PDA

View Full Version : WaW or 1943


MarcoPolo360
07-18-2009, 06:44 PM
2 WWII games. Which one do you like more?

For me if I'm hyper and pumped up then I would play CoD because if I'm not on my top game I can't play that for shit.
Since 1943 is my sort of "backup game" that I can play whenever and be good at it I think it would be my choice.

EDIT: This is meant to be a decision between both CoD and 1943s multiplayer.

SevDelta
07-18-2009, 08:19 PM
I picked that both are good because I like Call of Duty's faster paced, Infantry-focused combat where 1943 has mainly vehicle based, slower combat. They're two quite different games and I like them both.

KNIGHTOFSERA
07-18-2009, 08:37 PM
My WAW is broken:(.....so even if I wanted to play it, which I have lately I cant....downloading Battlefield right now so I pick battlefield...plus who doesnt want to fly planes

Rifle Elite
07-18-2009, 10:22 PM
Cant be compared really. WaW is a retail game while 1943 is an arcade game. WaW wins by far. 1943 in size is like 1/10th of WaW. Im not saying 1943 isnt good, because it is good, but its an arcade game. No way an arcade game could be better then a retail game. And before people are going to say ''1943 has more votes'', its because this is the 1943 forum

Illution
07-18-2009, 10:37 PM
1943 is a lot more fun. No noobs running around with mp40's getting lucky kills. It's a lot slower and I think it's a good change of pace. WaW is old really fast.

MrWarEagle34
07-18-2009, 10:45 PM
not even a contest. 1943 easily takes this.

First of all WaW's production team come up with a good campaign and make sure the COD4 multiplayer system is translated well. All I know is that they failed at one of those and thats the Multiplayer. With over-powered smgs and snipers and tanks and underpowered everything else it just doesn't work.

1943 on the other hand has three good and even classes. As well as maybe a little over-powered tanks but other wise defeatable tanks/planes/jeeps.

NAMMY
07-18-2009, 11:29 PM
Can't really compare the two, but I rented WaW only to play the single player (and get achievements of course) and just bought 1943 after enjoying the trial and the good ol' BF gameplay.

Nusentinsaino
07-18-2009, 11:34 PM
Graphic-wise WaW is better.
Gameplay-wise WaW is better.
Online-wise WaW is better.

BF1943 is too cartoony, the online servers are laggy, it is just plain lame for a 1600 MS price tag.

OctagonQontrol
07-18-2009, 11:44 PM
BF1943 is too cartoony, the online servers are laggy, it is just plain lame for a 1600 MS price tag.
1200MS, not really cartoony and certainly not laggy... Maybe get a better internet-connection; my network-monitoring measures 35ms to 60ms ping to the servers which is not too bad considering Forza2 sometimes spiked to 1500ms, CoD4 to 300ms and DOA4 was off the chart 2000ms+

MarcoPolo360
07-18-2009, 11:54 PM
Cant be compared really. WaW is a retail game while 1943 is an arcade game. WaW wins by far. 1943 in size is like 1/10th of WaW. Im not saying 1943 isnt good, because it is good, but its an arcade game. No way an arcade game could be better then a retail game. And before people are going to say ''1943 has more votes'', its because this is the 1943 forum
I mostly meant this to be a multiplayer comparison - since 1943 doesn't even have a campaign - I thought people would figure that out...

Nusentinsaino
07-19-2009, 12:18 AM
1200MS, not really cartoony and certainly not laggy... Maybe get a better internet-connection; my network-monitoring measures 35ms to 60ms ping to the servers which is not too bad considering Forza2 sometimes spiked to 1500ms, CoD4 to 300ms and DOA4 was off the chart 2000ms+

CoD WaW and Cod4 did perfectly fine online and not bf1943.

MarcoPolo360
07-19-2009, 02:44 AM
CoD WaW and Cod4 did perfectly fine online and not bf1943.
... and you're in the 1943 forum, why?

RoyallFreshness
07-19-2009, 03:55 AM
1943, cod series is crap, nickel and diming everybody to death, releasing sub-par games. operation flashpoint is gonna blow modern warfare 2 out of the water.

1943 rocks, indefinitely

eshewitt
07-19-2009, 05:55 AM
These games cant be compared because one is an arcade and the other is a retail.

MarcoPolo360
07-19-2009, 06:06 AM
one is an arcade and the other is a retail.
I mostly meant this to be a multiplayer comparison - since 1943 doesn't even have a campaign - I thought people would figure that out...
Read ALL other replies in the thread before you post yours.

In at Man
07-19-2009, 06:20 AM
Cant be compared really. WaW is a retail game while 1943 is an arcade game. WaW wins by far. 1943 in size is like 1/10th of WaW. Im not saying 1943 isnt good, because it is good, but its an arcade game. No way an arcade game could be better then a retail game. And before people are going to say ''1943 has more votes'', its because this is the 1943 forum

Name one map in W@W that is even half the size of one of the BF:1943 maps. I'd rather play the four maps of this scale any day than any of the tiny CoD maps.

Actually, an arcade game can be better than a retail game. W@W was a terrible game. Treyarch should never be allowed to touch another CoD game again after W@W.

It's really no comparison, I'll take Battlefield: 1943 over W@W any day.

Rifle Elite
07-19-2009, 09:55 AM
Name one map in W@W that is even half the size of one of the BF:1943 maps. I'd rather play the four maps of this scale any day than any of the tiny CoD maps.

Actually, an arcade game can be better than a retail game. W@W was a terrible game. Treyarch should never be allowed to touch another CoD game again after W@W.

It's really no comparison, I'll take Battlefield: 1943 over W@W any day.

Its because your opinion isnt objective. The reason why you think it sucks is because you dont like it, it isnt because the game really is terrible

Jimbo76
07-19-2009, 10:12 AM
Its hard to compare them to each other as they are different types of games. but i have played 1943 more than waw multiplayer.

RagingClue
07-19-2009, 10:14 AM
1943 maps are so big its amazing. also i like the weapons in 1943 very simple.

problem is for me anyway 1943 is soooo big it feel its hard to get into action, although you can see it. its a good complaint though...

waw is very action packed and good weapon variety.

1943 for me though

In at Man
07-19-2009, 04:06 PM
Cant be compared really. WaW is a retail game while 1943 is an arcade game. WaW wins by far. 1943 in size is like 1/10th of WaW. Im not saying 1943 isnt good, because it is good, but its an arcade game. No way an arcade game could be better then a retail game. And before people are going to say ''1943 has more votes'', its because this is the 1943 forum

Its because your opinion isnt objective. The reason why you think it sucks is because you dont like it, it isnt because the game really is terrible


Your arguments have no objectivity whatsoever. You feel that 1943 can't possibly be as good as W@W because W@W is a retail game. It seems that you 're trying to justify that a game is better because it costs more. It is possible that a $15 can be better than a $60 game.

You argue that 1943 is 1/10th the size of W@W. I don't see how this argument has any bearing on a games playability. Is W@W graphically superior? Absolutely. Is the game play better because of this? No.

I thought that it was pretty clear that I was stating my opinion:

Name one map in W@W that is even half the size of one of the BF:1943 maps. I'd rather play the four maps of this scale any day than any of the tiny CoD maps.

Actually, an arcade game can be better than a retail game. W@W was a terrible game. Treyarch should never be allowed to touch another CoD game again after W@W.

It's really no comparison, I'll take Battlefield: 1943 over W@W any day.


If you want to talk objectivity, I think that my arguments that the size of a game's maps and playability holds more weight than a game's cost and space usage.

Louis BCFC1875
07-19-2009, 05:46 PM
I like BF: 1943, but CoD: WaW any day of the week.

ZundayXx
07-19-2009, 05:47 PM
I have only played 2/3 matches of CoD online and all i can say is that well.. to not upset the CoD fans arround here: It is a tiny itsy pitsy bit crappy. Now don't get upset please... because its MY opinion and and don't give annything about your flame on my opinion.. im taking this many precautions because people seem to be stupid these days. ( Oops more flame food )

KNUCKS x360a
07-19-2009, 06:05 PM
I've always held BF & CoD on equal standing....
CoD's are great for the hectic, close quarters fighting, but when you've had enough & want to get in a jeep/tank/plane to get some freedom & air, battling it out over miles of land - BF saves the day!

XzAceOfSpadeszX
07-19-2009, 06:36 PM
Yea the Battlefield series has been my favorite war games. But I like both COD and BF equally.

Elit3 m0nkey
07-19-2009, 06:38 PM
I like both.

Both have good graphics.
And despite balancing issues WaW's MP is the same as CoD4 (which means its good).
Both have good maps.

Overall I 'd play both.

Rifle Elite
07-19-2009, 07:08 PM
Your arguments have no objectivity whatsoever. You feel that 1943 can't possibly be as good as W@W because W@W is a retail game. It seems that you 're trying to justify that a game is better because it costs more. It is possible that a $15 can be better than a $60 game.

You argue that 1943 is 1/10th the size of W@W. I don't see how this argument has any bearing on a games playability. Is W@W graphically superior? Absolutely. Is the game play better because of this? No.

I thought that it was pretty clear that I was stating my opinion:


If you want to talk objectivity, I think that my arguments that the size of a game's maps and playability holds more weight than a game's cost and space usage.

Im not saying WaW is better because it costs more. Im saying its just obvious that retail games just always are bigger then arcade games (they make ~8 times the amount of money out of it) Dont get me wrong, I do prefer 1943 over WaW. Still I think WaW is better. Yeah I know it sounds weird but my opinion is objective. WaW has a singleplayer mode which 1943 doesnt has. WaW has co-op mode which 1943 doesnt has. WaW's graphics are superior. WaW has a lot more weapons plus it has upgrades for those weapons, while 1943 only has 6 different weapons (3 per faction) WaW's graphics are a lot better. WaW's online gameplay is much more steady plus there are more game modes. You find 1943 more enjoyable so you say its better. Thats a good example of an analyse that isnt objective. Any gaming reviewer would agree with me that WaW deserves a better rating.

You mix up the meaning of personal perference and which game truly is the better one. Your personal perference is 1943 from what I read. Though that and the fact which game is the better one are two different things. If someone prefers a BMW over a Ferrari, does that truly makes the BMW better?

Wabbytax
07-19-2009, 07:40 PM
Name one map in W@W that is even half the size of one of the BF:1943 maps. I'd rather play the four maps of this scale any day than any of the tiny CoD maps.

Actually, an arcade game can be better than a retail game. W@W was a terrible game. Treyarch should never be allowed to touch another CoD game again after W@W.

It's really no comparison, I'll take Battlefield: 1943 over W@W any day.

BF:1943 is roughly 500 MB , CoD WaW is roughly 6 GB, so therefor Battlefield is in fact 1/12 the size of WaW.

MarcoPolo360
07-19-2009, 08:25 PM
You mix up the meaning of personal perference and which game truly is the better one. Your personal perference is 1943 from what I read. Though that and the fact which game is the better one are two different things. If someone prefers a BMW over a Ferrari, does that truly makes the BMW better?
I made this poll to see peoples personal preference. Since these are the best WWII multiplayer games out at the moment, I thought I would ask to see which one people like more.

ZundayXx
07-19-2009, 09:36 PM
BF:1943 is roughly 500 MB , CoD WaW is roughly 6 GB, so therefor Battlefield is in fact 1/12 the size of WaW.

That stuff doesn't make anny sense. He said MAPS not Game Size...

General Twinkie
07-20-2009, 07:00 AM
I rather get battlefield even though its an arcade
i dont like WAW..except the zombies, its fun

Norman Coxwell
07-20-2009, 07:04 AM
1943. Its crisp, clean, and to the point. Fast reload times and even faster deathes. Its a really nice and fun pick up game.

SevDelta
07-20-2009, 07:11 AM
1943. Its crisp, clean, and to the point. Fast reload times and even faster deathes. Its a really nice and fun pick up game.

To be honest, you just described Call of Duty. The crisp and clean part are totally opinionated but the "to the point" remark is much more Call of Duty-like since it's very basic and easy objectives.
The reload times in CoD are much faster than 1943 and so is dying since CoD is much, much faster paced. And I'd also argue that CoD is a better "pick up and play" game since 1943 has you mastering planes and vehicles and countering such things and CoD is just point and shoot.

But it's all opinion so you can't be wrong about what you said. I just thought I'd point out my thoughts on your thoughts I suppose. :p

Rifle Elite
07-20-2009, 08:29 AM
That stuff doesn't make anny sense. He said MAPS not Game Size...

1943 in size is like 1/10th of WaW. Never mentioned anything about the size of the maps, because I know 1943's map are at least 4 times bigger

Ry8an25oliver93
07-20-2009, 09:30 AM
The app sounds cool, too bad I don't have a Facebook.

MisterSquidward
07-20-2009, 04:49 PM
1943 gets my vote.

I hated WaW compared to cod4, if it was 1943 vs cod4, id pick the latter.

bAteseh
07-20-2009, 05:05 PM
1943 ftw imho.

TheToiletBrush
07-21-2009, 05:21 PM
If we are only comparing multiplayer, 1943 is far superior.

Nusentinsaino
07-21-2009, 06:56 PM
If we are only comparing multiplayer, 1943 is far superior.

You are so wrong.

OctagonQontrol
07-21-2009, 07:23 PM
You are so wrong.
And with that kind of arguments, no doubt you are the leading expert on multiplayer-games... :rolleyes:

On-topic: I like 1943 over WaW for a very simple and straightforward reason; I don't play CoD where it has odd numbers in the title. Never did & never will. So, I have no comparison to WaW yet I have to say the size of the maps on 1943 and the speed of the game suits me a bit better than CoD4 but that's personal, I think.

Nusentinsaino
07-21-2009, 08:34 PM
I just noticed that the multiplayer on 1943 lags a lot more as compared to playing online on CoD WaW... how am I wrong?

MarcoPolo360
07-21-2009, 09:20 PM
1943 gets my vote.

I hated WaW compared to cod4, if it was 1943 vs cod4, id pick the latter.
Dude, I'm just gonna come out and say it: Squidward is awesome.

ZundayXx
07-21-2009, 09:39 PM
1943 in size is like 1/10th of WaW. Never mentioned anything about the size of the maps, because I know 1943's map are at least 4 times bigger


I know but if you backtrace all the qoutes you end up with someone saying: The maps in BF1943 are bigger then the ones in WaW. As which someone replyd to that WaW is 12x bigger in actual HD size then BF1943. So i replyd he was talking about Map size not actual game HD size.

And i know the maps in 1943 are way bigger, i played 2/3 WaW maps and i still don't know why the map packs take 2 freaking months to make for that game, they're so freaking small.

eternal123
07-21-2009, 11:16 PM
:uzi::uzi::uzi::uzi::uzi:i have both and they are great i love em both

exo-apollo
07-22-2009, 01:33 AM
Ahh so much anger. I don't see why it matters. But then again I've never really understood comparison polls.

bigquackster
07-22-2009, 11:19 AM
battlefield 1943 for sure. WAW is in my opinion epic fail

Bajan Elite
07-22-2009, 01:07 PM
both games drives me bannas, if BF's maps weren't so big then it would be even more fun, not fun enough to rival Waw but fun. I don't understand why they couldn't add more weapons or smaller maps. Plus the plane controls are weird, the sniper isn't balanced properly, there's no spawn protection so if you spawn by a flag and an enemy is camping on the turret then u r F***ed. This game is more fun when in close combat. Meleeing fools or shooting them up close is very satisfying.

This is my opinion.

Pazippizzy
07-22-2009, 04:29 PM
I don't think this poll is about which game is better.it's about which game you like more.
also agree with 1943 in size is like 1/10th of WaW.
WaW has many multiplayer game mode.some mode are suck and most like copy form COD4. but i don't think you had try all of it to it's fun point.
I didn't say this game isn't good.but after a while i'm back to play BF:BC.
this game makes me feel like free roam in an island.game require some of teamwork but not much strategy.

TheToiletBrush
07-22-2009, 05:55 PM
Dude, I'm just gonna come out and say it: Squidward is awesome.

I'm going to get back on topic and say that my daughter's fish is named Squidward. She had a Spongebob and a Patrick, but they both died. At this rate, we are going to run out of SB characters to name her doomed fish.

darkSIDEchoes
07-25-2009, 01:59 AM
These games cant be compared because one is an arcade and the other is a retail.

How do you sleep at night? Stupid?

Lulz. Kidding.

But really, that isn't true.

The Robxp
07-26-2009, 12:29 AM
i'd play battlefield for sure, just because call of duty is the same game.... again.

TpYourHouse
07-26-2009, 12:46 AM
CoD:4 is still recognizes as the best fps. I voted both are good, but MW2 is going to be the best thing that's happens to fps fans.

DJConnelly
07-26-2009, 08:52 AM
WaW is definetly not as good as BF. BF is so much more fun to play with friends (unless it's zombiesI guess) and f your going to play a CoD game it mihgt as well be no.4