This is a pretty simple and straightforward thread, a question that has been bugging me for a while.

You see, with me getting a new computer soon, I can suddenly play a lot of games that I have wanted to play for a while.
Anyways, I have checked the list of games on Steam, and come to my decision on what games I want, with a budget of $250 AUS.
My first choice was, the Valve Complete Pack. I also put G-Mod in there, because I have plans to use it. But I have reached a snag, one that I will ask the Escapist Community to help me out with.

There is a choice between 4 games that I wish to buy with the last of my budget: Bioshock, Fallout 3, COD 4 and COD: WaW.

Of course, it is a hard decision for myself, and I will do my homework on which one I would enjoy the most. However, having played COD 4, I find that it stands out amongst the rest, as I have already played it, and loved it. I would like to ask; what is your opinion?

But the major topic revolves around the latest Call of Duty games, hence the title. I would like to ask; which one is better? What's the difference, besides the setting?

Please Discuss.

I haven't finished World at War yet, but it really feels like a step back from Modern Combat to me. I don't feel pulled in as much, and it really seems a lot easier so far. Also, I can't remember if Modern Combat was this bad, but I can't describe how aggravating it is to have the invisible wall placed around such a narrow path through the jungles in the Pacific Islands levels.

I have gotten 1000/1000 for both games,

beaten both games on veteran,

and If you want my point of view,

Campaign: Cod WaW > Cod4

Multilayer Live: Cod4 > Cod WaW

Fun weapons (Live and campaign): Cod WaW > Cod4

Challenge of veteran campaign: Cod4 > Cod WaW

And also a few add-ons such as, Nazi Zombies (single or Co-op) Co-op and competitive campaign, and the new interesting live games, such as capture the flag, war, veteran, ect..

The only reason I say live is better for Cod4 is because they have automatic weapons that can actually kill something, rather than just spraying in 50 different directions.

Basically, if you want more of a challenge on Live, get Cod WaW.

If you want more of a challenging campaign, get Cod4

It's harder live and It's longer considering it goes to 65 instead of 55 now.

( and to add on to that, you get a spiffy flamethrower perk at 65, which makes it very encouraging to get to 65)

If you don't care about the setting, WaW does have the advantage of having Co-op and an enhanced multiplayer.

My vote goes to 'save your money you've bought too many games, then add me on Steam so we can play L4D once you get the complete pack.'

fish food carl:
A vs thread? Really Lord Krunk? I expected better from one such as you. There have been countless threads, asking the same question that you do, and they are all now locked.

Not really. This is more of a 'which was your favourite, because that's the one I'll buy' thread. I dunno if it's against the rules, but I think it deserved a topic.

Anyway, is it considered a VS thread if they're of the same franchise?

Neither. Get CoD 2.

CoD 4 all the way.

CoD 4, for sure. I've played both, and I just enjoyed the experience of CoD 4 MUCH MORE! I wasn't wild with the "going back to WWII" idea, but I gave it a shot. Yes, it looked pretty, but it just felt old and had that "been done a million times" feeling to me.

CoD4 >>>>> CoD5

Simple as.

Infinity Ward is awesome and Treyarch sucks. Does anything else need to be said?

Call of Duty 4 is the obvious choice to me, Treyarch's waste of $50 could easily be replicated by a few modders who don't test their mods before release.

P.S. Fallout 3 is the best game I've played since Quake 2. And Quake 2 was my first 3D game, does any more need to be said? However Bioshock feels much more familiar to a die-hard single-player FPS fan, but has little replay value.

What I've played round a friends house of WaW wasn't bad but it simply didn't have the same feel as 4. Not sure what it was but I just really preferred playing 4.

You realize it's called Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, don't you?

Keeping in mind that I played both on the PC there was one major difference between the two that made CoD4 the clear cut winner in this competition. Namely - it ran.

I installed WAW only to discover that for the first 3 hours of having it installed, I could not begin the single-player campaign. After discovering that I was required to manually create my own profile folder in some obscure, backwater part of my hard drive, I was at last thrust into World War II. At this point I made a second realization... The blasted thing ran like molasses. It's the difference between Night and that other side of the spectrum (the bright one I'm told exists) I mean, come on, I know they were trying to modify CoD4's game engine into a slightly better engine but the difference is a bit more money's worth in technology than I'm ready and willing to spend on my PC at this time. That, however, is just my two bits.

Neither. They both suck.

Reload92:
You realize it's called Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, don't you?

You're right. I'm mixing the name up with its similarly titled counterpart, Battlefield 2.

Richard Groovy Pants:
Both are good, personally I'd go for Fallout 3.

Yeah, I've been looking at it with great zeal, as 'Oblivion With Guns' sounds awesome. I am definitely going to get it, but I'm leaning more towards the 360 version.

Lord Krunk:

fish food carl:
A vs thread? Really Lord Krunk? I expected better from one such as you. There have been countless threads, asking the same question that you do, and they are all now locked.

Not really. This is more of a 'which was your favourite, because that's the one I'll buy' thread. I dunno if it's against the rules, but I think it deserved a topic.

Anyway, is it considered a VS thread if they're of the same franchise?

Yes.

Also, Call of Duty United offensive is my favorite. Get that one....or I won't love you anymore.

(There is a CoD complete pack on Steam too btw.)

ElArabDeMagnifico:

Lord Krunk:

fish food carl:
A vs thread? Really Lord Krunk? I expected better from one such as you. There have been countless threads, asking the same question that you do, and they are all now locked.

Not really. This is more of a 'which was your favourite, because that's the one I'll buy' thread. I dunno if it's against the rules, but I think it deserved a topic.

Anyway, is it considered a VS thread if they're of the same franchise?

Yes.

(There is a CoD complete pack on Steam too btw.)

Go figure. And I'll take a look at the COD complete pack, I didn't notice that.

Anyway, sorry about posting a VS thread, I just wanted some information before I make my final decision.

Oh, and in response to your first post, I know I'm getting a heck of a lot of games, but I will try and play L4D against you, but it will be hard to get me to stop playing TF2, though.

EDIT: I think COD 4 wins.

Call of Duty: World at War is infinitely better than Call of Duty 4. In terms of campaign, co-op, and multiplayer. It's just my opinion and nearly everyone here disagrees with me, but it's refreshing to play a great WWII shooter that isn't generic. Not to mention it has flamethrowers. And flamethrower tanks too!

ElArabDeMagnifico:
(There is a CoD complete pack on Steam too btw.)

I can't find it.

Well I am leaning towards WaW but all my campaign missions disappeared and I have to start again so I am rather pissed off.

CoD 4: Good -- CoD 5: Mediocre
Easy as that. But if you want the best war FPS, check out the Brothers in Arms series. Hell's Highway has an awesome story. I can't wait for the next game! Gearbox is great.

And Fallout 3 is cool too, just like you said, "Oblivion with guns". :)

If you are getting Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, do not buy it of steam!

The prices for Modern Warfare are in USD... and right now, it's $60. That's ~$AU90.

As for the one to get, I suggest Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, though that's based on here-say. That, and I'm not too big a fan of Treyarch.

stompy:

If you are getting Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, do not buy it of steam!

The prices for Modern Warfare are in USD... and right now, it's $60. That's ~$AU90.

As for the one to get, I suggest Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, though that's based on here-say. That, and I'm not too big a fan of Treyarch.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Lord Krunk:

Reload92:
You realize it's called Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, don't you?

You're right. I'm mixing the name up with its similarly titled counterpart, Battlefield 2.

Richard Groovy Pants:
Both are good, personally I'd go for Fallout 3.

Yeah, I've been looking at it with great zeal, as 'Oblivion With Guns' sounds awesome. I am definitely going to get it, but I'm leaning more towards the 360 version.

The good news is that all three versions (360, PS3 and PC) are all about equal with but one prime difference between the console and PC versions right now. Cheats. Yup, much easier to cheat in the PC version. In the future I also suspect we'll see a great number of PC-only mods to go with Fallout 3 much like Oblivion.

As for my personal opinion, I honestly preferred the PS3 version.

WaW was better because i really liked the story, multiplayer is multiplayer but getting beat up by a zombie Japanese officer (the death card)is forever

Hers the thing, COD 4 IS COD 5. So you might as well buy the time period you prefere, modern or WW2. As they are the same game with different skins applied.

Tattaglia:
Call of Duty: World at War is infinitely better than Call of Duty 4. In terms of campaign, co-op, and multiplayer. It's just my opinion and nearly everyone here disagrees with me, but it's refreshing to play a great WWII shooter that isn't generic. Not to mention it has flamethrowers. And flamethrower tanks too!

i agree

Lord Krunk:
Thanks for the heads-up.

No problems. It irks me too, that Activision is making us pay an extra half of the price, simply because they can. Though, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is a great game, and well worth it in my opinion.

stompy:

Lord Krunk:
Thanks for the heads-up.

No problems. It irks me too, that Activision is making us pay an extra half of the price, simply because they can. Though, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is a great game, and well worth it in my opinion.

I'm going to shop around.

Personally I have been having troubles accepting WaW into my life with the whole leap back in time aspect. I don't dislike WWII games, I just enjoy playing CoD4 better.

P.S. Anyone else try playing WaW then put in CoD4 and have it feel like you were moving lightning fast?

Haven't played WaW but 4 is excellent.