Or maybe you could read his sig. And then go and play Call of Duty 4 and realise that that is the best shooter and it is on both consoles

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3906/npd_behind_the_numbers_december_.php?page=5


omg, look at the Market growth, I know part of the jump is the fact games cost 10 bucks more for the HD consoles, but still, 9.9 billion in 04 to 22 billion in 08. Crazy... I would attribute most of it to the Wii and DS...

I have played both a bit for the PS3 (prestige in both) and I would say WaW has better online, mainly because the Maps imo are supieror to the maps of COD4. It is much harder to camp in WaW and it be worth your while (not to many spots where you can hide, and still view a commonly traveled area), the Maps are also more complex, and unless your teammates dont know how to kill tanks (Sometime your teammate are retards and just hide, but if they are smart and whip out the satchels, or Bazokas the tanks dont feel so unbalanced) the tanks maps are fun. Aslo Nazi Zombies is VERY fun, a complete addition from COD4.

COD4 has a more polished feeling single player (most peole get COD for online anyways) and the Modern timeframe feels more fresh.

Really? I haven't got into WaW at all, I have only played 3 hours of that compared to the 40 I played on 4. I much prefer the maps on 4, and I really don't like the tank maps, they just feel a bit empty. Zombies are probably a good addition though they are my least favourite think ever.

I am sure the fact that I am not gaining any trophies by playing WaW online does hurt it a little, and the fact that it feels so similar to 4 after I spent so long on 4 might hurt it, but I just felt it lacked that magic that 4 had. Though overall 4 has to be the better of the 2

so they are not overtracked?

No way am I goting to get in a heated argument with people who want to argue COD4 or COD:W@W are the best FPS on all consoles.  I have not tried World at War, but did play through and beat COD4.  The series does deserve praise now, based on what has been said, and what people experienced.  However, in my personal bias, Gears2 is my top choice now, because of bots mostly.  BUT, I am not going to argue against someone who disagrees and decides they want to stick COD4/W@W  there instead.   I grew weary of W@W because it was Triarch, but the word is they didn't drop the ball, like thety did with COD3.  I still have COD2, and ditched COD3.  COD3 added some major annoyances to the series, as far as I am concerned.

And what can I say about COD4?  Well, it is brilliant.  And W@W, based of COD4, should deserve praise also.  Of course, based on what is said, instead of experience.

the game are both great, and it really just does come down to preference I guess... I think MW-2 will be a huge step up for the series though, and will be a clear #1, just as 4 was, when it is released.

well vgchartz had LBP at 816k, resistance 2 at 680k, and MGS4 at 1.51 million on january 3rd. If we add 10% to NPD it gets us to 670k for LBP, 660k for R2, and 1.17 million for MGS4 (not including bundles). LBP is off by a bit but the rest are fine.

Good job on most of those titles, VGChartz!

Although the figures for Prince of Persia appear to be way off. That game's North American sales, on both platforms, are really, really overtracked. It looks like the game's a bit of a bomb, unless it starts to pick up steam soon...

Poor Prince of Persia.......