The Call of Duty franchise is one of the best known and well made FPS series created, with games on various consoles and over many gaming generations.

The Call of Duty franchise is made by two main developers, Infinity Ward and Treyarch, who make game such as The Spiderman series. The most recent Call of Duty games have sparked the most debate, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Call of Duty 5: World at War are considered to be direct rivals.

The most obvious distinction between the two games is the year which the game is set in. Modern Warfare is set in the present day where as World at War is set during World War Two. In addition to this, the games are made by different developers, Modern Warfare is made by Infinity Ward whereas World at War is made by Treyarch.

However,  for the most part the games are similar, both games have a dual perspective narrative during the story mode, both have similar online modes and the offline split screen matches are similar. Both games have an accurate portrayal of weapons and realistic physics. World at War was mostly based on its predecessor, Modern warfare, but World at War it has tried to better it.

Many people have said they feel the setting for World at War is clichéd and boring as so many other FPS games are set in World War Two and the setting is becoming overused. However I disagree with this. World at War is set in different areas and has shed some new light on the perhaps slightly overused World War Two setting, World at War uses the almost unused setting of the Pacific fighting which occurred during the war. I also felt that the Banzai attacks and Japanese snipers hiding in the trees was a clever and immersive use of surroundings. I thought that those small touches made the fighting in that area more impressive and was also a good way to show off the game engine. Another area where World at War was better was offline use. This is reference to the “Nazi Zombies” levels which have been added and were implemented in the first place. Treyarch has also been excellent in customer feedback, many people were starting to become bored by the single level of Nazi Zombies and Treyarch added more levels, this was perhaps a slight P.R stunt but at least it was done. Another area where World At War is excellent is the online mode. The online mode is similar to that of Modern Warfare which in turn was similar to its predecessors; however Treyarch added vehicles to online play which was more enjoyable and added more depth to the gameplay.

When Modern Warfare arrived on the market, it was an instant success, the game had little competition and sales were massive. This is one of the few games that isn’t futuristic with laser guns and other outlandish weapons and one that isn’t set in World War Two. In addition, the game could truly excel as it had far more powerful consoles to be played. Modern Warfare has an excellent online system, one that is the same as the one in World at War with a ranking system that can keep a player coming back to the game for a long time. Every weapon on Modern Warfare feels like it is a true weapon, on some lesser games it can feel like the weapons used are lacking a serious amount of “oomph” whereas the guns on Modern Warfare feel like they are truly weapons and that are lethal. The game also has a gripping story line with some truly unexpected moments.

However both games have some slight flaws, with World at War, I find that whenever a flamethrower is used the screen resolution goes down dramatically whilst the flamethrower is fired. I have done this on both a small but HD ready 28” television and a much larger and more powerful 55” television. I also find that Dogs are too powerful, especially during hardcore mode where there is too little time to do anything once they have spotted you. Added to that, I believe there should be a reward for a ten kill streak and higher as once you get a seven kill streak there is almost no point to carry on that same life as when you die ammo and grenades are replenished. I also think the story is rather lacklustre and could do with some more tension throughout.

However, Modern Warfare is not without its faults, there are similar faults in the game, for example the no reward after 7 kills, and the helicopter is far too powerful. I also think that there needs to be more offline things to do as Arcade mode becomes boring and if you have no internet access the games main selling point isn’t there for use. Also I dislike that Infinity ward has given two maps after the release of the game boring quickly and has given little other DLC it may have other games to make but it could at least give some more.

Overall I believe Modern Warfare is the better game. However I believe it is a very close call and it could go either way. I believe there are certain things that are annoying that make World at War the inferior game. However with the release of Modern Warfare 2 around the corner I would wait for the release of the most anticipated game this year.