Infinity Ward : "World at War ? This game does not exist !"

Pope_John_Paul_II - 37 days 20 hours ago

Tenzin

Agree(16) | Disagree(0) | Report

zeeshan - 37 days 20 hours ago

That's exactly what I have been saying. Modern Warfare 2 should have been called MW 1.5

Here come all the disagrees :)

Agree(53) | Disagree(4) | Report

MisterNiwa - 37 days 20 hours ago

World At War didnt exist!? But it came out last year! Im pretty sure of it!
What the hell is going on!?!?!

@Tenzim

Oh god.. dude, you made me spit my coke.

Agree(7) | Disagree(2) | Report

Rifle-Man - 37 days 20 hours ago

LOL! I just played that part this afternoon.

Agree(6) | Disagree(0) | Report

MicroSony4Life - 37 days 20 hours ago

on this one. Allot of people bought W@W because of Modern Warfare, don't blame them for trying to establish a name that every one will trust and not have people associate them with W@W.

Agree(5) | Disagree(13) | Report

Timesplitter14 - 37 days 19 hours ago

Infinity Ward are being disrespectful.

Conclusion : IW are trash and must burn in a fire.

I don't care what game they're making, or how good or bad WaW is. It doesn't matter.

It's called being a man and having principles.

Agree(20) | Disagree(2) | Report

-Seven- - 37 days 19 hours ago

One of the questions on the minds of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare owners when it comes to Call of Duty: World at War is whether or not its worth the money, especially for those who could care less about the new campaign and will spend most of their time in the multiplayer mode fighting alongside and going at it against their fellow peeps.

While there are many similarities between the two games, there are also some distinct differences. As far as the main story goes, they are both pretty even, each delivering a fantastic story with theater-like moments that really put you into the thick of the action. It's a definite tie on which delivers the better story -- both are fantastic -- and both are probably a little too short.
What World at War Has that Modern Warfare Doesn't

The first thing to look at is what is new about the game. While there are obvious differences between weapon selection, a few new perks, and dogs of war substituted for calling in a helicopter, there are two really big things new in Call of Duty: World at War.
World at War vs Modern Warfare - The co-op campaign missions in World at War set it apart.
One great thing about World at War is
playing through the campaign missions
with a buddy.

Vehicles and Vehicle Perks. This is one of the really big additions to some game types like death matches and headquarters matches. The ability to jump in a tank, drive it around and kill the enemy creates an entirely new dynamic. Unfortunately, it can sometimes be annoying. It'd be nice if there were some non-vehicle modes of certain matches like team deathmatch for those that find the idea of getting blown up by a tank more annoying than fun -- but when all is said and done, I do think they add a bit of strategy to some maps -- it really makes you want that sticky bomb over the frag grenade and the bazooka over the bouncing betty perk.

Co-Op Mission Mode. This is definitely the big bonus of World at War for those who like to go up against the AI with a couple of their buddies. In addition to running through missions with your friends, you can also unlock a Nazi zombie mode for a nice little distraction.
World at War vs Modern Warfare - A Comparison

Multiplayer Modes. Most of the same modes in Modern Warfare have found their way into World at War, but there are a few modes that have vanished. Mercenary Team Deathmatch, Old School FFA and Cage Match are all missing in action in World at War. While Cage Match being dropped is a little understandable -- though it is fun to go one vs one at times -- and mercenary team deathmatch just ends up splitting up the team deathmatch players into two groups -- I really think they should have re-produced the Old School FFA matches. They provided an interesting alternative to regular FFA.

Among those modes new World at War are a Bootcamp mode for newbies, a Veteran mode for those level 32 and above, a Capture the Flag mode, a War mode that is Capture the Flag with momentum, and a Tactical mdoe that is for smaller groups.

Winner: World at War. Even without the old school FFA, there's enough new in World at War to give it the slight edge.

Weapon Selection. The basic types of weapons available are actually pretty similar with the ability to choose a sniper rifle, regular rifle, sub-machine gun, machine gun or shotgun. The weapons also have similar attachments, though the machine guns have tripods rather than improved grip. But, overall, I think the rifles in Modern Warfare bridge the gap between automatic and bolt-action better than in World at War, and the Modern Warfare weapons can be given a different skin to alter their appearance.

Winner: Modern Warfare. It has a slightly better variety and a bit more of a cool factor to the weapons.

Maps. This one is a pretty tough one because both games have pretty decent maps with nice little nooks and crannies that can be put to good use once you really learn the map. Also, personal preference and taste will go a long ways here. Overall, I think Modern Warfare does the best job of having well balanced maps where you can employ a variety of weapons and tactics on just about all the maps, while World at War has more variety even if some maps tend to favor certain type so of weapons a bit more than is found in Modern Warfare. It also does a good job at having expanded maps for team modes.

Winner: Tie. I'd favor Modern Warfare for strictly FFA mode, but when you add in the different team modes and the new maps World at War has that are specifically designed for those modes, it becomes too close to call.
World at War vs Modern Warfare - The perks are virtually identical with the few new additions not used as much as the old standards.
You won't find too much difference in perks
from Modern Warfare to World at War.

Perks, Challenges and Kill Streaks. If you are hoping that World at War got rid of the Martyrdom perk, you are out of luck. Martyrdom remains in the game, and the perk system as a whole is very similar to Modern Warfare. There are a few new perks -- like the ability to put on some sunglasses to protect from signal flares -- but the ones most people are going to be using -- stopping power, juggernaut, double tap, overkill, deep impact, steady aim, second chance, dead silence, etc. -- they are all still there, and you'll end up using pretty much the same basic perks. The vehicle perks are new, of course, and you can now equip a flamethrower in your first perk slot, which can be fun but you won't get it until level 65.

The challenges in the game are pretty much the same, with most being used to unlock weapon attachments, and with very similar killer, humiliation and elite challenges to complete.

The biggest change is what you get for a 7 kill streak with dogs of war replacing the helicopter. (3 kills still gives you radar and 5 kills gives you an artillery strike similar to the airstrike.) The dogs of war are very cool -- when you set them off. Otherwise, they are mainly just annoying. Think about 10 times more annoying than the helicopter. Overall, they are bit overpowered compared to the helicopter. While you can at least kill them with your gun, you can't get away from them by simply ducking into a building. And the thrill you get from seeing all of those 5s fly across your screen might not make up for the annoyance of lining someone up in your sights only to have a dog bite you -- something that can happen quite frequently.

Winner: Modern Warfare, but only slightly.

Overall. Modern Warfare wins on 2 points compared to World at War wining just one point and both being tied for maps, but if we added Co-Opt as a point of contention, World at War would win it by default, so I am going to conclude by saying that they are both pretty evenly matched.

Modern Warfare still has an edge for those that like to go it alone. Not only are the Free for All maps in Modern Warfare pretty balanced and a lot of fun, but you can also choose between regular free for all and old school free for all. (World at War does allow hardcore free for all.) World at War gets the edge if you like playing alongside a team, with slightly more variety, maps designed for team warfare, and a co-opt mode.

Agree(4) | Disagree(27) | Report

Rofflecopter - 37 days 19 hours ago

It's true that many bought WaW because of CoD4. It's also true that IW made a great game that many still play. But It's also true that MW2 is the same thing that Cod 5 was. It's CoD 4, new maps, new skins, new locations. Sure they aren't ripping off another studio since they made the engine and the game, but they aren't really innovating or changing any major gameplay elements.

Customize killstreaks, new maps. What else is new?

Agree(6) | Disagree(0) | Report

HolyOrangeCows - 37 days 19 hours ago

Drake: What do you need that knife for??

Tenzin (Representing IW): ''(Speaks Tibetan) Call of Duty: World @ War's reputation''

Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report

themyk - 37 days 19 hours ago

come on man. nobody reads comments that big. all i do is take a bubble give a disagree and move on.

Agree(18) | Disagree(3) | Report

HDgamer - 37 days 19 hours ago

Treyarh may have copy and pasted but they did support their game more than IW.

Agree(13) | Disagree(0) | Report

BattleAxe - 37 days 19 hours ago

IW need to stop with this foolish arogance when it come to Treyarch and World at War. Treyarch did a great job and unlike IW, they managed to incorporate 4 player online campaign co-op and 4 player Nazi Zombies. And I guess according to IW, the 3 awesome map packs "don't exist " either LMAO.

Not to take anything away from CoD4, because it was a great game, but after all the trash talk about WaW, MW2 better be an epic game or IW is going to be the laughing stock of the industry.

Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report

Tony999Montana - 37 days 18 hours ago

You all make interesting points, but I'm going to have to agree with Tenzin on this one..

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Rifle-Man - 37 days 18 hours ago

Hey! Quit deleting Tenzin's comments, you racists!

Agree(7) | Disagree(0) | Report

Darkfocus - 37 days 18 hours ago

,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

Agree(9) | Disagree(0) | Report

Raoh - 37 days 18 hours ago

i completely forgot what this post was about after seeing your response

LOL

Bubbles

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Rifle-Man - 37 days 18 hours ago

T'was a valiant attempt to fix Picard's deformed head.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

badz149 - 37 days 13 hours ago

now IW just looks like a bunch of PRICKS! at least W@W had more supports than CoD4! I'm afraid they may have also just Turned 10!

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Sarcasm - 37 days 6 hours ago

"Here come all the disagrees :) "

Hilarious considering you got 45 agrees and 4 disagrees.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

mr mintleaf - 37 days 1 hour ago

Sounds like Kotick has his hand up this guys ass like a puppet.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

spacetattoo82 - 37 days 20 hours ago

I think we may have linked up, seems I got the same issue going on.
apparently some sort of telepathic game, involving a game that does not exist..

I've been drugged or I'm on the real next gen console, maybe you are behind everything, well either way, "GAME ON!"

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

RememberThe357 - 37 days 17 hours ago

It was definitely better the COD3, but it still is the second worst COD game.

I blame Activition and their greed. COD should be biyearly, and not the yearly watered down mess it is becoming.

Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report

tgh machines - 37 days 19 hours ago

First off, it was two years.

Second off, they used Infinity Ward's engine.

Third off, Treyarch did not make all of the games, Activision out sourced the DS and mobile version. http://www.n-space.com/n_Sp...

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Baka-akaB - 37 days 19 hours ago

It is more than fair to be harsh on them . They made the choice to be mules . any other equally average studio or a worse one would have happily signed on for the ride .

Dont dare tell me they wouldnt land other jobs on other ips or even possibly new ones .

Not only did they choose they easy way , but they can't even do a stellar job of it so far . WaW is by no mean awful , but definitely doesnt live up to cod4's standard .

Now on the other hand IW are greedy too , and jerks . they could have left if mad that someone used their beloved franchise or pur their foot down : "no more treyarch or no cod " , and actually done something else than copy themselves . We all know how its going so far .

My take is that both studios deserves slaps and backlash . Trey for the numerous reasons above .
But IW as well and even more . You're given extra time , and you hate seeing second fiddles messing with your work and copying it , and what do you do ? Your work 1.5 ? Go to hell already

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

kaveti6616 - 37 days 17 hours ago

Baka, the game is not out yet, and everyone is already passing judgment on MW2. Calling it MW1.5 without having played the game is pure FUD. Play the game, and then tell people what you THINK. Even then, your opinion will remain just that, not a fact.

WaW was not a bad game. It got very good reviews, actually. The only thing that I didn't like about it was that it was still a World War 2 game. I was hoping Treyarch would also be doing something unique like Infinity Ward. Infinity Ward probably doesn't deserve as much criticism as you guys are giving it. Activision calls the shots. Nobody understands what kinds of pressure the developers are in. During this economic climate, I wouldn't expect any developer to up and quit out of some misplaced sense of dignity. All I was saying was that for the time being Treyarch are being treated as blatant step sons.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

Head Shot King - 37 days 19 hours ago

Infinity Ward is not the only one talking smack, what do you say about this.

Eurogamer: Well, Hell's Highway is making it even more personal, the real one, and they(Gearbox Software)want to be emotional. What do you think of their perspective on the game?

Treyarch dev guy 1: We don't even think about them. Like... that's not the kind of game. They are not a game we even think about when we're playing. We think about the best shooters. We play [Call of Duty 4] Modern Warfare, we play the blocking of all the competitor's games. (laugh) We play Gears of War, we play Halo, Bioshock... That's the competition, because we want to look at the games that do great storytelling. We don't want to look at someone else making crappy wargame.

Dev 2: And frankly, it takes so much effort and concentration to make a great game that most of the time we think about games that we are working on.

Dev 1: I watched the trailer and that was like these guys are not even in the same league. (laugh)

Will that make you hate Treyarch?

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Timesplitter14 - 37 days 19 hours ago

yes

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

Head Shot King - 37 days 19 hours ago

The only two developers I have respect for is Bungie and Naughty Dog because they are very humble.

Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report

themyk - 37 days 19 hours ago

bungie naughty dog polifony digital sucker punch ea redwood.

all top notch dev's that don't have to talk sh1t to make good games.

Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report

Synex - 37 days 13 hours ago

Insomniac is humble as well.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

mr mintleaf - 37 days 1 hour ago

Another dev that commands respect, though they never ask/brag.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Timesplitter14 - 37 days 20 hours ago

R2D2, how did you get out of the attic?

I thought I locked you in there

Agree(7) | Disagree(1) | Report

Foxgod - 37 days 19 hours ago

I got two accounts.
And i only use the other one when this one is banned.

So the reason you probably lose a lot of bubbles, is because you type a lot of crap that is ungrounded and uncalled for.
Like you just did.....

Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report

kaveti6616 - 37 days 17 hours ago

If one guy makes a rude comment, how can you apply that to the whole studio?

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Saaking - 37 days 19 hours ago

I think WaW has brought more to COD (zombies and co-op) than MW2 will.

Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report

themyk - 37 days 19 hours ago

zombies were awesome but that was it.

Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report

MRMagoo123 - 37 days 13 hours ago

out of the 100 friends on my friends list 80 where playing WAW the first day it came out as was i i played it for a long time too not as long as cod4 but still long all the same.I think the only thing i didnt like really was the tanks and a couple of glitches ppl used thats about all i can think of really.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Mr Face Creamer - 37 days 6 hours ago

While IW may make a better game in everybody's opinion, Treyarch are one great developer company and they don't diss developers to gain sales... IW are trash to me now and so is Activison.

It's a shame because I was seriously looking forward to Guitar Hero 9 and DJ Hero 6 next year.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report