all games are not created equal

halo 3 was the first game i bought for the 360. it was fun for a little bit but for some reason, i just really hated the multiplayer. when i started playing call of duty 4 though, i was really impressed. all the guns are a ton of fun and they all feel like you are actually doing something, unlike in halo 3 where most the time you are just wearing down someones shield.

single player too is better in cod4, but still annoying at times. once, i didnt realize that i needed to advance in order to stop the enemies from respawning, so i sat in one spot for about 5 minutes waiting for them to stop. i liked the variety in the missions in cod4.

overall, its all about cod4.

I do love cod4, but the atmosphere in bioshock is just incredible.  it has been a long while since i felt so engrossed in a game, both for its story and gameplay.  Of couse, bioshock doesn't have any multiplayer, but looking at these two games from a single player perspective, bioshock totally blows cod4 out of the water.  multiplayer in cod4 does add a lot of replayability, but in the end for me, bioshock did something unique and did it perfectly.

Looking at both these games from a multiplayer point of view, TF2 just has a lot more variety in it's playing styles.  COD4 is realistic, which is pretty sweet, but I really enjoy how crazy and totally off the wall TF2 can get.  It's that next step of frenzied multiplayer that I feel COD4 doesn't quite do as well.

TF2 also fits my style of gameplay a little better, which involves constant head-on firefights.  Also great about TF2 is that it really forces teamwork.  In COD4, you wander around with a group of your teammates, but most the time, that's about it.  In TF2, theres constant teamwork, the most obvious happening between the heavies and the medics.

Both great, but TF2 rocks my face.

Both games are amazing, hands down some of the best console FPS ever. I have logged 100's of hours in both games in mutliplayer. CoD4 came out on top for me though. Gears was alot of fun, but the multiplayer was riddled with glitches and lag, and the host of the game had a clear and decisive advantage, where as CoD4 didnt seem to have these issues nearly as much, as well as many more types of gameplay. Singleplayer/co-op I would have to say Gears takes the cake, but thats only fun a couple times through.

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.