A Suggestion To Treyarch

[BanthaFodder]

I will simply say it again, for those who cannot read: I liked Black Ops. I liked World at War. I really like Treyarch. most of my beef rests with Activision. if they didn't have them spewing out these golden eggs as often, they could have more time to address some of the problems.

 

[Talminator]

Oh god. Really?

Here's a summary of what people say....

TREYARCH FIX THIS
TREYARCH FIX THAT
TREYARCH BALANCE THIS
TREYARCH THIS GUN IS IMBALANCED
TREYARCH WAAAAHH I KEEP GETTING KILLED BY ONE GUN SO IT MUST BE OVERPOWERED
TREYARCH WAAAH YOU SUCK FOR NOT SATISFYING EVERY ONE OF OUR COMPLAINTS.

People need to stop beating up on Treyarch. They are doing WAAAY more than Infinity Ward EVER did to support their ga--My bad, IW did NOTHING. Treyarch doesn't deserve to get shit for not satisfying every one of these little complaints at once. Seriously, just stop. If you don't like the game, go back to MW2 and see how you like it.

Treyarch did innovate, a lot, but I guess it wasn't enough for you? Nothing is never enough apparently.

[/rant]

I'm honestly sick of people who do this, just voicing my opinion.

Okay, I'm honestly not trying to start a flame war here, but re-read your argument please. Essentially, you're saying that people shouldn't complain about how Treyarch made a flawed game because Infinity Ward did a worse job? Is it just me, or does this completely defeat the point of buying a sequel to an original title?

Surely the whole point of Treyarch releasing a new COD game is to iron out old bugs, add new content, and try and make a better all-round gaming experience for the consumer. If they don't add much new content, don't fix old bugs and don't improve the gaming experience, why should we buy the game? Your argument is flawed because you're saying it doesn't matter if they don't do their job right, people should just buy it because it's COD, and shut up complaining about problems with the game since Treyarch are better than Infinity Ward anyway. The only way people will get a proper, innovative and interesting game experience is if their complaints are heard by Treyarch, sales drop, and Treyarch subsequently are forced to pull their act together and actually produce an original title for one. I'm sorry my friend, but without the consumer, Treyarch wouldn't exist, so it's only right that we should have a say if we feel that the product they make is sub-par.

Phew, rant over. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I have arthritis from excessive angry typing, and should probably see a doctor.

 

[DalekJaas]

IW is making the next CoD, and the hit detection is fine in BO, get better internet or L2aim. + BO's story took me about 8 hours, it was substantially longer and better than the campaign for MW2.

In the end it doesn't matter if they innovate or not, because huge numbers of people will keep buying CoD. Boycotting MW2 for the PC was hugely unsuccessful, tbh I don't think IW or Treyarch have to listen to anyone because they will make money off the next game anyway. You should just consider it a bonus that they take some criticisms into account.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

All the largest FPS advancements in the multiplayer realm were made with COD4. Everything in the COD franchise since then has been a rehash of those advancements.

 

[BanthaFodder]

Oh god. Really?

Here's a summary of what people say....

TREYARCH FIX THIS
TREYARCH FIX THAT
TREYARCH BALANCE THIS
TREYARCH THIS GUN IS IMBALANCED
TREYARCH WAAAAHH I KEEP GETTING KILLED BY ONE GUN SO IT MUST BE OVERPOWERED
TREYARCH WAAAH YOU SUCK FOR NOT SATISFYING EVERY ONE OF OUR COMPLAINTS.

People need to stop beating up on Treyarch. They are doing WAAAY more than Infinity Ward EVER did to support their ga--My bad, IW did NOTHING. Treyarch doesn't deserve to get shit for not satisfying every one of these little complaints at once. Seriously, just stop. If you don't like the game, go back to MW2 and see how you like it.

Treyarch did innovate, a lot, but I guess it wasn't enough for you? Nothing is never enough apparently.

[/rant]

I'm honestly sick of people who do this, just voicing my opinion.

Okay, I'm honestly not trying to start a flame war here, but re-read your argument please. Essentially, you're saying that people shouldn't complain about how Treyarch made a flawed game because Infinity Ward did a worse job? Is it just me, or does this completely defeat the point of buying a sequel to an original title?

Surely the whole point of Treyarch releasing a new COD game is to iron out old bugs, add new content, and try and make a better all-round gaming experience for the consumer. If they don't add much new content, don't fix old bugs and don't improve the gaming experience, why should we buy the game? Your argument is flawed because you're saying it doesn't matter if they don't do their job right, people should just buy it because it's COD, and shut up complaining about problems with the game since Treyarch are better than Infinity Ward anyway. The only way people will get a proper, innovative and interesting game experience is if their complaints are heard by Treyarch, sales drop, and Treyarch subsequently are forced to pull their act together and actually produce an original title for one. I'm sorry my friend, but without the consumer, Treyarch wouldn't exist, so it's only right that we should have a say if we feel that the product they make is sub-par.

Phew, rant over. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I have arthritis from excessive angry typing, and should probably see a doctor.

THANK YOU GOOD SIR. YOU HAVE SUMMED UP MY EXACT THOUGHTS TO A T.
Black Ops was good, but it definatly should have been better.

 

[Rednog]

My only grudge with 3arch is that the prestige system is still painfull, why do I have to regrind my perks, they aren't fun (seriously marathon is like pulling teeth) and the pro version are a pretty big advantage; and by the time you get all of them pro again odds are you'll be near the point of hitting another level of prestige.
Also the weapon selection, why are there less weapons then the previous installment? And why are so many of them completely useless, I mean common the SPAS is the only good shotgun!
And please make it less twitchy, seriously, I don't know how people do it but I see guys bunny hopping and take out like 4 people with an AK47u without wasting a bullet, I've never seen this in another game.
Also why are some zombie maps only available if you bought the non basic version of the game, I bought the damn game through steam, there was no warning tag that said hey you won't ever be able to get these maps by any other means.

 

[omega_peaches]

Didn't you hear?
IW is making the next CoD.
Hopefully they can have at least half as much consumer support as Treyarch.

They are both making another this year.

Where'd you hear that?

 

[Rednog]

Didn't you hear?
IW is making the next CoD.
Hopefully they can have at least half as much consumer support as Treyarch.

They are both making another this year.

Where'd you hear that?

There was a news release somewhere that they are gearing up the CoD series to work like Football/Baseball games where there is a new one every year.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

The COD series rarely has SIGNIFICANT changes. Must of them are minor FIXES or IMPROVEMENTS to the existing FORMULA.

 

[.No.]

I thought Black Ops was good, I just got tired of it. The campaign was tolerable, the multiplayer was... I actaully didn't play much multiplayer. I mostly just played with a friend(splitscreen), and spent most of the time cursing in vietnamese, and blaming the lag. Which was really fun. Oh, and a spec-ops like add on or something would be great. Or adding co-op to the campaign.

 

[smeghead25]

You can't just keep adding a new story, new maps, and some new weapons.

Sorry to break it to you, but that's the general idea of a sequel... That's all movie sequels do, that's all book sequels do.

They also sell $15 map packs with 3 or maybe 4 maps in. The game ships with something like 16? Sp that's like buying 4 map packs, that's $60. So an extra $40 for a brand new story (and Black Ops was actually good compared to MW2, and had a decent length) along with new game modes like the Wager matches and those new weapons you mentioned, is actually good value. No one complains that Gears of War 2 didn't innovate, and there was less new stuff there. Same with God of War, BioShock 2, Halo 3 and Reach, or pretty much ANY sport or racing game these days.

It is all a matter of opinion though. What really pisses me off though is that people play a single CoD game for 200+ hours, and then get pissed off because the developer hasn't changed much from the last one and they get angry that they're paying for something they feel like thay've already played to death. If you want innovation or different game experiences, DON'T LOOK TO THE SAME FUCKING FRANCHISE, TRY SOME NEW SHIT INSTEAD OF PLAYING THE SAME FUCKING GAME.

 

[Chappy]

why are there less weapons then the previous installment? And why are so many of them completely useless, I mean common the SPAS is the only good shotgun!

I have to respectfully disagree, I think the Stakeout is ok maybe not as good but it can hold it's own especially if your using slight of hand (pro helps).

Anyway OT people there is one thing to me that really does need a fix, the host system I think I'm at the point now where the game has ended more times from 'searching for host' than I have had complete games.

 

[Rednog]

There was a news release somewhere that they are gearing up the CoD series to work like Football/Baseball games where there is a new one every year.

That doesnt do anything to support what you said about them both making another this year. They have been releasing one a year for the past few years, treyarch one year IW the next. They would never release two call of duty games in the same year.

My only grudge with 3arch is that the prestige system is still painfull, why do I have to regrind my perks, they aren't fun (seriously marathon is like pulling teeth) and the pro version are a pretty big advantage; and by the time you get all of them pro again odds are you'll be near the point of hitting another level of prestige.
Also the weapon selection, why are there less weapons then the previous installment? And why are so many of them completely useless, I mean common the SPAS is the only good shotgun!
And please make it less twitchy, seriously, I don't know how people do it but I see guys bunny hopping and take out like 4 people with an AK47u without wasting a bullet, I've never seen this in another game.
Also why are some zombie maps only available if you bought the non basic version of the game, I bought the damn game through steam, there was no warning tag that said hey you won't ever be able to get these maps by any other means.

If you dont like the prestige system and having to regrind all your stuff then its simple, dont prestige. Nobody is forcing you to hit that little button. I really dont see your complaint though since I have all the pro versions of the perks I want by level 20.

As for the zombie maps if you ordered the collectors edition they included the 4 maps from world at war. Just like nearly ever other game if you dont buy the collectors edition you dont get the bonus content it offers. Seems like it should have been common sense. Did you honestly think they would just release the collectors shit as bonus dlc or something. I dont see why they would need a warning tag that says you dont get any bonus content if you buy the regular version.

Most bonus content from games have little or no impact on multiplayer. I mean this is a big difference between something that is cosmetic or just for fun stuff; this is basically not being able to play 4/7 possible zombie maps. I mean common, when I first loaded up zombie mode I was like wtf 1 map only and I can only unlock two more? That is pretty pathetic...oh look there are 4 maps that I will never get access too. Say you were a fan of the zombie mode, you essentially got screwed by buying the steam version (and make a huge note here because digital copies can't offer you anything more than the basic package). Why not offer players the option to buy the maps at some point instead of forever locking them out. I thought the only difference between the versions was the stupid RC car, probably some concept art, and the tin. If there is content that affects your gameplay with others there should be some warning tag, because it has actual multiplayer gameplay consequences.

As for the prestige thing, I sort of have to do it if I want to unlock all the class slots, face paints, backgrounds, gun camos etc. Maybe you're amazing at completing the requirements but I really don't have that luck, I prestiged this morning, and only got sleight of hand, steady aim, lightweight, and marathon pro and I had to actually go out of my way and play CTF and S&D to get the qualifying stuff for marathon. And the same time I hit marathon pro I hit level 40. Some are really out of the way, like ghost requiring you to kill a sentry gun, I've seen like 2 in the last week of playing...so yea.

 

[AmPedHer0]

But omega_peaches u must remember that if it wasn't for IW there wouldn't be CoD

 

[WaReloaded]

I just wish Call of Duty 3 became popular again :/
One of the best FPS multiplayer experiences I ever had.

 

[bloob]

THE COD POINTS: I LOVE THIS SYSTEM. BEST CHANGE OF BLACK OPS. The player can focus on what THEY want, not all the little bullshitty parts inbetween. Good move Treyarch.

How are the cod points good you still have to level to unlock the weapons as well as use cod points, use either cod points or a leveling system not both i hate having to work twice just for one weapon

 

[Kitteh]

Change: THE HIT DETECTION: Jesus, just PLEASE fix this! Make it so bullets KILL people in multiplayer.
THE HIT BOXES: Make the blood a separate model from the player. I'm sick of getting injured, spurting blood, ducking behind cover, then dying because someone shot the blood spray.
THE STORY: I know Activision DEMANDS 1 CoD per year, but TRY and unfuck yourselves from the "5-hour-campaign-with-a-meh-to-pretty-good-storyline" rut.
THE SETTING: Enough of this "secret agent" shit. Yes, SOME levels are cool, but entire games don't work as well. What about playing a grunt, a private, in Vietnam? Or WWI? Make us feel like we are a part of something BIGGER than ourselves... that we are a part of the military machine.

Keep: THE GENERAL MULTIPLAYER: This is good. Add a few modes, maybe up the realism TINY bit, but the whole "this is just for fun" feel of the multiplayer works for the most part. If you have to change anything, try and make it less of a twitch shooter and make us THINK. Make us WORK for each and every kill.
THE MULTI-SOLDIER PLAY: I like playing as a few different soldiers during a conflict. Don't cange this, it helps the player see the story from a different perspective (also offers different locations).
THE COD POINTS: I LOVE THIS SYSTEM. BEST CHANGE OF BLACK OPS. The player can focus on what THEY want, not all the little bullshitty parts inbetween. Good move Treyarch.

Hit detection is so off it's turned me off the multiplayer. Story was...well maybe they ran out of OJ that morning. The setting wasn't secret agent, ***** please. Black ops should be plausible deniability for stealthy, perhaps not even direct fire. But yes, I do want a game where it doesn't put you in a special forces by default. i also like the cod points. in mw2, i literally did the marksman challenges for each weapon to get to 70 faster. i just wish i could kill enough people so i can get enough cod points for what i want to get.