Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare vs. Call of Duty 5 World at WarJanuary 5th, 2009 by James | This article was viewed 18,354 times.
Call of Duty(COD), as we all know, is a first-person shooter game that had always topped the game benchmark with its 4 previous releases. The fifth release, called COD 5 World at War of course topped the benchmark again in 2008(that’s the reason I decided to play it). But if COD 5 were to compared to COD 4, from the mission game play point of view, 1 word could explain the comparison, annihilated.
Here’s a little bit of info of COD 4 & 5
Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare
Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare sets us to the present moment where we will be using all the modern guns like M16, M4 (damn good gun), .50 CAL sniper rifle and not to mention the AK47 used by the badass. The fictional story takes place mainly in Russia where an Ultranationalist Imran Zakhaev trying to use nuclear weapon and drawing attention away by setting up Khaled Al-Asad, a Middle East local rebel to organize a Coup d’état by killing the President.
Call of Duty 5 World at War
Unlike modern times, Call of Duty 5 World at War introduces us back to the late WWII times, using older guns which I can barely remember their names except for the Molotov Cocktail and Thompson machine gun which I barely use in the mission. The story sets us back to the final battles of WWII in the Pacific war (United States and the Japan Empire) and the Eastern Front (Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany).
Both COD 4 and COD 5 uses the same gaming engine developed for COD 4 where the team of developers was sent to a military training facility in the Californian desert to experience simulated real time combat. Highlighted gaming updates were Depth of Field, bullet damage reduction after wall penetration, the animated death scenes by attack dogs and etc. Since they use the same gaming engine, so this is the perfect comparison between COD 4 and 5.
Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare vs. Call of Duty 5 World at War
1. Intensity - In Call of Duty 4, the fictional missions were much intense. Good examples are the last part of the first mission where you have to escape the sinking boat, rescuing the injured helicopter pilot (but dies after that), camouflage under the grass during the sniping mission, sniping Imran Zakhaev and surviving the scourging attacks until the helicopter arrives at the last part of the sniping mission with Captain MacMillan.
However, in Call of Duty 5, there are much less intensity compared to COD 4. The only part was the sniping mission, where you’ll have to kill the other 2 snipers from the building opposite, the rescuing US armies from the sea and the famous and very common one, “BANZAI” in almost every Japanese combats.
2. Difficulty Level - I’ve only played both these releases in hardened (not veteran) and honestly Call of Duty 4 was much challenging, you die much faster and hardened actually means hardened. Unlike Call of Duty 5 where hardened looks much more like … easy?
3. Newbie Friendly Level - No doubt about this, Call of Duty 4 is much n00b friendlier. Your mission in COD4 starts in a training facility to enable you to get used to combat tactics. In COD 5, your first mission started with you nearly got killed by the Japanese army.
4. Captain Instructions - I’ve got to say the Captains from COD 4 are slightly clearer when giving instructions. But to be honest, both COD 4 and 5 sucked at giving instructions. Because most of the time when given instructions, I’d be busy shooting down incoming attacks.
5. Mini Map (Compass) - COD 5 wins this part hands down. From the graphics of the small compass at the bottom left hand corner (COD 5) and at the bottom (COD 4), you can see a huge difference already. Moving around the map was much easier with COD 5’s compass.
6. Gaming Variety – Let’s see. In COD4, they offered the most common first person shooter, gunship backup, attack from helicopters, sniper camouflage, ambush enemies, sniping from thousands of yards away, rescue crashed pilots, helping injured soldiers (Captain MacMillan), “inperson” view of the death of Sergeant Paul Jackson(you), escape breaking/sinking ship, escape chasing Russian troops and helicopters.
Likewise in COD 5 , the first person shooter but they had gunning Zero fighters (that was fun), rescue army from the water, sniping Nazi snipers, death of Sergeant Sullivan(not you), tank mission, escape from burning flamethrowers and not to forget the everlasting “Banzai” fear you get in every mission that involves Japanese troops(except for the rescue mission).
Well, judge for yourself, it’s quite obvious to me which has the upper hand here.
Please tell me if I left anything out.
In a Nutshell
Both releases are good, both introduces player to a new gaming environment, both can be finished within 10 hours and both have their own catchy storyline. But if Call of Duty 4, Modern Warfare would be rated 10/10, Call of Duty 5, World at War should be rated only at 8/10. Why?
A game released a year later and from the same developer. I wouldn’t expect it to suck in so many areas compared to its previous versions like Call of Duty 5, World at War did.
The experience you get from COD 5 is, “I’ve got to finish this mission to see what interesting stuff I will get the next mission, this mission is just too easy/boring”. It’s like everything is anticipated already, all you do is rush and kill without thinking.
In COD 4, this is what run through your mind while playing “How the hell do I kill this many people? How the hell do I run faster? How did they kill me in just 2 seconds? LOL this is fun (especially the sniper mission with MacMillan)”. Basically if you lose your focus in COD 4, you will lose the game.
That is all for this review for Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare vs. Call of Duty 5 World at War.
11 Responses to “Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare vs. Call of Duty 5 World at War”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.