CO5 is a major disappointment compared to CO4. GW2 is totally amazing but I'm a huge CO4 fan. I'd have to go with a tie, but would choose CO4 > GW2
Gears, comfortably. World at War was relatively, terrible compared to CoD4 while GoW2 is an epic, great game with far better multiplayer. Heck, I'd rate Gears over CoD4 but, definetely over CoD5.
1) These cannot be comparable. They are 2 completely different classed shooters. 2) CoD5 was an absolute bust. Crap game. If it were good then Treyarch would be continuing on with it but instead they made a completely unoriginal war game. I mean if it was so good then why did they drop Treyarch for Infinity Ward for CoD6? Hmmmmm..... Anyways if you must, GoW2 beats it in every category.
Never played COD4 [aka Generic WW2 Shooter #48725], but I know it beats Gears 2. Because Gears has -a multitude of game-breaking glitches [Shield Glitch, Invisibility, Crab Walk, infinite Lancer ammo, Smoke grenade knocking around Skorge/Kantus skins, general inconsistency with most guns] -horrible matchmaking, and the Party system has ruined solo people trying to rank up since no1 talks in-game anymore -confusing rank system [I have seen friends rank up after losing, and rank down after winning] -no attempt at a story -lag crippling the game [lag switch most notably] So yea..
1 - CoD4 isn't a WW2 Shooter. 2 - You're VASTLY over-exaggerating the number of glitches GoW has, and CoD5 has it's share too. 3 - Matchmaking works fine for me at least, and everyone I play with. 4 - It's a simply ranking system, based on how well you play not necessarily wins/losses. If you are by far the best person in a losing team then you deserve points. 5 - What? The story in GoW2 was great, better then the first, gripping and kept you interesting. 6 - Lag exists purely if you have crap internet speed. You've not really played either game have ya?
1) soz thought it was cod5 instead of 4 2) I am not over exaggerating on any of those glitches lol, I have been a victim of all of those online 3) Matchmaking can take long if you don't have many friends online [like me] 4) It's a point-based rank system, and gaining points should lose rank..? 5) I thought it could be better at parts. The final boss was basically the Brumak pilot, Dizzy vanishes with no explanation, and I still saw no point to the whole Sires thing, among others. 6) I am on a T1 connection, not a crap internet speed last I checked. Also had this game since it came out, and been playing online for about a month. so yea I admit to not playing COD4, but I have played Gears 2 as you can see.
I like both, haven't played much GOW2 though, but have the first and enjoyed it.. As said already, these can't be compared. I don't understand why people dislike COD 5 so much.. COD 4 is a great game, but it has been around for a long time so all the glitches etc. have had time to be fixed.. COD 5 is more recent so Treyarch needs more time to address bugs and glitches, they already said they are working on them.. Aside from the glitches, I enjoy the gameplay in COD 5, the single player is fun and I found it a very different feeling to other WWII games..
I actually got the BETA for CoD:W@W and I was disappointed. It's a copy and I don't see enough reason to buy it. I don't see the point in buying an unoriginal game with the same aspects of CoD4, general waste of money. Not even zombies is worth it - I've never actually played it (I've played everything else, got a borrow of W@W for 2 weeks), but it seems to look like Horde. GoW2's Horde looks more fun and I hope is more fun. From what I've played of the Campaign, it's great and very fun. I've never experienced any glitches except the Shield one, where you can equip other weapons with your shield. And for some reason, people where I live think CoD:W@W has better graphics than GoW2.
