monkeyboo2 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 MW more realistic? Its in the future. WTF IS REALISTIC THERE? :P Lol i don't think you've done your homework. MW is in Modern Day (the present) not the future which means that Activision talked to actual soldiers and had access to real working copies of all the equipment used (for modelling and gameplay accuracy purposes). Activision also looked at US Marine and SAS training videos and video footage of previous raids/battles. WaW cannot talk to any soldiers who currently use the WW2 Equipment so less is known about it, more assumptions are made etc. Also Treyarch used afew ancients pieces of WW2 equipment but almost none of it worked so they had to guess how it would fire and be used in combat... and of course no videos of combat. Besides I was actually avoiding that argument in my original point. I was talking about realism of graphics, but since you brought up Realism as a whole I just thought i'd pop buy and skin you on it. Yeah...Some people just go out of their way to ruin other peoples fun.Sounds like Jagex to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 MW more realistic? Its in the future. WTF IS REALISTIC THERE? :P Lol i don't think you've done your homework. MW is in Modern Day (the present) not the future which means that Activision talked to actual soldiers and had access to real working copies of all the equipment used (for modelling and gameplay accuracy purposes). Activision also looked at US Marine and SAS training videos and video footage of previous raids/battles. WaW cannot talk to any soldiers who currently use the WW2 Equipment so less is known about it, more assumptions are made etc. Also Treyarch used afew ancients pieces of WW2 equipment but almost none of it worked so they had to guess how it would fire and be used in combat... and of course no videos of combat. Besides I was actually avoiding that argument in my original point. I was talking about realism of graphics, but since you brought up Realism as a whole I just thought i'd pop buy and skin you on it. A game set in the past is so much more realistic than one in the present day, obviously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Lol i don't think you've done your homework. MW is in Modern Day (the present) not the future which means that Activision talked to actual soldiers and had access to real working copies of all the equipment used (for modelling and gameplay accuracy purposes). Activision also looked at US Marine and SAS training videos and video footage of previous raids/battles. WaW cannot talk to any soldiers who currently use the WW2 Equipment so less is known about it, more assumptions are made etc. Also Treyarch used afew ancients pieces of WW2 equipment but almost none of it worked so they had to guess how it would fire and be used in combat... and of course no videos of combat. Besides I was actually avoiding that argument in my original point. I was talking about realism of graphics, but since you brought up Realism as a whole I just thought i'd pop buy and skin you on it. Are you serious? There are hundreds of thousands of people who are still alive from world war two. And I'd hardly call guns that are still used in modern hunting, collecting, and target shooting ancient. Your whole post reeks of ridiculous fanisms. Not to mention that if Activision was really trying to mimic modern tactics, they did a terrible job. Next to nothing in Modern Warfare would occur (tactic-wise) in the real world. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BonScott Posted March 1, 2009 Author Share Posted March 1, 2009 MW more realistic? Its in the future. WTF IS REALISTIC THERE? :P Lol anyway, WaW came out on the wii. Wii version of WaW is much better - and harder. You cant jump and shoot someone. Its really hard since your hand controls it. .... Modern = todays times...... #-o "You laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you are all the same." - Jonathan Davis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayOxide Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Jesus people dont understand what the :P smiley means. GODDDD I dont need a siggy no moar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoorLepRecon Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Jesus people dont understand what the :P smiley means. GODDDD #-o I would suggest not exagerrating or making fun of the games while in this thread. People will take you as serious, as they should. Your just causing more trouble than it's worth. Forum Updates & Suggestions <------ Let your voice be heard!Forum Games <------- Coolest place on Tip.ItTip.It Forum Rules <------- Read them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayOxide Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 :wall: Internet aint only for business yo. And for all the cod5 sucks cod4 is better fanboys thinking im sticking up for cod5, i do deny its not as good as cod4. But they're both FPS'. Not very many FPS' are different. Halo is much different though. I dont need a siggy no moar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirHartlar Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 I thought WaW was a nice change of pace, but tanks kinda ruined the multiplayer. WaW is nice for casual games on the more fun game modes like Ground War, but overall MW provides a more solid online experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbellz Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Call of Duty 4 is much more superior in every aspect. Basically why I like it better: - Better weapon selection - Better map selection - Storyline wasn't known, so that made it a little mas interesante. - There WASN'T SO MUCH [cabbage] ON THE GROUND. I CAN ACTUALLY MOVE WITHOUT LOOKING DOWN EVERY 14 SECONDS BECAUSE RUBBLE IS EVERYWHERE. - No glitches like that of CoD: WaW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushrock Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 About the glitches: I really get the feeling that Treyarch are trying to fix them. They've fixed the elevator glitch and I think a few others, and they seem invested to try and fix what's currently wrong with it. I remember watching a video of Treyarch testing a lot of WWII guns, and they got a lot in there. There might've been more for all I know. And I think the audio in the game is improved from COD4. I think COD5 was a nice effort, and it's a good casual game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faux Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Definitely COD:4. They got too lazy with COD:5 :: Guess the Movie Contest Champion: pfilc23 :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 CoD4 all the way, real maps, guns, and NO TANKS. CoD5 is so dull and just isn't as fun as CoD4. lol@ any poor Wii fanboys saying their even worse watered-down version of CoD5 is better because they don't actually know a damn thing about CoD4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BonScott Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 CoD4 all the way, real maps, guns, and NO TANKS. CoD5 is so dull and just isn't as fun as CoD4. lol@ any poor Wii fanboys saying their even worse watered-down version of CoD5 is better because they don't actually know a damn thing about CoD4. I agree with you about the Wii fanboys lmao.....and the no tanks thing.....god i hate tanks -.- "You laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you are all the same." - Jonathan Davis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BonScott Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 I play Call of Duty 4. I just dont like playing games back in the WWII era. I dont know why, they just dont catch me. Me and some friends call WaW "What a Waste" Lol that is a great thing to call it. "What a Waste"......such bad game compared to modern warfare "You laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you are all the same." - Jonathan Davis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wild_goat_14 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 CoD4 all the way, real maps, guns, and NO TANKS. CoD5 is so dull and just isn't as fun as CoD4. lol@ any poor Wii fanboys saying their even worse watered-down version of CoD5 is better because they don't actually know a damn thing about CoD4. I agree with you about the Wii fanboys lmao.....and the no tanks thing.....god i hate tanks -.- Wii has no tanks. And it still is a very good game for the Wii. I shall take my flock underneath my own wing, and kick them right the [bleep] out of the tree. If they were meant to fly, they won't break their necks on the concrete.So, what is 1.111... equal to?10/9. Please don't continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db300 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 CoD4 all the way, real maps, guns, and NO TANKS. CoD5 is so dull and just isn't as fun as CoD4. lol@ any poor Wii fanboys saying their even worse watered-down version of CoD5 is better because they don't actually know a damn thing about CoD4. I don't know a thing about COD4? I used to play it a lot at my friends house before I bought a Wii and got WAW, and I honestly like WAW better. Please stop making false generalizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheValeyard Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 CoD4 all the way, real maps, guns, and NO TANKS. CoD5 is so dull and just isn't as fun as CoD4. lol@ any poor Wii fanboys saying their even worse watered-down version of CoD5 is better because they don't actually know a damn thing about CoD4. I don't know a thing about COD4? I used to play it a lot at my friends house before I bought a Wii and got WAW, and I honestly like WAW better. Please stop making false generalizations. Generalizations that are in fact true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayOxide Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Not all games appeal to everyone so stfu before you bag a game. I dont need a siggy no moar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db300 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 CoD4 all the way, real maps, guns, and NO TANKS. CoD5 is so dull and just isn't as fun as CoD4. lol@ any poor Wii fanboys saying their even worse watered-down version of CoD5 is better because they don't actually know a damn thing about CoD4. I don't know a thing about COD4? I used to play it a lot at my friends house before I bought a Wii and got WAW, and I honestly like WAW better. Please stop making false generalizations. Generalizations that are in fact true. I don't see how it's true that most Wii players don't know anything about COD4. Everyone I know IRL who plays it on a Wii has also played past COD games, including #4. :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad25891 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Also, I'd just like to point out, Cod4 is purely fiction, AKA NOT REAL. Cod:WAW on the other hand is based on true events, so the maps are probably more real than Cod4 =D> Deviant Art Account2 Signatures | 6 Photographs | 1 Other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Also, I'd just like to point out, Cod4 is purely fiction, AKA NOT REAL. Cod:WAW on the other hand is based on true events, so the maps are probably more real than Cod4 =D> So I suppose Chernobyl and Pripyat don't exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad25891 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I realised that after i made my post, I made an [wagon] of myself didn't I? :( And I meant story-wise too. Deviant Art Account2 Signatures | 6 Photographs | 1 Other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I realised that after i made my post, I made an [wagon] of myself didn't I? :( And I meant story-wise too. IW went as far as they could with the story, without actually naming what middle eastern country there were in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Apparently it was a conglomerate of all the Middle East. Did you notice that the Middle Eastern map flipped around every battle? It was in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and back in Iran after the BOOM. MADE ME THIS ANGRY. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Apparently it was a conglomerate of all the Middle East. Did you notice that the Middle Eastern map flipped around every battle? It was in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and back in Iran after the BOOM. MADE ME THIS ANGRY. I suppose so, but still no country names were said during the middle eastern area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now