on friday i am getting one of these games, and i cant decide. give me your recommendations with reasons, your help will be appreciated.

I'd say GoW2, only because CoD5 is more like a mod instead of a full stand-alone game.

World at War is not CoD5.

get Gears 2.

It's a tough call. Gears blows, but on the other hand Treyarch WW2 games are awful.

GoW2 hands down. CoD World at War is CoD 4, with different levels, nothing new, like someone said before, its basically a mod

Gears of War 2 is over the top (almost cartoony) violence,intentional B movie cheese dialogue,and nonstop gun fire/explosions.

This game is one chainsaw-hand,machine-gun leg,ridiculous violence,ass kicking title.

Gears of War 2 is over the top (almost cartoony) violence,intentional B movie cheese dialogue,and nonstop gun fire/explosions.

This game is one chainsaw-hand,machine-gun leg,ridiculous violence,ass kicking title.

THANK YOU! I thought I was literally the only person on the planet who got that joke. :D

Anyway, aren't you guys judging WaW a little harshly? The new settings and weapons (flamethrower woo) aren't enough to warrant a purchase?


Get Gears 2, btw (flamethrower woo).

No, you see when you buy a new game you expect a new game. Not some new settings and weapons.

What is so good about a flame thrower anyway? I mean what is the range of that thing it would only be good in very specific circumstances, it will be the most limited weapon in the game.


The main thing though that pisses me off about it is that Treyarch make it but it is called COD5. It is not COD5 cause Treyarch don't make COD Infinity Ward do. COD5 is only called COD5 to milk Infinity Wards good reputation. Many people don't even realise this.

I know you didn't suggest it but I would buy Left 4 Dead, it only just came out and it pwns.

No, you see when you buy a new game you expect a new game. Not some new settings and weapons.

What is so good about a flame thrower anyway? I mean what is the range of that thing it would only be good in very specific circumstances, it will be the most limited weapon in the game.


The main thing though that pisses me off about it is that Treyarch make it but it is called COD5. It is not COD5 cause Treyarch don't make COD Infinity Ward do. COD5 is only called COD5 to milk Infinity Wards good reputation. Many people don't even realise this.

I know you didn't suggest it but I would buy Left 4 Dead, it only just came out and it pwns.

(Call of Duty is a first-person shooter video game based on the Quake III: Team Arena engine. This war game simulates the infantry and combined arms warfare of World War II. The game was published by Activision and developed by Infinity Ward.) Infinity Ward was actually brought in on the project not the original creators. As for Treyarch's involvement in the COD franchise, Grey Matter was merged into Treyarch in 2005. They also worked on COD2 as well so.... I hope you know what you are tlaking about man. =) They were brought back into 5 to improve on their orignal work. (COD2 with cooperation from Infinity Ward which of course are both owned by "Activision")

They also helped develope and or developed the following

* Die by the Sword (1998)
* Die by the Sword: Limb from Limb (1998) (Expansion Pack)
* Triple Play 2000 (1999)
* Draconus: Cult of the Wyrm (2000)
* Max Steel (2000)
* Triple Play 2001 (2000)
* NHL 2K2 (2001)
* Triple Play Baseball (2001)
* Kelly Slater's Pro Surfer (2002)
* Minority Report: Everybody Runs (2002)
* Spider-Man (2002)
* NHL 2K3 (2002)
* Spider-Man 2 (2004)
* Call of Duty 2: Big Red One (2005)
* Ultimate Spider-Man (2005)
* Call of Duty 3 (2006)
* Spider-Man 3 (2007) (Only developed the Xbox 360 & PS3 version of the game)
* Spider-Man: Web of Shadows - (2008) Wii, PS3, PS2, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS, PC
* Quantum of Solace - (2008) PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, Nintendo DS, PC
* Call of Duty: World at War (2008) - PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, PC



Yes most of these games sucked.... Not my problem =) However they did make 2 pretty interesting games

* Quantum of Solace - (2008) PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, Nintendo DS, PC
* Call of Duty: World at War (2008) - PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, PC

I would suggest reading the COD WaW thread I posted or the other COD5 thread some other guy posted. I have played both games and I must say it really just depends on what you like. If you have played the original gears then you are in for a surprise because they completely redid Gears 2. If you have played COD before then I would suggest at least renting it before you decide on getting it. They are both by far really great games and have pretty much been redone. However I would only get Left For Dead 2 if your into running around with a couple of friends and pointlessly shoot zombies for hours on end. One reason people rip on COD5 is because of Treyarch's involvement and their previously failed project COD3 but I can reassure you that the game is far different from COD3 and is of course more like COD4. But unlike most people say the maps are very different than COD4. =) Just get you would prefer man they are two very different games and you really can't compare one to the other.

It's a hard decision seeing as i havent played cod5 yet but i'd have to go with gow2 it really depends what your going for.

I would suggest reading the COD WaW thread I posted or the other COD5 thread some other guy posted. I have played both games and I must say it really just depends on what you like. If you have played the original gears then you are in for a surprise because they completely redid Gears 2. If you have played COD before then I would suggest at least renting it before you decide on getting it. They are both by far really great games and have pretty much been redone. However I would only get Left For Dead 2 if your into running around with a couple of friends and pointlessly shoot zombies for hours on end. One reason people rip on COD5 is because of Treyarch's involvement and their previously failed project COD3 but I can reassure you that the game is far different from COD3 and is of course more like COD4. But unlike most people say the maps are very different than COD4. =) Just get you would prefer man they are two very different games and you really can't compare one to the other.

I would only get COD5 if your into running around on small servers pointlessly shooting each other.
I would only get GOW2 if your into running around like some big macho fool pointlessly shooting each other.
WTF is left 4 dead 2 anyway?

Besides it is hardly something you play for hours on end. I just randomly play a campaign or versus with my mates when I feel like it. It is quite casual.

Not mentioning Max Payne as one of the good games on that list shows what you know about games when you say the most interesting ones are Quantum of Solace a mediocre film tie-in and COD5 a reskinned COD4. What really highlights your idiocy though is the fact that Treyarch actually had nothing to do withat least one of those games for example Max Payne which was developed by Remedy Entertainment the and is best game on the list.

If all their games have been shit why do you expect them to be able to make something good?

PS
COD2 Big Red One is not COD2 you idiot.
Don't double post noob/troll.

I don't understand why people would even compare the 2. They are entirely different games. The only thing that they have in common is that they are both out around the same time-frame.

Gears of War is a third person shooter based on sticking with your team work,flanking,and taking cover.

Call of Duty is a straight up first person shooter with light cover-based movement.

The games are entirely different. You can run and gun by yourself all the way through an online match of Call of Duty,whereas Gears of War when you get attacked by 2 guys at once on your own,you're usually fucked (and no respawns).

No, you see when you buy a new game you expect a new game. Not some new settings and weapons..

Yeah,but we're not buying a new game in the sense of a new IP. We're buying a sequel,which people expect the same core gameplay, but with new weapons/maps and fixing old problems along with tweaks.

New weapons and maps, bug fixes and tweaks should be the stuff of patches and expansion packs.

If I am paying full price for a new game I expect some new gameplay features. Maybe I am underinformed but all I am aware of is fire, CTF mode is brought back and apart from that weapons/maps/perks.

COD4 already has a capture the flag and a ww2 weapons mod.

No, you see when you buy a new game you expect a new game. Not some new settings and weapons.

WOW! You're buying a fucking FPS. The only thing that changes in those are who you're fighting and where; especially in the Call of Duty franchise. What the fuck were you expecting? Fucking retard.

It's a tough call. Gears blows, but on the other hand Treyarch WW2 games are awful.

The only true post in this thread.

God, I can't believe how much people liked Gears of War. I tried playing it on PC and deleted it in disgust, then over a period of months I forced myself to complete it on the 360 and all I could say to myself when I was done was "That's it? That's what everyone was talking about?". I even played it halfway through in co-op before my brother quit because he thought it sucked so much. I only bought the game for $9 and I still feel ripped off.

Here's Gears of War in a nutshell:

- Terrible Story
- Terrible Dialogue
- Ugly boring cutscenes
- Incredibly repetitive combat
- Shitty, boring bosses
- Brown
- Godawful End Boss
- Godawful ending
- Crappy vehicle section
- Oh fuck you attached to a wall when I wanted you to run, fuck you you steroid munching gorilla man

The only two positives I can think of are active reloads and the Torque Bow was pretty cool. Other than that, it was shit. Unless Gears of War 2 is the exact opposite of Gears of War 1, don't waste your time.

And I don't think anyone needs an explanation as to why another WW2 shooter is a waste of fucking time, especially one developed by Treyarch.

My advice, buy a good game like Fallout 3. But I guess since you're having such a hard time choosing between dogshit and pigshit, you're really only in the market for shit. In that case I say flip a fucking coin.

^ Your opinion is wrong!

^ And you're a rollerblading rollerblading rollerblading faggot.

^ But your opinion is still wrong!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f58e763460/human-giant-rollerblading-from-human-giant

The only true post in this thread.

God, I can't believe how much people liked Gears of War. I tried playing it on PC and deleted it in disgust, then over a period of months I forced myself to complete it on the 360 and all I could say to myself when I was done was "That's it? That's what everyone was talking about?". I even played it halfway through in co-op before my brother quit because he thought it sucked so much. I only bought the game for $9 and I still feel ripped off.

Here's Gears of War in a nutshell:

- Terrible Story
- Terrible Dialogue
- Ugly boring cutscenes
- Incredibly repetitive combat
- Shitty, boring bosses
- Brown
- Godawful End Boss
- Godawful ending
- Crappy vehicle section
- Oh fuck you attached to a wall when I wanted you to run, fuck you you steroid munching gorilla man

The only two positives I can think of are active reloads and the Torque Bow was pretty cool. Other than that, it was shit. Unless Gears of War 2 is the exact opposite of Gears of War 1, don't waste your time.

And I don't think anyone needs an explanation as to why another WW2 shooter is a waste of fucking time, especially one developed by Treyarch.

My advice, buy a good game like Fallout 3. But I guess since you're having such a hard time choosing between dogshit and pigshit, you're really only in the market for shit. In that case I say flip a fucking coin.

Most people played Gears for the online multiplayer, if you didn't know... It was still like 4th most played online up until the second was released and became the most played.


And Fallout 3 is a good game and all, but it has like 0 replay value past your second character, is pretty short (even with sidequests) unless you go out of your way to make it take forever for arguments sake and is wayyy too easy, even on V.Hard, unless you go out of your way to make it harder buy not using VATS and playing through as a melee only character or something like that.

Most people played Gears for the online multiplayer, if you didn't know... It was still like 4th most played online up until the second was released and became the most played.

Yeah, the multiplayer was the only thing I didn't think was totally shit about it. It wasn't great or anything, but it was alright.

And I honestly don't care how many people play something or think something's good. High School Musical 3 made has made 85 million dollars, and pretty much everyone said Gears of War was really awesome but it's not. Gears of War = High School Musical 3, honestly.

You played it on PC first, amitrite?

There's your big, fat, throbbing problem.

Gears of War 2 is better than the first; which, in case you don't follow my logic, makes it pretty fucking GOOD.

You played it on PC first, amitrite?

There's your big, fat, throbbing problem.

Lawl, when I played it on PC I remember you were like "play it on 360, it's better on 360". Turns out it was the same shitty game, just as I thought. Now you're theory is that I didn't enjoy the 360 version because I played an hour and a half of the PC version?

K.

Gears of War 2 is better than the first; which, in case you don't follow my logic, makes it slightly less painful than having sex with a wood chipper.

Fixed.

And Fallout 3 is a good game and all, but it has like 0 replay value past your second character, is pretty short (even with sidequests) unless you go out of your way to make it take forever for arguments sake and is wayyy too easy, even on V.Hard, unless you go out of your way to make it harder buy not using VATS and playing through as a melee only character or something like that.

Did they mess up the difficulty again? Same thing happened in Oblivion to me.

Doesn't matter. I don't pay for single player games when they first come out. I'll try to find them cheap online in a couple months. Same game, it won't change while I'm gone.

Oh, and to answer the OP's question: which do you think is more fun, CoD4 or GoW? Go with the corresponding sequel.

Did they mess up the difficulty again? Same thing happened in Oblivion to me.

The enemies scaled to your level in Oblivion, which made the game incredibly boring. I think some of them do in Fallout 3 as well, but there are some that do not and will fuck you up if you stumble upon them at a low level.

Did they mess up the difficulty again? Same thing happened in Oblivion to me.



In my opinion they did. Like opiate said, they don't scale so there are some enemies that will kill you basically before you even figure out whats going on at first in some places, which is a step in the right direction, but as soon as you figure out what you're doing, which if you aren't a total retard should be fairly early on, you basically own anything.

Also, there isn't really any reasons you should be running into these difficult enemies unless you get way off course and ignore the first slew of cities just to go exploring.

Yeah, the multiplayer was the only thing I didn't think was totally shit about it. It wasn't great or anything, but it was alright.

And I honestly don't care how many people play something or think something's good. High School Musical 3 made has made 85 million dollars, and pretty much everyone said Gears of War was really awesome but it's not. Gears of War = High School Musical 3, honestly.

Yeah i'd have to agree with you there, Gears of War was pretty shit and High School Musical is shit it always has been. But Gow2 is fucking awesome.

Opiate, stop getting your knickers in a twist or Rabb'll give you another infraction.

I told him to give me the infraction, and then told him it'd be even better if he banned me.

I'm just sorry he didn't have the balls to make it last more than ten days so I wouldn't have felt compelled to come back and talk to my awesome friends like you :(.

WOW! You're buying a fucking FPS. The only thing that changes in those are who you're fighting and where; especially in the Call of Duty franchise. What the fuck were you expecting? Fucking retard.

So nothing changes in FPS games? You think DOOM = ARMA:Armed Assault = TF2? The only difference is who you are fighting and where?

COD1- killcam

COD2- no health bar, 64 players online instead of of 32(I think), new game engine

COD4- modern warfare, ranking system, perks, character customisation, kills= radar etc, new game engine

Just a few signicficant gameplay changes or in the case of cod1 innovations, only in the COD franchise. Just because most generic FPS are all the same does not mean that all FPS are the same, unless you are in fact retarded unable to comprehend that beyond who and where you are fighting most decent fps will be significantly different.

Of course if you look at Treyarchs contribution:

COD3: Stick with WW2, stupid melee fight, much like COD2.

COD5: Back to WW2, stupid melee fight, much like COD4

World At War is okay. Outside of Nazi Zombies (which is a lot of fun), there really is nothing making it any different than all the other WWII shooters. I definitely liked COD 4 a lot more overall.

I haven't played Gears 2 yet, but given how much I liked the first one, I'd go with Gears 2. If anything, I'd probably be more likely to play the first Gears before I decided to give World At War another go.

I told him to give me the infraction, and then told him it'd be even better if he banned me.

I'm just sorry he didn't have the balls to make it last more than ten days so I wouldn't have felt compelled to come back and talk to my awesome friends like you :(.

Lol. You do take gaming FAR too seriously, though. Just a game dude; don't like it, don't play it.

Still, if you wanted to be banned, why come back?

Lol. You do take gaming FAR too seriously, though. Just a game dude; don't like it, don't play it.

How exactly do I take gaming more seriously than you, or anyone else here?

I just have high standards, and that doesn't apply to just videogames, it applies to music, television, movies, books, and hell, even people. If I think something sucks, I have no problem telling people and I'll always have a reason to back up why I feel that way. I don't just go around deciding not to like games, I play them and then make my final verdict. Some games I might be pretty sure I won't like just buy looking at them in motion, but if I get the chance to play them I'll still give them a fair shot at impressing me. This is why even though I didn't care for Halo, I still tried Halo 2 and 3 when given the chance.

I was excited to play Gears of War, I've liked Epic's games before, I wanted to like it. And although I think the core mechanics were solid, the sense of weight, the shooting, and the cool touches like active reload, I found pretty much everything else to be subpar. It was just an incredibly repetitive game with a subpar story and characters that seemed to be written by an 11 year old with too much testosterone. I think the point where I realized the game was just never going to get good was when my supposedly super elite squad tripped and fell not once, not twice, but three times in the caves area. "OMG WE TRIPPED AND FELL INTO THIS NEW AREA!", it was like watching a Looney Tunes cartoon.

Then when you get out of the caves, after activating the resonator, your mission the whole time, you get a call from the colonel with "Lol, it didn't work, sorry!". Then, one of your squadmates conveniently finds a map of the tunnels lying on the ground right outside the exit. That's got to be the worst storytelling ever.

"OMG RESONATOR DUN WORK THIS SUCKS GUYS?!"

"DUN WORRY, I FOUND MAP, NOW LETS GO TO SECRET LAB AT MARCUS' HOUSE FOR SOME REASON!!!"

Ugh.

Gears of war 2 mother fuckers its da shit

on friday i am getting one of these games, and i cant decide. give me your recommendations with reasons, your help will be appreciated.

From what I have heard, they are both pretty disappointing.

Apparently, in GoW2, the guns are extremely weak so everyone goes around engaging in combat with chainsaws.
And as for CoD5, it's just an add-on to CoD4.

The only reason god allowed such creatures as OpiumSechlorate868 to have opinions is that that we could laugh hard in their face, as well as prove them wrong bring us much enjoyment and satisfaction to know that we are superior species.

EDIT: I keep confusing him with ScaryGary, which makes that a bit harsh and untrue. Oh well, they're pretty much the same thing.

The only reason god allowed such creatures as OpiumSechlorate to have opinions is that that we could laugh hard in their face, as well as prove them wrong bring us much enjoyment and satisfaction to know that we are superior species.

Do you have a learning disability?

How exactly do I take gaming more seriously than you, or anyone else here?

I just have high standards, and that doesn't apply to just videogames, it applies to music, television, movies, books, and hell, even people. If I think something sucks, I have no problem telling people and I'll always have a reason to back up why I feel that way. I don't just go around deciding not to like games, I play them and then make my final verdict. Some games I might be pretty sure I won't like just buy looking at them in motion, but if I get the chance to play them I'll still give them a fair shot at impressing me. This is why even though I didn't care for Halo, I still tried Halo 2 and 3 when given the chance.

I was excited to play Gears of War, I've liked Epic's games before, I wanted to like it. And although I think the core mechanics were solid, the sense of weight, the shooting, and the cool touches like active reload, I found pretty much everything else to be subpar. It was just an incredibly repetitive game with a subpar story and characters that seemed to be written by an 11 year old with too much testosterone. I think the point where I realized the game was just never going to get good was when my supposedly super elite squad tripped and fell not once, not twice, but three times in the caves area. "OMG WE TRIPPED AND FELL INTO THIS NEW AREA!", it was like watching a Looney Tunes cartoon.

Then when you get out of the caves, after activating the resonator, your mission the whole time, you get a call from the colonel with "Lol, it didn't work, sorry!". Then, one of your squadmates conveniently finds a map of the tunnels lying on the ground right outside the exit. That's got to be the worst storytelling ever.

"OMG RESONATOR DUN WORK THIS SUCKS GUYS?!"

"DUN WORRY, I FOUND MAP, NOW LETS GO TO SECRET LAB AT MARCUS' HOUSE FOR SOME REASON!!!"

Ugh.

I'm sorry, but if you're playing Gears for its story you've been seriously misinformed.

If you don't like the game mechanics then, well, that's your problem. You've still got to admit the game is a technological marvel, taking the UT3 engine to new heights. Gears isn't about emotion, neither does it profess to be perfect; it's rough around the edges and relies primarily on experience - it is, to analogise, akin to the summer's biggest block-buster movie, warts and all.

I kind of pity you, actually, as you seem to be the only person I've had the chance to speak to who can't find something to appreciate in Gears 1, let alone Gears 2 (that which expands on practically every thing the first game did right, on top of making adjustments to previous issues). But, hey, it's up to you; as I said before, don't like it, don't play it. Think it's overrated? Fine, bitch about it on an internet forum and claim to have 'high standards' like some kind of condescending, priggish, trust fund kiddy.

You also neglected to answer my other question: if you wanted to be banned, why come back? Totse's GPP isn't exactly the best gaming forum, now is it?

*awaits another word-for-word post break-down, complete with detailed annotations and WANK.

I wasn't playing it solely for it's story, but I wasn't expecting a story that would offend my intelligence at every turn. I can appreciate something based solely on action if it's done well, I just watched Taken last night and it was fucking awesome, but Gears of War is more like a really bad Stallone movie, like The Specialist or something. Or maybe something by Steven Seagal. Unless you're a 5 year old, the only reason to watch something like that is to make fun of how stupid it is. Like: "Here's our invisible robot friend. We've never mentioned him before, but now that there's a locked door we can't get through he's actually been following this whole time...invisible." Penny Arcade covers the inherent stupidity a little more in depth:

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/11/12/

Honestly though, it's like something I would have written in second grade. "Oh my god, what do I do know? I've wrote them into a corner with this locked door? I know, INVISIBLE LOCKPICKING ROBOT COMPANION!"

As for Gears being a technical marvel, I don't really agree. I think UE3 is pretty piss poor overall, and Gears of War has shitty art direction. For my money, good art direction > technical details. I honestly think Team Fortress 2 is a better looking game than Gears of War. Hell, I think Metroid Prime 3 is a better looking game than Gears of War. The only two UE3 games I think actually look good are Mass Effect and Mirror's Edge, and Mass Effect suffers from the same ugly texture pop-in as Gears.

And I'm hardly the only person who doesn't like Gears. I've talked to plenty of other people who feel the same way. Some of them hate it more than me, some of them would merely call it "Meh", but all of them were severely unimpressed after all the hype it got.

Also, why exactly does having high standards make someone a rich person? I'm not a rich person, I just don't like wasting my time with shit that I don't enjoy. When it comes right down to it the reason I'm pissed about Gears of War is because I wasted so much of my time waiting for it to be good. I wasted $9 on it. It was just a big waste. I don't look back on it fondly like I do other game, I just wish I had my 6 or 7 hours back. I could have used that time to jerk off, or stare at a wall or something. It's funny, but I feel like I spent much longer playing GoW than I have playing Fallout 3, yet I've played 21 hours of Fallout 3 in a week and I played 6 or 7 hours of GoW over the course of many months. I guess it's true what they say, time flies when you're playing good games.

To answer your question about why I came back, I was bored the other day and saw a bunch of stupid posts so I felt like replying, simple as that, I'm like the Internet Avenger, thwarting stupidity and poorly conceived notions at every turn (one of which is Gears being a good game). I would just join NeoGAF, but I've never used my ISP email, don't even know the site to get it, wouldn't know my username or password if I did, and don't care enough to find out.

*awaits another reply (isn't it funny, you try to make it seem like I'm wasting my time by replying, implying that I'm stupid for doing so, yet you constantly reply back to me time and time again)

Apparently, in GoW2, the guns are extremely weak so everyone goes around engaging in combat with chainsaws.
And as for CoD5, it's just an add-on to CoD4.

The guns aren't weak,they are just tweaked to the game play the designers wanted from the start,meaning they toned down the shotgun so people aren't shotgun dancing in the middle of the map and instead are moving from cover to cover like intended.

The chainsaw though,that thing is unstoppable. I've blasted and been blasted directly in the face only to continue running at them with my chainsaw up and kill them.

The chainsaw though,that thing is unstoppable. I've blasted and been blasted directly in the face only to continue running at them with my chainsaw up and kill them.

It's gotta be a bug. It doesn't do this in single player, and, since they addressed the shotgun issue from GOW1, it doesn't seem logical that they'd transplant unfair advantages to the lancer's chainsaw. What would be the point of correcting the balance of one weapon only to over-power an already perfectly balanced other weapon? Hmmm...

It's gotta be a bug. It doesn't do this in single player, and, since they addressed the shotgun issue from GOW1, it doesn't seem logical that they'd transplant unfair advantages to the lancer's chainsaw. What would be the point of correcting the balance of one weapon only to over-power an already perfectly balanced other weapon? Hmmm...

It's a balance issue,I doubt it was intended.

I used to use the chainsaw all the time in the first game and switched to the Hammerburst in this one because I feel like such a fuck ass using the vacu-saw.

That and the Hammerburst will down people in like 4-5 well placed shots.

It's gotta be a bug. It doesn't do this in single player, and, since they addressed the shotgun issue from GOW1, it doesn't seem logical that they'd transplant unfair advantages to the lancer's chainsaw. What would be the point of correcting the balance of one weapon only to over-power an already perfectly balanced other weapon? Hmmm...

Yeah thats true the chainsaw is pretty fucking good, but you can rape with it in single player, but why did they have to tone down the shotgun so much :(

Why don't we just make two separate threads for Call of Duty World at War and another for Gears Of War 2? I am sure the games are pretty fun for I have played them both but you can't really compare them since they are two completely different games... Gears is more futuristic with "Halo like" graphics, (Meaning that the graphics are beautiful... Not trying to say the game is like halo in any way except it has halo like graphics but more intensified.) Call of Duty is more early on set in the 1940s of course and has decent enough graphics... The game play for both games are completely different giving you little to help you compare with overall... Personally I just think it would just depend on what kind of game you like and what your gaming style is...

i got both, but play WaW a lot more

Because the shotgun was ridiculous in gears 1 and turned every encounter into a stupid game of luck unless the connection was perfect. The chainsaw is to hard to stop now though, they wanted to make chainsaw duels happen a lot I guess but still. Especially if theres lag then your only defense is your own chainsaw which is gay.