Call of Duty 4 vs. Call of Duty 5
My review of the two most recent Call of Duty games, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Call of Duty: World at War.
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is one of my favourite games of this generation. I had been looking forward to it eagerly and got it as a Christmas gift in 2007. The first thing I did was start up the campaign, deciding to get in some single player action before I got to the online portion of the game. I was so pleased with Modern Warfare that I purchased Call of Duty: World at War on launch week. While it was certainly an enjoyable experience, I didn’t feel that it came anywhere near the innovation or enjoyment levels of its predecessor.
Single Player Campaign
The biggest difference between the two games was the quality of the single player campaign. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare marked a move away from the series’ roots. The World War II setting of old was replaced with a near-future war. This allowed the developers at Infinity Ward to create a bold, unpredictable storyline. As a result, the story featured a number of memorable set pieces and breathtaking missions. Unfortunately, World at War returned to World War II, resulting in a far duller, more drab campaign, which lacked the big set pieces of Modern Warfare.
Online Multiplayer
Although World at War features a bunch of new online options (such as Co-Op missions and Nazi Zombies), it still feels like it’s nothing more than a clone of Modern Warfare. The guns don’t feel as powerful, the maps aren’t as well laid-out and the game feels too recycled. In comparison, Modern Warfare felt much fresher, even to this day.
Innovation
Modern Warfare wins in this category hands down. It brought the series to the present. It provided an experience that players could be much more in touch with. It introduced one of the most popular online components of all time. In comparison, World at War was nothing more than a copy of Modern Warfare’s online component. The changes, which were few and far between, were very minor. The campaign felt old, outdated and uninspired. World at War felt like a game that we, the gamers, had played dozens of times before, whereas Modern Warfare felt new at first, and still does to this day.

Leave a Reply