I know this the cod4 thread,and i apologise in advance for the change in topic,but i find some of the guns in COD 5 'more' effective then in cod4. The sniper rifles are usually 1 shot,1 kill where in cod 4 iv'e been known to hit someone a couple of times(in the torso) for them to run away.
Both Games have pros and cons and i think the pair complement each other nicely. I like Cod5 for the dogs and for the large maps and some of the later weapons are awesome(the last sniper in particular) and i like cod4 for the faster paced maps and for the more even weapon choice
But both game have flaws aswell, Cod4 has too many low end weapons that are too good (mp5,ak47,m16) and cod5 has it's bouncing bettys,that are more effective than claymores that are in use some 50 years later and are sometime undectable to the naked eye.
I'm a little unsure about some of the stick that cod5 is getting in reviews. Gamespot gave it a lower score than cod4 and the reasons? Too familiar,too much like cod4 etc
so what if world of war came first? Does that mean cod4 would be the lesser game? My personal opinion is that both games should have had equal scores. Treyarch were damned before they even released there game,they could have either tried something completly different and be slammed for 'not being as good' as COD4 or gone with a winning formula and be slammed for being too much like cod4. All in All,world of war is the best game that treyarch have ever released,and i recomend everyone that owns and likes cod4 should add this game to thier collection
Both games are now on my HD