MODERN WARFARE 2 OR MODERN WARFARE 4

marky boii

MOD 2 and MOD 4 are 2 great games but which do you think is better. On MOD 2 the missions are very challenging and intresting but MOD 4 THERE JUST AS GOOd


GAME RATING: Modern Warfare 2=9/10

GAME RATING:Modern Warefare 4=10/10

It might be a surprise but that what I think but the important thing is what do YOU think right your opinions below. THANKS:)

Axwell

Modern Warfare 4??

Theres only 2 of them..Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare...and Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2...

What you on about??

Also there is a whole forum dedicated to COD..so this should be there not in the console forum.

TouchingVirus

Axwell wrote: »

Modern Warfare 4??

Theres only 2 of them..Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare...and Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2...

What you on about??

Also there is a whole forum dedicated to COD..so this should be there not in the console forum.

THREAD TITLES IN ALL CAPS ANNOY PEOPLE INCLUDING ME...

Modern Warfare is abbreviated with MW not MOD...

As for what one is better, well they're much the same if you ask me. Nothing special in either.

jesus_thats_gre

Welcome by the way

Pushtrak

Axwell wrote: »

Modern Warfare 4??

Theres only 2 of them..Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare...and Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2...

The title isn't Call of Duty 6. They abandoned the number system. Take GTA. There was III, Vice City, San Andreas and then IV. Should Call of Duty release a game that goes back on the number system, are we to say there are two Call of Duty 6 out? I really don't like people calling WaW CoD 5. It isn't.

mailrewop

Pushtrak wrote: »

The title isn't Call of Duty 6. They abandoned the number system. Take GTA. There was III, Vice City, Saints Row, and then IV. Should Call of Duty release a game that goes back on the number system, are we to say there are two Call of Duty 6 out? I really don't like people calling WaW CoD 5. It isn't.

it isn't gta saints row, saints row is a different game.

Evolute

People can call it what they want because it is both.
Although its funny that somehow you have managed to think that Modern Warfare 2's predecessor is somehow Modern Warfare 4.
But Overall I think Call of Duty 4 pales in comparison.
There is a considerable difference in graphics MW2 compared to Cod4.
Also I just thought the storyline in MW2 was that unrealistic that it was great fun to play.

Oh and whoever said Saints Row was a GTA game heres a Roflcopter for you

For the record your missing Gta game was San Andreas

Burning Eclipse

In fairness, Pushtrak obviously meant San Andreas.

Rev. Kitchen

I prefer cod4 i just think that it was such a massive jump in graphics and online console multiplayer battles.

MW2 didnt really do it for me i cant put my finger on it but i didnt like the shanty town missions (reminded me of resi evil 5) and multiplayer, while still really good didnt have the impact the first one did. I played the first one pretty much non stop for 2 years but ive already moved on from MW2.

Atavan-Halen

Pushtrak wrote: »

The title isn't Call of Duty 6. They abandoned the number system. Take GTA. There was III, Vice City, Saints Row, and then IV. Should Call of Duty release a game that goes back on the number system, are we to say there are two Call of Duty 6 out? I really don't like people calling WaW CoD 5. It isn't.

Plus they can't really call it Call of duty 4 2

Pushtrak

mailrewop wrote: »

it isn't gta saints row, saints row is a different game.

Thats what I get for drinking before going online. My point still stands. I haven't seen a rebuttal to the two CoD 6 theory yet. Just waffle.

Cuddlesworth

Publisher has slit the franchise into two separate titles. Modern Warfare and World at War. So it is Modern Warfare 2, in the same way World at War 2 will be released.

Tallon

look, the box says "Call of duty: Modern warfare 2" End of.

Stop naming numbers

Rb

World at war 2?

What sane person would give Treyarch another cent for a COD title when they've shown themselves to be absolutely incompetent with World at War in itself?

here.from.day.1

Rb wrote: »

World at war 2?

What sane person would give Treyarch another cent for a COD title when they've shown themselves to be absolutely incompetent with World at War in itself?

Disagree, WaW was a great stop gap, Nazi Zombies on its own would have been worth the money. Oh and they know how to treat the PC guys.

Cuddlesworth

Rb wrote: »

World at war 2?

What sane person would give Treyarch another cent for a COD title when they've shown themselves to be absolutely incompetent with World at War in itself?

The same people who let them do it the first time and most likely dropped pressure on the developer of the game engine(Infinity Ward) to conform as much as possible in all platforms so they have less to break the next time they use it.

heebusjeebus

Rb wrote: »

World at war 2?

What sane person would give Treyarch another cent for a COD title when they've shown themselves to be absolutely incompetent with World at War in itself?

WaW was a great instalment in the CoD series. There was some great MP levels in the game.

Its all Vietnam from now on.

Pushtrak

Rb wrote: »

World at war 2?

What sane person would give Treyarch another cent for a COD title when they've shown themselves to be absolutely incompetent with World at War in itself?

Activision don't care about competence. They care about money. IW wouldn't be able to release games so often, so they stagger releases. Treyarch are presumably working on WaW 2 and have been for some time now.

I saw CoD 3 get a lot worse doing, and Treyarch went on to do WaW. As I have already done with 3 and WaW, I'll skip the next one and get the next MW.

Edit: How was WaW single player those who have played it? I only see people talk about multiplayer.

heebusjeebus

Pushtrak wrote: »

Edit: How was WaW single player those who have played it? I only see people talk about multiplayer.

The Single player was fine but the story lines were not as tight as CoD 4.
The CO-OP and Mutliplayer we're worth it though.

Nuri Sahin

COD4,.

MW2 is too noob friendly. There is no real skill to it.

"Too many cooks spoil the broth" Well... too many changes spoil the game.

ReacherCreature

Thread has turned into a disaster fairly quick!

Jev/N

Adnan Alves wrote: »

MW2 is too noob friendly. There is no real skill to it.

Single or Multi Player?

Some of the Spec Ops are pretty tough on Vetern, not noob friendly there?

Captain Chaos

Pushtrak wrote: »

Treyarch are presumably working on WaW 2 and have been for some time now.
I saw CoD 3 get a lot worse doing, and Treyarch went on to do WaW. As I have already done with 3 and WaW, I'll skip the next one and get the next MW.

No, WW2 is over and done with for the CoD series. Treyarch are working on the next CoD game based in 'Nam, due out November.

Rumor has it that IW have got another dev team to do MW3. The IW team are going to work on a new big project as they have been making CoD games for the past 8 years and want to move on.

citizen_p

STOP TALKING BOUT THE FUKING NAMES

mw1 is a better story
mw2 multiplayer is more noob friedly online....but i could settle into either online.... minus the 1887s..

Pushtrak

The last time before your post that the names point was mentioned was halfway through the thread. Why even mention it?

Evolute

Pushtrak wrote: »

The last time before your post that the names point was mentioned was halfway through the thread. Why even mention it?

Lol I'd say he didnt read all the posts and just got aggro when he saw all the posts about the name haha

Toes

The original modern warfare is much better than mw2 imo. The maps were way better, the story was way better etc... MW2 is the most overhyped game ever

zuchum

Man, what a fail thread. OP just came in, left one completely unintelligible post, left and let madness ensue. Genius.

Both games are good. Woot.

EmacB

yeah is anyone else kinda pissed off that spec ops is just a load of recycled chunks of single player(mostly)

i think i.w. are just too big headed to acknowledge treyarch can come up with good ideas like nazi zombies and just threw in spec ops in its place

Nuri Sahin

Jev/N wrote: »

Single or Multi Player?

Some of the Spec Ops are pretty tough on Vetern, not noob friendly there?

Meant multiplayer mate. It's basically a noob tube, marathon + commando + lightweight, camping, hearbeat sensor, scrambler noob fest.

A bad/average player can get 4 kills or 3 with Hardline, get their care package and be lucky enough to get pavelow, chopper gunner, AC110 etc and thus pretty much top score.

Single player was enjoyable in parts but the story was so badly told.

COD4>>>MW2 in both aspects IMHO.

I agree about Specs Ops on veteran being reasonably tough at times notably 'High Explosive' if your playing legit and the mansion sniper level. Though if my mic was working it would have been easy enough.

kleefarr

I've just finished the Campaign in Modern Warfare 2. Seemed quite quick. Expected it to last a bit longer.
Is there more to it or is it just the special ops and online left now?

Atavan-Halen

That's all there is to it I'm afraid :P It's a very short game. Try it on Veteran difficulty?

Donnelly117

marky boii wrote: »

MOD 2 and MOD 4 are 2 great games but which do you think is better. On MOD 2 the missions are very challenging and intresting but MOD 4 THERE JUST AS GOOd


GAME RATING: Modern Warfare 2=9/10

GAME RATING:Modern Warefare 4=10/10

It might be a surprise but that what I think but the important thing is what do YOU think right your opinions below. THANKS:)

are you from the future?