What are some reasons for COD4 being better than MW2?
- Thread starter Jacco
- Start date
I really liked the single player campaign and Cpt. MacMillan. I probably spelt his name incorrectly.
Well personally I never thought MW2's multiplayer was as unbalanced as many people say. The kill streaks and people running around with dual shotguns and what not do annoy me from time to time but overall I'm fine with the balancing. Now one thing that did make COD4 more enjoyable for me was the multiplayer maps, which were superior to MW2's maps by far.
Also on a related note, did it seem to anyone that it takes less hits to bring someone down in MW2 compared to COD4 (whether it be less health or the weapons being more powerful in general)? I got the impression when I played MW2 for the first time.
Also on a related note, did it seem to anyone that it takes less hits to bring someone down in MW2 compared to COD4 (whether it be less health or the weapons being more powerful in general)? I got the impression when I played MW2 for the first time.
the pacing of call of duty 4 is some of the best pacing ever seen in a shooter, and because of this the crazy moments felt crazier. in mw2, the exciting moments come to quickly and often and they lose all significance
One Man Army
Commando
Death Streaks
Too much focus on Killstreaks
That's it. Just a bunch of BS perks and such that were terrible ideas. Otherwise it's a great game.
Everything else that's a problem in MW2 (such as Last Stand), was also a problem in COD4. Except COD4 had Martyrdom, no host migration, and severely overpowered grenades.
Don't really care about the campaign. COD4's was better, but overall they're both fairly standard FPS campaigns. I'm in it for the multiplayer.
Also, both games are better than Black Ops.
Hopefully MW3 will finally get it right. Looks very promising so far.
Commando
Death Streaks
Too much focus on Killstreaks
That's it. Just a bunch of BS perks and such that were terrible ideas. Otherwise it's a great game.
Everything else that's a problem in MW2 (such as Last Stand), was also a problem in COD4. Except COD4 had Martyrdom, no host migration, and severely overpowered grenades.
Don't really care about the campaign. COD4's was better, but overall they're both fairly standard FPS campaigns. I'm in it for the multiplayer.
Also, both games are better than Black Ops.
Hopefully MW3 will finally get it right. Looks very promising so far.
Everyone is complaining about balancing, but MW2 was perfectly balanced. There wasn't any leaning at all.
Speaking only for the single player I have 2 words for you, pacing, and characters. In COD4 since you weren't constantly being bombarded by loud noises and scripted player deaths for the entire bloody thing the more intense moments actually felt intense. I mean here's a simple question, which was more shocking, getting nuked out of nowhere and seeing a man's last moments as he slowly died cold and alone in the shadow of the mushroom cloud, or having your character unavoidably die for the 5th time in the last hour?
Also since they weren't dropping like goddamn flies, you actually got a little bit of characterization from your squad in CoD4, sure not as much as you would in most other games, but enough that when you and all your friends got gunned down on that bridge it was actually slightly affecting.
Also since they weren't dropping like goddamn flies, you actually got a little bit of characterization from your squad in CoD4, sure not as much as you would in most other games, but enough that when you and all your friends got gunned down on that bridge it was actually slightly affecting.
Well, CoD4 is the only CoD so far who's multiplayer I have stuck with even to this day. I don't consider myself overly skilled, and I haven't even made it to rank 55 the first time yet. I think the reason I like CoD4 better is that the multiplayer is a bit slower paced, every weapon has a purpose (as opposed to having six or seven assault rifles that all shoot the same round for the sake of having as many guns as possible) and fills a niche, and the killstreaks all fill a role. UAV is a minor but very useful award not only for you, but for your team. Airstrike let's you precisely strike an area of the map that you know has a high concentration of enemies or that where you know a particularly annoying threat is lurking, and the helicopter gunship is quite simply your terrifying award for being a decent player skill-wise. UAV can be countered with perks and attachments, airstrikes can sometimes be avoided by running away or taking shelter, and the chopper can be shot down. Each has a purpose and a disadvantage, and each feels like an appropriate award for your performance.
Other than that, I really can't place why I liked the multiplayer on 4 better, I just did.
As for the single player, CoD4 strikes the perfect balance between set-piece, action/war movie moments and semi-realistic/authentic infantry and special ops combat. There were in-your-face intense fights and escapes, with stealth missions and lulls in between. These lulls make those moments of intensity that much better when they do occur. Plus, tell me your heart wasn't racing at several points throughout the Chernobyl flashback? Speaking of that, those two levels are two of my favorite levels in the history of FPS gaming (and I play me A LOT of FPS's).
So, to conclude, CoD4, IMO, was a more balanced, better quality and more well-thought-out game, both in SP and MP.
Other than that, I really can't place why I liked the multiplayer on 4 better, I just did.
As for the single player, CoD4 strikes the perfect balance between set-piece, action/war movie moments and semi-realistic/authentic infantry and special ops combat. There were in-your-face intense fights and escapes, with stealth missions and lulls in between. These lulls make those moments of intensity that much better when they do occur. Plus, tell me your heart wasn't racing at several points throughout the Chernobyl flashback? Speaking of that, those two levels are two of my favorite levels in the history of FPS gaming (and I play me A LOT of FPS's).
So, to conclude, CoD4, IMO, was a more balanced, better quality and more well-thought-out game, both in SP and MP.
my friends and I had this very argument the other day and it's actually a very sticky situation. For me, I played the shit out of COD4 and MW2 and just from hands on experience COD4 is leagues better. Why?
Alot of my argument is based off of first hand experience so you may have to just trust me on this one.
-more balanced weapons: in COD4 I could use any of the guns in any game type and finished the game with decent stats/victory. With MW2 basically the only weapons I feel that I worked well with were the assault rifles. Also, in MW2 the secondary shotguns were a bust.
-perks: simply put I feel like the perks were better in COD4. They were in no way, shape, or form perfect(3 frag, juggernaut, stopping power). MW2 had perks like marathon, lightweight, commando which were not practical at all, they just infuriated me to no end.
-THE MAPS!!!!: I cannot stress this enough. COD4 had hands down some of the best maps in any online multiplayer game ever. I enjoyed almost every single map with a few exceptions like Pipeline, and well that's really it. What I liked most about COD4 maps was the fact that I could actually snipe on most of them and they balanced well with every gun class. Each map had its close quarters and long range sectors. MW2 on the otherhand had a few "sniper maps" and I didn't really enjoy them quite as much. There seemed to be more spawn kills/sporadic spawning and they just weren't that balanced or good.
-plausible killstreaks: COD4 had killstreaks which rewarded the player and his/her team with a slight tactical advantage without completely crippling the other team. MW2's killstreaks were shotguns to the knee caps...fun as hell and an absolute blast! but very unbalanced and it hurt the pacing of a match.
-xbox live party chat/chat in general: this one is more of a personal one for me. When I played COD4 I loved having a majority of the players with their mics in talking smack and being silly. There weren't nearly as many "twelve year olds" and I take the smack talk with a grain of salt and don't let it bug me. I met alot of decent people online. MW2 came out when xbox live had already previously introduced the party chat system and less and less people would seem to use in-game chat. Once again, this isn't a major point in why COD4 is better, but more of a personal issue I have.
-Popularity: MW2 is the victim of COD4's success. It had to live up to and supercede the hype left in the wake of the juggernaut that is COD4. Infinity Ward probably felt like it had to make some drastic changes to live up to the hype, hence the massive explosion of points gained and the all-out hell of air support. And also, I blame this for so many of the annoying "twelve year old" gamers. MW2 was all over the place and call of duty became a household name. Everyone wanted COD and that's what they got. Not entirely sure if this is the reason for the spike in annoying kids, but it makes sense in my mind.
-Campaign: who cares? Sorry...didn't play enough of the campaigns to make a sound argument. Although I like COD4's better
personal preference though, no fact to back it up.
Long story short: COD4 is just better. This is not to say that MW2 is not fun or a bad game. I enjoyed it and played it alot, but I simply found the COD4 multiplayer to be far more balanced and well paced than MW2.
My arguments may be a little hard to digest, but please take it from someone with experience and just trust me on this one: COD4 is superior. I sure would like to see some arguments as for why MW2 is better because I am sure I have left some points out or could explain some of my points better.
Lasting message: there will never be an online shooter as good as COD4 was. I honestly never got bored of that game, but this is merely my opinion and for some people Halo 2 or fuck...some other game is the best ever. But for me, and probably many others, COD4 will always be up towards the top of best multiplayer experiences ever.
Alot of my argument is based off of first hand experience so you may have to just trust me on this one.
-more balanced weapons: in COD4 I could use any of the guns in any game type and finished the game with decent stats/victory. With MW2 basically the only weapons I feel that I worked well with were the assault rifles. Also, in MW2 the secondary shotguns were a bust.
-perks: simply put I feel like the perks were better in COD4. They were in no way, shape, or form perfect(3 frag, juggernaut, stopping power). MW2 had perks like marathon, lightweight, commando which were not practical at all, they just infuriated me to no end.
-THE MAPS!!!!: I cannot stress this enough. COD4 had hands down some of the best maps in any online multiplayer game ever. I enjoyed almost every single map with a few exceptions like Pipeline, and well that's really it. What I liked most about COD4 maps was the fact that I could actually snipe on most of them and they balanced well with every gun class. Each map had its close quarters and long range sectors. MW2 on the otherhand had a few "sniper maps" and I didn't really enjoy them quite as much. There seemed to be more spawn kills/sporadic spawning and they just weren't that balanced or good.
-plausible killstreaks: COD4 had killstreaks which rewarded the player and his/her team with a slight tactical advantage without completely crippling the other team. MW2's killstreaks were shotguns to the knee caps...fun as hell and an absolute blast! but very unbalanced and it hurt the pacing of a match.
-xbox live party chat/chat in general: this one is more of a personal one for me. When I played COD4 I loved having a majority of the players with their mics in talking smack and being silly. There weren't nearly as many "twelve year olds" and I take the smack talk with a grain of salt and don't let it bug me. I met alot of decent people online. MW2 came out when xbox live had already previously introduced the party chat system and less and less people would seem to use in-game chat. Once again, this isn't a major point in why COD4 is better, but more of a personal issue I have.
-Popularity: MW2 is the victim of COD4's success. It had to live up to and supercede the hype left in the wake of the juggernaut that is COD4. Infinity Ward probably felt like it had to make some drastic changes to live up to the hype, hence the massive explosion of points gained and the all-out hell of air support. And also, I blame this for so many of the annoying "twelve year old" gamers. MW2 was all over the place and call of duty became a household name. Everyone wanted COD and that's what they got. Not entirely sure if this is the reason for the spike in annoying kids, but it makes sense in my mind.
-Campaign: who cares? Sorry...didn't play enough of the campaigns to make a sound argument. Although I like COD4's better
personal preference though, no fact to back it up.Long story short: COD4 is just better. This is not to say that MW2 is not fun or a bad game. I enjoyed it and played it alot, but I simply found the COD4 multiplayer to be far more balanced and well paced than MW2.
My arguments may be a little hard to digest, but please take it from someone with experience and just trust me on this one: COD4 is superior. I sure would like to see some arguments as for why MW2 is better because I am sure I have left some points out or could explain some of my points better.
Lasting message: there will never be an online shooter as good as COD4 was. I honestly never got bored of that game, but this is merely my opinion and for some people Halo 2 or fuck...some other game is the best ever. But for me, and probably many others, COD4 will always be up towards the top of best multiplayer experiences ever.
every CoD game, imo, has its faults. some have less than others, and Cod4 has the least. i have at least like 15 days on cod4 and the only thing that ever really pissed me off was the m16. yea, theres always last stand and 3x frag, but those 3 are nowhere near the faults of mw2. in mw2 the balancing is absolute shit, too easy to hack, and there were waaaay too many glitches.
you want balancing issues? here:
all lmgs are completely useless
assault rifles have super high damage and either have no recoil whatsoever or too much to hit an enemy 10 feet away
ump=2 hit kill, almost no recoil
marathon, lightweight, commando
oma, danger close grenade launchers
stacking killstreaks (7 kill nuke anyone?)
handguns useless
striker is useless
only defense against danger close (blast shield) is useless because it slows your movements and blocks your mini-map
in blops theres the almighty host pro
in waw there was the almighty mp40 drum mag juggernaut combo
cod4? m16, maybe mp5 and maybe 3x frag
cod 4 wins. every time.
you want balancing issues? here:
all lmgs are completely useless
assault rifles have super high damage and either have no recoil whatsoever or too much to hit an enemy 10 feet away
ump=2 hit kill, almost no recoil
marathon, lightweight, commando
oma, danger close grenade launchers
stacking killstreaks (7 kill nuke anyone?)
handguns useless
striker is useless
only defense against danger close (blast shield) is useless because it slows your movements and blocks your mini-map
in blops theres the almighty host pro
in waw there was the almighty mp40 drum mag juggernaut combo
cod4? m16, maybe mp5 and maybe 3x frag
cod 4 wins. every time.
-For a bunch of people it was their first experience with Call of Duty, so it was fresh.
-Four had a story which was easier to follow. Both had okay stories, but MW2 catches a lot of flak for being hard to follow. You have to think a little to understand it. Otherwise the story makes no sense and you get, "lol, Russians are attacking." Four was also much better paced. Much, much better paced.
-The maps in MW2's multiplayer weren't as strong on average. There were a few which lived up to its predecessors, but not enough. Lots of maps were iffy.
-The balance in 4 was bad, but not MW2 bad. None approach Black Ops bad though. The big troubles for 4 were the M16 and triple grenades. Thankfully for four, however, everyone was too busy using the .50 cal, ak47, or P-90 to see the imbalanced weapons. All the best guns were unlocked right from the start, so people convinced themselves they were trash cannons.
-Four was still a part of the Call of Duty line-up. It was a spin-off, but it still respected what made Call of Duty good. MW2 was a complete departure from the series and really shouldn't even be called a Call of Duty game. It was Infinity Ward trying to turn everything in four up to 11. More killstreaks, more guns, more stat tracking. It only kept the name because of brand recognition.
MW2 could have been a solid addition, but it's execution was poor. Stuff like customizable classes in offline multiplayer and spec ops were all good. These things were brought down by the rest of the game, however.
-Four had a story which was easier to follow. Both had okay stories, but MW2 catches a lot of flak for being hard to follow. You have to think a little to understand it. Otherwise the story makes no sense and you get, "lol, Russians are attacking." Four was also much better paced. Much, much better paced.
-The maps in MW2's multiplayer weren't as strong on average. There were a few which lived up to its predecessors, but not enough. Lots of maps were iffy.
-The balance in 4 was bad, but not MW2 bad. None approach Black Ops bad though. The big troubles for 4 were the M16 and triple grenades. Thankfully for four, however, everyone was too busy using the .50 cal, ak47, or P-90 to see the imbalanced weapons. All the best guns were unlocked right from the start, so people convinced themselves they were trash cannons.
-Four was still a part of the Call of Duty line-up. It was a spin-off, but it still respected what made Call of Duty good. MW2 was a complete departure from the series and really shouldn't even be called a Call of Duty game. It was Infinity Ward trying to turn everything in four up to 11. More killstreaks, more guns, more stat tracking. It only kept the name because of brand recognition.
MW2 could have been a solid addition, but it's execution was poor. Stuff like customizable classes in offline multiplayer and spec ops were all good. These things were brought down by the rest of the game, however.
If you played hardcore, cod4's nades ruined games. However, in normal mode they weren't a problem. Martyrdom is a problem in cod4 not because its a perk but because of the short fuse on the nade.
Akimbo shotguns is all anyone needs to say about mw2's balancing. However, I only saw one other person mention the spawning system between the two and in my mind that's the real thing that breaks mw2's multiplayer. In cod4 spawning is kept on different ends of the map and where the majority of friendlies are, creating a area that you knew was mostly safe. This would change once either a timer ran down or one team pushed and then you'd spawn at the other end of the map. In mw2 you could spawn just about everywhere eliminating any sort of safe area meaning that when you pushed into enemy lines you could die easily from a guy spawning in an area you just cleared.
But mw2 did have the riot shield which was a blast to play with using smoke nades. Pity the lag made it hard to use.
Akimbo shotguns is all anyone needs to say about mw2's balancing. However, I only saw one other person mention the spawning system between the two and in my mind that's the real thing that breaks mw2's multiplayer. In cod4 spawning is kept on different ends of the map and where the majority of friendlies are, creating a area that you knew was mostly safe. This would change once either a timer ran down or one team pushed and then you'd spawn at the other end of the map. In mw2 you could spawn just about everywhere eliminating any sort of safe area meaning that when you pushed into enemy lines you could die easily from a guy spawning in an area you just cleared.
But mw2 did have the riot shield which was a blast to play with using smoke nades. Pity the lag made it hard to use.
For single player it's easy, MW1 rocked. Most seem to remember it for the nuke death. In my opinion the end of Fallout 3 (the good one) was more heartbreaking. But MW1 was packed with superb levels (Prypiat comes to mind) that made it so enjoyable. The story too was just awesome, recreating the intense feel and urgency of the best WW2 Call of Duty moments, which, let's face it, doesn't actually exist in the Global War on Terror. MW2's single player campaign lacked the all-out war feel and the story was meh... but the levels were great, especially "No Russian" which clearly deserves an award for most morally ambiguous moment in gaming history. To say that I LOVED that level might raise some CIA eyebrows reading this right now, especially after the Oslo events, but let's face it, that entire level was pure art.
I don't much care for CoD multiplayer, I'm more of a Team Fortress 2 fan. But I did play both MW1 and MW2 in multiplayer and I enjoyed the first one more. Bigger levels, more people, more fun. MW2 was just too much like Counterstrike. Overall I'll continue to play CoD games no matter how bad they get, I will always feel like owing something to the franchise, after the Stalingrad levels in CoD 1 (on highest difficulty, of course), the best moments in any FPS ever. Memorieeees....
I don't much care for CoD multiplayer, I'm more of a Team Fortress 2 fan. But I did play both MW1 and MW2 in multiplayer and I enjoyed the first one more. Bigger levels, more people, more fun. MW2 was just too much like Counterstrike. Overall I'll continue to play CoD games no matter how bad they get, I will always feel like owing something to the franchise, after the Stalingrad levels in CoD 1 (on highest difficulty, of course), the best moments in any FPS ever. Memorieeees....
G36, G3, M14, M1911, R700 and Ak74u, miss those guns so much... and the fact the only reason I get killed is because people actually play good instead of all the other bullshit perks and weapons that turn everybody into camping gods
Well, I never really played multiplayer, but the single player campaign was both more believable, and more varied than MW2.
What little stealth sections that were in MW2 were pathetic, and there wasn't nearly enough chance to be anything but a soldier either on the ground or manning a turret of some description.
And the story! COD4 felt like a fairly decent Black Hawk Down-style semi-realistic war scenario (the nuking of a City notwithstanding). While MW2 felt like the over-the-top fanfiction of either a cold-war fetishist or 13 year old wannabe gun nut.
Put it this way; There's a reason that COD4 mostly involved the SAS, while MW2 mostly involved a made-up superteam of all creeds and nations.
What little stealth sections that were in MW2 were pathetic, and there wasn't nearly enough chance to be anything but a soldier either on the ground or manning a turret of some description.
And the story! COD4 felt like a fairly decent Black Hawk Down-style semi-realistic war scenario (the nuking of a City notwithstanding). While MW2 felt like the over-the-top fanfiction of either a cold-war fetishist or 13 year old wannabe gun nut.
Put it this way; There's a reason that COD4 mostly involved the SAS, while MW2 mostly involved a made-up superteam of all creeds and nations.
I'm very happy to say that I don't know a darned thing about MW2, and I got CoD4 for free through Steam (somehow).
And yes, CoD4 multiplayer was very cool. It strongly reminded me of the better multiplayer games which were originally mods of Half-Life/Counter-Strike.
... that was it. It reminded me of the game 'Firearms'.
And yes, CoD4 multiplayer was very cool. It strongly reminded me of the better multiplayer games which were originally mods of Half-Life/Counter-Strike.
... that was it. It reminded me of the game 'Firearms'.
Well, what had more feeling, the shock of having one nuke making you slowly die, or being killed in cutscene THREE times?Jacco said:
What was more balanced, the M16 with Nube Toob, or ACR with one man army pro, demotion, and noobtoob?
Which is the clearer story, the one were your enemy is a Russian that is paying terrorists, or the one that had a Russian who was trying to get his nation to go to war with the US by framing a CIA agent for a airport massacre?
That is most likely why.
