Cod4 modern warfare vs Cod 5 world at war

I agree in final that treyarch did a much better job than activision while creating the call of duty game series. in cod5 there are better maps the ability to get in vehicles is finally added your rewards for kill streaks are much better your weapons are more unique the game offers a better campaighn mode and a bonus zombie mode. in this debate im looking for people who have actually played this game and voters who know what there talking about

>I would like to first thank my opponent for starting this debate, and I wish the best of luck to him. I am particularly excited because this is my first debate, and I love Call of Duty.

I will now break down my opponent's opening argument.

>My opponent's first statement is that the maps are better on World at War than they are on CoD4.
World at War currently has 13 maps.
Lets take a look at how many maps there are on Modern Warfare:

-Ambush
-Backlot
-Bloc
-Bog
-Countdown
-Crash
-Crossfire
-District
-Downpour
-Overgrown
-Pipeline
-Shipment
-Showdown
-Strike
-Vacant
-Wetworks

That's 16 maps, NOT including the 4 bonus maps in the map pack, bringing the total to 20.
Of course, quality is above quantity, but CoD4 is also superior in the quality of their maps.
The maps in Modern warfare are packed with excitement, and you can feel the anticipation around every corner. Most of the maps are open, but they have a great layout in which you are never facing a dull moment. For those who aren't too fond of the close-up combat, there are several maps that are extremely open, a sniper's paradise for some. The point is, none of the CoD4 maps are bland or dull, and the combat can range from packed, crazy mayhem, to open and tactical. Many maps on WaW are amazingly bland, and so insanely large that you can often find yourself looking for someone to kill for long periods of time until you finally find one of the many campers. Bigger maps means less action. Less action means less fun. Also, a lot of the maps are repetitive, take Asylum for example. Little detail and repeating environments make the playing boring and somewhat lacking.

>My opponent claimed that the addition of vehicles in World at War is better than the absence of them in Modern Warfare. I admit, when I first heard about the tanks being in the new Call of Duty, I was excited, but to me, the tanks were just a flawed implementation of a decent idea. Just having a vehicle that can easily one-shot anyone might have been okay, but a vehicle that can easily one-shot anyone AND is extremely hard to take out is simply overpowered. And what happens when you manage to destroy this vessel of doom? The driver jumps out right before the explosion and scrambles away, unharmed. If Treyarch were going to implement a vehicle into Call of Duty, they should have made one that was somewhat balanced.

>"your rewards for kill streaks are much better"
For those who are unfamiliar with this, in both games, you are rewarded with a helpful ability every time you reach 3, 5, and 7 kills in a row. The fact of the matter is, the rewards you get for getting 3 and 5 kill streaks are basically the same in both games, so you can't really call one better than the other. The 7 kill streak, however, changed from a Helicopter that attacks anyone in it's sights (Call of Duty 4), to sending out several attack dogs to sniff out and assault your enemies (World at War). This is another thing I was excited about, for I am pretty open minded to changes like this, but although amusing, unleashing the hounds just doesn't balance out like the helicopter. To some extent, the dogs need a bit of a fixing. 7 kills in a row isn't such a difficult feat, and the fact that they are not restricted to a part of the map (unlike the heli, which only patrols a portion of the map), which enables them to reach all areas. Having an ability to potentially kill your enemies on ALL areas of the map (including indoors), is a broken game mechanic.

>"your weapons are more unique"
...seriously?
Please tell me how going BACKWARDS in time to having WW2 guns is unique.
Modern weapons have been so much less explored then those of the WW2 era.
In fact...modern warfare as a whole has been so much less explored than WW2.
WW2 is really getting old...even if it is on the Pacific front this time.

>"the game offers a better campaighn mode and a bonus zombie mode"
World at War's campaign was not bad, but gameplay-wise, Call of Duty won hands down. The only thing better about WaW's campaign is that you can play it co-op or online (one of Treyarch's rare good ideas). The plot wasn't really anything special in WaW, and the characters seemed really underdeveloped. Oh, and I know I'm not the only one who hated the cutscenes during the mission briefings (the ones with the poorly done, block style animations, and showed old WW2 clips). Come on Treyarch, that was just lazy! At least put some effort into your cutscenes. Modern Warfare had many more epic moments than WaW, whether it was saving your partner from a helicopter wreckage and carrying him to an extraction zone while sniping out hordes of enemies as a rescue chopper makes it's way to you, or having your dying Captain pass you a handgun while your Zakhaev and his guards slowly walk towards you, killing your squad mates. CoD4 was pure EPIC. World at War had some cool moments too (such as the ending as you put up the Russian flag), but you just didn't feel as heroic and powerful as you did Modern Warfare.
I wont argue with you on zombie mode though, it was pretty fun.
Too bad that's just one good thing among all of WaW's flaws.

Again, I thank my opponent for this debate and I wish him the best of luck.

Vote CON!

dude i have to say your a great debater unfortunantly some unexpected things came up with sports and school so i wil not be able to rebuddle this debate my opinion is that cod5 waw is better but thats a opinion. he would of clearly won this debate and i give him alot of props. but look for similar debates like this again people video games is my specialty

Ahhh... I understand. Things happen.
Well then, thanks for the debate!

I just want to add some things before we finish though, just need to get this out of me lol.
World at War was based off the exact same engine and foundations set by CoD4.
WaW was basically the same game in a different setting with different guns.
A few different perks and the addition of a couple new things didn't make World at War feel like the next game of the series, but more like a bonus pack for CoD4.

Taking the upgrade from CoD3 to CoD4, which was substantial, and comparing it to the transfer of CoD4 to WaW, which wasn't that much of an upgrade at all, you see that Infinity Ward really brought the most to the plate.

Oh, and the spawning in WaW is horrendous.
Coming back into the game with your back to your opponent is never a fun ordeal.

Lets also look at the reviews for both games.

~Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare~
Game Informer - 10/10
GameSpot - 9/10
GameTrailers - 9.4/10
X-Play - 5/5

~Call of Duty: World at War~
Game Informer - 8.75
GameSpot - 8.5/10
GameTrailers - 8.7/10
X-Play - 4/5

As you can see, both games had high reviews, but CoD4 clearly was rated superior.

Well, that's all I really have to say.
I am still playing CoD4 happily as WaW sits on my shelf.

Once again I thank you, monkeydude99 for starting this debate, and I'm sorry that you didn't get the chance to argue me. I also play video games a lot, and if you would like to debate on something else in that category, please let me know!

Again, I wish we could have had a real debate on this.
Although I'm disappointed that my opponent had to forfeit, I thank him again for creating this debate.

Seeing as how my opponent didn't respond to my challenging of his arguments, and didn't argue any of my points, I do not see how you could not vote for CON.

I thank the audience for viewing this debate!