Cod4 modern warfare vs Cod 5 world at war

I am particularly excited because this is my first debate, and I love Call of Duty. I will now break down my opponent's opening argument. >My opponent's first statement is that the maps are better on World at War than they are on CoD4. World at War currently has 13 maps. Lets take a look at how many maps there are on Modern Warfare: -Ambush -Backlot -Bloc -Bog -Countdown -Crash -Crossfire -District -Downpour -Overgrown -Pipeline -Shipment -Showdown -Strike -Vacant -Wetworks That's 16 maps, NOT including the 4 bonus maps in the map pack, bringing the total to 20. Of course, quality is above quantity, but CoD4 is also superior in the quality of their maps. The maps in Modern warfare are packed with excitement, and you can feel the anticipation around every corner. Most of the maps are open, but they have a great layout in which you are never facing a dull moment. For those who aren't too fond of the close-up combat, there are several maps that are extremely open, a sniper's paradise for some. The point is, none of the CoD4 maps are bland or dull, and the combat can range from packed, crazy mayhem, to open and tactical. Many maps on WaW are amazingly bland, and so insanely large that you can often find yourself looking for someone to kill for long periods of time until you finally find one of the many campers. Bigger maps means less action. Less action means less fun. Also, a lot of the maps are repetitive, take Asylum for example. Little detail and repeating environments make the playing boring and somewhat lacking. >My opponent claimed that the addition of vehicles in World at War is better than the absence of them in Modern Warfare. I admit, when I first heard about the tanks being in the new Call of Duty, I was excited, but to me, the tanks were just a flawed implementation of a decent idea. Just having a vehicle that can easily one-shot anyone might have been okay, but a vehicle that can easily one-shot anyone AND is extremely hard to take out is simply overpowered. And what happens when you manage to destroy this vessel of doom? The driver jumps out right before the explosion and scrambles away, unharmed. If Treyarch were going to implement a vehicle into Call of Duty, they should have made one that was somewhat balanced. >"your rewards for kill streaks are much better" For those who are unfamiliar with this, in both games, you are rewarded with a helpful ability every time you reach 3, 5, and 7 kills in a row. The fact of the matter is, the rewards you get for getting 3 and 5 kill streaks are basically the same in both games, so you can't really call one better than the other. The 7 kill streak, however, changed from a Helicopter that attacks anyone in it's sights (Call of Duty 4), to sending out several attack dogs to sniff out and assault your enemies (World at War). This is another thing I was excited about, for I am pretty open minded to changes like this, but although amusing, unleashing the hounds just doesn't balance out like the helicopter. To some extent, the dogs need a bit of a fixing. 7 kills in a row isn't such a difficult feat, and the fact that they are not restricted to a part of the map (unlike the heli, which only patrols a portion of the map), which enables them to reach all areas. Having an ability to potentially kill your enemies on ALL areas of the map (including indoors), is a broken game mechanic. >"your weapons are more unique" . .. seriously? Please tell me how going BACKWARDS in time to having WW2 guns is unique. Modern weapons have been so much less explored then those of the WW2 era. In fact. .. modern warfare as a whole has been so much less explored than WW2. WW2 is really getting old. .. even if it is on the Pacific front this time. >"the game offers a better campaighn mode and a bonus zombie mode" World at War's campaign was not bad, but gameplay-wise, Call of Duty won hands down. The only thing better about WaW's campaign is that you can play it co-op or online (one of Treyarch's rare good ideas). The plot wasn't really anything special in WaW, and the characters seemed really underdeveloped. Oh, and I know I'm not the only one who hated the cutscenes during the mission briefings (the ones with the poorly done, block style animations, and showed old WW2 clips). Come on Treyarch, that was just lazy! At least put some effort into your cutscenes. Modern Warfare had many more epic moments than WaW, whether it was saving your partner from a helicopter wreckage and carrying him to an extraction zone while sniping out hordes of enemies as a rescue chopper makes it's way to you, or having your dying Captain pass you a handgun while your Zakhaev and his guards slowly walk towards you, killing your squad mates. CoD4 was pure EPIC. World at War had some cool moments too (such as the ending as you put up the Russian flag), but you just didn't feel as heroic and powerful as you did Modern Warfare. I wont argue with you on zombie mode though, it was pretty fun. Too bad that's just one good thing among all of WaW's flaws.