When call of duty 4 originally came out I was instantly a massive fan, the combination of exceptional graphics and fantastically intuitive gameplay made it an instant success to me so needless to say when the sequel was announced I was excited. After finding out that Call of duty 5 was to be a second world war game again I was somewhat dismayed but none-the less I was still looking forward to it. So how do they stack up in my mind.
Graphics:
The graphics of Call of duty 4 were simply breathtaking when they came out and to me the same can be said about Call of duty 5, although they arn't a huge leap forward from their pre-desessors they are still exceptional, crisp, clean and fluid. Sure their may be better graphics out their at the moment, Kill Zone 2 springs to mind. But for a fast paced FPS they have to be near the top of the lis.
Winner: Call of Duty 5
Gameplay:
The fact that Call of Duty 5 is based on the same engine as Call of Duty 4 leads me towards the feeling that although the gameplay is obviously very good they haven't really changed to much and so in some respects, with gameplay at least, Call of Duty 5 feels like more of an expansion pack to Call of Duty 4. On this basis there isn't really much difference between them. I would say that If I were forced to pick between them Call of Duty 4 would sneak a head based on the fact that it was the original, making it more of a breakthrough than 5
Winner: Call of Duty 4
Single Player:
The cinematics and visuals of both 4 and 5 are epic, There's no other word to describe it, Right from the off with basic training in 4 you feel involved in the action and gripped to the story line. The use of video sequences is sparse and when they are used it feels as though you are the character evolved, as you are seeing it from a POV perspective, rather than that you are simply watching a video sequence. Call of Duty 4's single player is fantastic, the map details and size of the map's is amazing, but you never spend enough time in any one location to get bored, it's fast paced and well put together.
5's Single player is just as fluid, the maps are brilliant and the difference in style from one army to another I.e. from the US to Russian is brilliant. The way the game is played differs so vastly if you are in trenches using a flamethrower to if you are a sniper. The single player campaign is longer than in 4 but some of the missions do seem more repetitive.
Although 4's Single player is shorter it is undoubtedly my favorite as it is more concise and bordering on flawless in the respect of the maps and character's. The plot (which is not normally something I pay attention to in games) is actually very compelling as well, and quite in keeping with the current political climate.
Winner: Call of Duty 4
Multiplayer:
Multiplayer has always been the main selling point to me with the Call of Duty series. No other games offer such a fantastic blend of vivid online battles and compelling offline split screen action. I find it very irritating now that so few games offer offline split screen gaming, as it is how I tend to do most of my gaming, I find it much more sociable that play online and in this respect both 4 and 5 really deliver.
For me, without the need for an explanation (though I'll try to give one) Call of Duty 4 is the winner here, it has a more customizable offline game, with the inclusion of modes like Old School mode, as well as a far better selection of maps, Crash being a personal favorite, this makes the multiplayer experience far more cohesive for me as it offers much more opportunity to strategies.
Winner: Call of Duty 4
Conclusion:
In conclusion although I think that Call of Duty 5 is a worthy successor to Call of Duty 4 it can't touch the 4's spotless originality, even though Call of Duty 4 is the fourth in the series it feels like a new game all on it's own, far better than the 3rd and for me even surpassing the second, which I also hold a soft spot for.
So by a tally of 3 to 1 Call of Duty 4 is the winner! All I can say is I can't wait to see what 6 has in store.
|
