thompson which appeared very vaguely. Eventually I got an Xbox 360 and the first games I got were Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3. My third game was Airborne which was only 20 bucks. Good graphics, excellent attatchments (you could even say Cod 5 copied, grenade launcher, drum mag, telescopic sight) which you unlocked with kills with the gun (hmm sound familiar?) . The xbox live experience is about the same too (only less people play) with attatchments unlocked through kills and you can upgrade everything you can hold (grenades, pistols, all guns, even multiple rocket launchers). Overall, it seems Cod World at War kind of used most of those ideas for their own game, but Airborne has more realism with accuracy, sniping, and overall everything.   

Infinity Wards 'Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare' is arguably one of the best Xbox 360 games to be released in 2007. I expect 'Call of Duty: World at War' to expand upon this, however, I was left dissapointed.

 

World at War brings the player back to the much recycled World War II genre of FPS, throwing you alongside hoardes of allies, against hoardes of enemies in a frantic experience that can now be shared online unlike Modern Warfare. But, as interesting an addition as online co-op is, it is still only a gimmick. World at War fails to expand upon Infinity Wards FPS franchise, and instead, provides up with a splitting image of Modern Warfare pulled into the past and with some mud thrown in for good measure.

 

Some would argue that this was a good move by Infinity Ward: Modern Warfare was a hit success, and to make a sudden change now could ruin the Call of Duty series for good... The problem with World at War is that it simply does nothing new, on purchasing the game, you don't feel like you've bought a game, just an add on for the original Modern Warfare.

 

The guns you unlock are different, the maps are different, and there are some new perks to throw into the mix. But the gameplay has only minor changes. There is nothing new here to grapple with, and although the online multiplayer is addictive, it doesnt feel anymore exciting.

 

Basically, the decisive issue with World at War that ruined the game for me was bad gameplay mechanics. Online matched were plagued by machine gun firiing players, the rifles played very little part in the matches. The low rate of fire for the rifles was expected, nevertheless the damage-to-rate-of-fire could have been increased alittle to allow players keen for accuracy to pull off a good number of kills with the rifles. Which leads me to a further qualm... The rifles and submachine guns seemed to have the same accuracy and recoil, which reminded me of Tom Clancy: Rainbow Six Vegas where players could kill each other across the map easier with shotguns than sniper rifles.

 

Lastly, there us a notable lack of communication online, even on modes like 'War' and 'Capture the Flag', although this is not perhaps due to the game itself, it ruins the online experience.

 

Conclusively, I think that World at War is a slight set back from the formidable Modern Warfare. The game brings nothing new to the competant COD player, and as such, only has value if you are particular to the WWII genre of FPS. Even so... WWII fans may still be dissapointed.

Both games were very highly anticipated, and both games are great in their own right.

In response to Dervy's comparison:

Gears of War 2 had one of the most epic campaigns I've ever played. AND it's long. AND you can play co-op. (It did end kinda lame, though.)

GoW 2 also has "Horde", which is far more entertaining than "Zombie Mode". Speaking of which, why don't you just play Left 4 Dead? There's actual gameplay in both "Horde" and L4D.

The multiplayer, how ever laggy it may be for you, is brilliant on so many levels. The weapons, the maps, everything. And bots.

And why do the controls feel "muddy" to Dervy? I do not know. Maybe it's because the game plays very differently. It's about weaving through and jumping over cover. In many ways, the game is actually more tactical than COD.

And a machine gun with a chainsaw. 'Nuff said.

(Honestly, I've never played WaW, but I've played COD4, and I can tell you nothing has changed from what I've seen of WaW.)

One of the best-selling games on the gaming market right now WaW is probably my favourite first-person "shoot-em-up" game. I enjoy the fact that it is set in the past during the 2nd world war and is able to get "both sides" of the story throughout the Team Deathmatch modes.