Poll: Call of Duty; Which Dev Team was Superior?

[binvjoh]

Treyarch for me.

Loved WaW, liked Black Ops.

 

[lostzombies.com]

You're all probably aware of what happened with Activision and Infinity Ward a fair while back, leaving us with only Treyarch working on the CoD franchise (You're probably aware that both IF and Treyarch would work on seperate games at the same time so that more CoD games would be out faster, this being why the games would come out Treyarch, Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Infinity Ward, etc, etc), and I'm constantly reading that people believe Treyarch to be inferior, but I've never seen anyone state it themselves, so it makes me wonder; is this the communities stance? Which developer of the two did you think created better games for the series and why? (This isn't about whether or not you think the series is now all about money, has turned to shit, the people who talk are jackasses, etc, etc. Keep that crap outta here).

Bobby Kotik said yesterday that Treyarch did most of the work for the multiplayers for MW1 and MW2, the article is on the escapist somewhere

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I'm saying Treyarch, because I really like WaW. I still liked MW 1 & 2, but WaW wins.

 

[Danpascooch]

I hope you weren't being sarcastic, as it's kind of not cool to use the word "seriously" unless you're serious.

My point was that IW made its popular titles from scratch, whereas Treyarch took Modern Warfare 2, and just did a little tweaking for Black Ops. Infinity Ward actually made something, whereas Treyarch only polished it a bit.

That's not considering the campaigns of course, but honestly I HATED the Black Ops campaign, the twist was so fucking obvious it actually made me feel insulted.

I was being serious.

Isn't any good/decent sequel just polishing the last? The only thing thats makes this different is two devs are involved in one series.

What did you want them to do? Make a bad game? From what you have said there is no way for them to win, they made a good game (better than MW2 anyway) and you accuse them of just releasing a big patch as a game. If they had made a bad game they would be accused of not learning from IW and being shit/bad at there job/whatever.

They are paid to make a game, they will do it to the best of there ability. Instead of comparing black ops to MW2, think of it like a stand alone game.

The SP are worlds apart. MW2 has this spagehti like story, it is almost imposable to follow. We jump from person to person, destination to destination, I still have no clue what the story was (other than the obvious "Russia invades America 'cos an American helped kill a boat load of people").

Black ops had a good story, (you might have seen it coming but I doubt it, I think some people just like to hate on treyarch/COD/whatever) I was able to follow it, it had a nice surprise and it was interesting.

The only thing I found outragous was Mason at the very start, this guy is a black ops guy (which means if he gets caught his government deny knowing him, which means no help) but he gets caught and questioned by an unknown person and after ignoring one question, he breaks down and tells them everything.

Just my thoughts anyway.

I agree fully that the campaign is completely original on Treyarch's part, I was talking about the multiplayer since that is the main selling point of the series. (I thought the campaign was pretty awful in Black Ops though, for MW2 it had a terrible story but at least it had modern weaponry for you to have fun with, in Black Ops it had a story that could have been great, but instead catered to the most obvious twist in human history, AND was stuck with archaic weaponry)

Anyway, as for the multiplayer, YES every sequel is usually a polishing of the first game, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it makes Black Ops a better game than MW2 (as far as multiplayer is concerned). BUT it does NOT make them a better developer. Think about it this way, if Infinity Ward didn't have access to Treyarch's work, we would still have MW2, but if Treyarch didn't have access to MW2 when making the multiplayer for Black Ops, you could bet your ass we wouldn't have anywhere near the fun online Black Ops we have today.

Treyarch didn't necessarily do anything wrong, but they added a step to a 50 story staircase that Infinity Ward built, and they shouldn't be considered a better developer for it. Remember, this is about which DEVELOPMENT team was better, not which game was better, Treyarch was standing on the shoulders of MW2, so of course it was better, but how much of that is actually due to Treyarch?

Anyway, it seems you are one of the few people who actually played the campaign, so do yourself a favor and try Modern Warfare 1, it has an absolutely epic campaign.

 

[Worgen]

Ive been playing waw recently and its ok, its no mw and the guns sound like popgun but maybe Im just used to bad company 2 and its awesome sound effects, oh and the story in waw hurts my historical accuracy gland, much more then most things

 

[Outright Villainy]

Modern warfare 1 is still the the best by miles, so IW for me.

I must state however, that this is based on single player, and splitscreen. Online multiplayer holds no appeal for me, beyond 20 minutes or so every couple of months.

Oh, and Modern warfare 2 had a great split screen co-op missions.

Treyarch don't even let you turn the fucking radar on in splitscreen. It's laughably rushed.

the guns sound like popgun

That's an issue for me in Black Ops too. I want some meat in my guns!

 

[TerranReaper]

Treyarch is a ***** company that holds its player base for ransom and doesn't let them play unless they buy their map packs. See, console version WaW.

Infinity Ward still made UO. Even if they're scum now, they still made UO.

Might want to research your facts before saying IW made UO, last I checked, UO was made by another company.

OT: CoD4 was superior to WaW, while Black Ops and WaW were superior to MW2. CoD3 wasn't that bad in my opinion, but is still very lackluster in comparison to everything else. IW made the first two CoDs, which they get some credit for. I find Treyarch's single-player CoD games to be a lot more superior to IW's CoDs, with the exception of CoD4 being the best one in my opinion.

You can say that IW did start everything and Treyarch did nothing, but who's the developer that listened to the community and actually tried to help with the problems that plagued MW2's online? While Treyarch probably didn't do an outstanding job, they did try, as opposed to IW not doing anything at all to fix the problems.

 

[omega 616]

I agree fully that the campaign is completely original on Treyarch's part, I was talking about the multiplayer since that is the main selling point of the series. (I thought the campaign was pretty awful in Black Ops though, for MW2 it had a terrible story but at least it had modern weaponry for you to have fun with, in Black Ops it had a story that could have been great, but instead catered to the most obvious twist in human history, AND was stuck with archaic weaponry)

Anyway, as for the multiplayer, YES every sequel is usually a polishing of the first game, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it makes Black Ops a better game than MW2 (as far as multiplayer is concerned). BUT it does NOT make them a better developer. Think about it this way, if Infinity Ward didn't have access to Treyarch's work, we would still have MW2, but if Treyarch didn't have access to MW2 when making the multiplayer for Black Ops, you could bet your ass we wouldn't have anywhere near the fun online Black Ops we have today.

Treyarch didn't necessarily do anything wrong, but they added a step to a 50 story staircase that Infinity Ward built, and they shouldn't be considered a better developer for it. Remember, this is about which DEVELOPMENT team was better, not which game was better, Treyarch was standing on the shoulders of MW2, so of course it was better, but how much of that is actually due to Treyarch?

Anyway, it seems you are one of the few people who actually played the campaign, so do yourself a favor and try Modern Warfare 1, it has an absolutely epic campaign.

Lead comes out of them which makes people fall down, what more do you need?

The most obvious twist in history is "your friend is working for the enemy and will stab you in the back" ... wasn't that the plot of "No Russian"?

Trey used common sense, who wouldn't take the quickest selling game of all time (or something like that) and spit shine it? It would be better than starting from scratch and running the risk of getting alot of pissed off people (which they actually did anyway, on the PS3 atleast).

I have played the MW1 SP, I have to say it wasn't that great. I know people on here get a bit ravy about it but I think it's good just not a "ZOMG" kinda thing. Such as the crawling out of the chopper thing after the nuke, it was good but by no means a "Wow, that is sooo awesome!" thing.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Treyarch has yet to make a good Call of Duty game. They've made 2 mediocre games (WaW and Black Ops) and one horrible game (CoD3). Infinity Ward made one AMAZING game (CoD4) and one mediocre-to-bad game (MW2). I'm giving it to the guys who made an AMAZING game.

 

[Delta 3 Actual]

Eye Dub, because CoD4 is still the greatest of the series.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Treyarch is a ***** company that holds its player base for ransom and doesn't let them play unless they buy their map packs. See, console version WaW.

Infinity Ward still made UO. Even if they're scum now, they still made UO.

Might want to research your facts before saying IW made UO, last I checked, UO was made by another company.

OT: CoD4 was superior to WaW, while Black Ops and WaW were superior to MW2. CoD3 wasn't that bad in my opinion, but is still very lackluster in comparison to everything else. IW made the first two CoDs, which they get some credit for. I find Treyarch's single-player CoD games to be a lot more superior to IW's CoDs, with the exception of CoD4 being the best one in my opinion.

You can say that IW did start everything and Treyarch did nothing, but who's the developer that listened to the community and actually tried to help with the problems that plagued MW2's online? While Treyarch probably didn't do an outstanding job, they did try, as opposed to IW not doing anything at all to fix the problems.

Damn, I was wrong. No wonder IW can't make a good CoD anymore.

Edit: I'm changing my vote. Other: Gray Matter Interactive is the best developer of CoD.

 

[Dango]

Well Infinity Ward developed Call of Duty 2, which is my favorite game of all time, but they also made Call of Duty 4, one of my most hated games of all time.

 

[Mr. Omega]

IW does better single player. No contest. Anyone trying to say Treyarch does better single player is lying to themselves.
But CoD is now a multiplayer-focused series, and Treyarch is easily better than IW at that. Look me in the eyes and tell me with a straight face that MW2's multiplayer is better than BlOps' multiplayer. *waits* I didn't think so.

Really, the better developer all comes down to how you like your FPS game. What we need is for IW to make MW3, but let Treyarch handle the multiplayer. And include Zombie mode. Because Zombie mode is f***ing awesome.

 

[Danpascooch]

I agree fully that the campaign is completely original on Treyarch's part, I was talking about the multiplayer since that is the main selling point of the series. (I thought the campaign was pretty awful in Black Ops though, for MW2 it had a terrible story but at least it had modern weaponry for you to have fun with, in Black Ops it had a story that could have been great, but instead catered to the most obvious twist in human history, AND was stuck with archaic weaponry)

Anyway, as for the multiplayer, YES every sequel is usually a polishing of the first game, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it makes Black Ops a better game than MW2 (as far as multiplayer is concerned). BUT it does NOT make them a better developer. Think about it this way, if Infinity Ward didn't have access to Treyarch's work, we would still have MW2, but if Treyarch didn't have access to MW2 when making the multiplayer for Black Ops, you could bet your ass we wouldn't have anywhere near the fun online Black Ops we have today.

Treyarch didn't necessarily do anything wrong, but they added a step to a 50 story staircase that Infinity Ward built, and they shouldn't be considered a better developer for it. Remember, this is about which DEVELOPMENT team was better, not which game was better, Treyarch was standing on the shoulders of MW2, so of course it was better, but how much of that is actually due to Treyarch?

Anyway, it seems you are one of the few people who actually played the campaign, so do yourself a favor and try Modern Warfare 1, it has an absolutely epic campaign.

Lead comes out of them which makes people fall down, what more do you need?

The most obvious twist in history is "your friend is working for the enemy and will stab you in the back" ... wasn't that the plot of "No Russian"?

Trey used common sense, who wouldn't take the quickest selling game of all time (or something like that) and spit shine it? It would be better than starting from scratch and running the risk of getting alot of pissed off people (which they actually did anyway, on the PS3 atleast).

I have played the MW1 SP, I have to say it wasn't that great. I know people on here get a bit ravy about it but I think it's good just not a "ZOMG" kinda thing. Such as the crawling out of the chopper thing after the nuke, it was good but by no means a "Wow, that is sooo awesome!" thing.

"your friend is working for the enemy and will stab you in the back"? Dude, that wasn't the big twist, it was that you were a sleeper agent and you were hallucinating your buddy all along, did you really not get that? They SPELLED it out for you in the end! (literally, your CIA handler actually SAYS it, it was kind of the whole plot of the game)

The moment where they made it so painstakingly obvious is when you were in the Pentagon and had a hallucination of putting a gun up to Kennedy's head, they might as well have said: "HELLO! SLEEPER AGENT HERE! But we're still going to act like it's a big twist later, insulting your intelligence"!

It does make sense that they would spit shine it, they did the right thing, but since it's not an original game made by them, it's a spit shine, I don't count it as highly of a measure of the developer as I do the games that were created entirely by the developer.

Infinity Ward:

- Modern Warfare: Great
- Modern Warfare 2:

Treyarch:

- Call of Duty 3: bad
- Call of Duty, World at War: bad


I don't think it's a coincidence that this is Treyarch's FIRST good game, and it also just so happens to be exactly like Modern Warfare 2. There is no way that is a coincidence. Compare the original made-from-scratch games and Infinity Ward is clearly the better developer.

 

[Sn1P3r M98]

Well, I'm going to do what this guy did:

From Infinity Ward:
Call of Duty - decent
Call of Duty 2 - meh
CoD 4: Modern Warfare - good
Modern Warfare 2 - meh

From Treyarch:
Call of Duty 3 - bleh
World at War - meh
Black Ops - bleh

IW:
CoD- meh
CoD2- Good
CoD4- Great
MW2- Bad


Treyarch:
CoD3- Bad
W@W- Good
Black Ops- Great

Looks like they're fairly even.

 

[SodaDew]

Treyarch... what can I say, I like there style more

 

[omega 616]

I agree fully that the campaign is completely original on Treyarch's part, I was talking about the multiplayer since that is the main selling point of the series. (I thought the campaign was pretty awful in Black Ops though, for MW2 it had a terrible story but at least it had modern weaponry for you to have fun with, in Black Ops it had a story that could have been great, but instead catered to the most obvious twist in human history, AND was stuck with archaic weaponry)

Anyway, as for the multiplayer, YES every sequel is usually a polishing of the first game, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it makes Black Ops a better game than MW2 (as far as multiplayer is concerned). BUT it does NOT make them a better developer. Think about it this way, if Infinity Ward didn't have access to Treyarch's work, we would still have MW2, but if Treyarch didn't have access to MW2 when making the multiplayer for Black Ops, you could bet your ass we wouldn't have anywhere near the fun online Black Ops we have today.

Treyarch didn't necessarily do anything wrong, but they added a step to a 50 story staircase that Infinity Ward built, and they shouldn't be considered a better developer for it. Remember, this is about which DEVELOPMENT team was better, not which game was better, Treyarch was standing on the shoulders of MW2, so of course it was better, but how much of that is actually due to Treyarch?

Anyway, it seems you are one of the few people who actually played the campaign, so do yourself a favor and try Modern Warfare 1, it has an absolutely epic campaign.

Lead comes out of them which makes people fall down, what more do you need?

The most obvious twist in history is "your friend is working for the enemy and will stab you in the back" ... wasn't that the plot of "No Russian"?

Trey used common sense, who wouldn't take the quickest selling game of all time (or something like that) and spit shine it? It would be better than starting from scratch and running the risk of getting alot of pissed off people (which they actually did anyway, on the PS3 atleast).

I have played the MW1 SP, I have to say it wasn't that great. I know people on here get a bit ravy about it but I think it's good just not a "ZOMG" kinda thing. Such as the crawling out of the chopper thing after the nuke, it was good but by no means a "Wow, that is sooo awesome!" thing.

"your friend is working for the enemy and will stab you in the back"? Dude, that wasn't the big twist, it was that you were a sleeper agent and you were hallucinating your buddy all along, did you really not get that? They SPELLED it out for you in the end! (literally, your CIA handler actually SAYS it, it was kind of the whole plot of the game)

The moment where they made it so painstakingly obvious is when you were in the Pentagon and had a hallucination of putting a gun up to Kennedy's head, they might as well have said: "HELLO! SLEEPER AGENT HERE! But we're still going to act like it's a big twist later, insulting your intelligence"!

It does make sense that they would spit shine it, they did the right thing, but since it's not an original game made by them, it's a spit shine, I don't count it as highly of a measure of the developer as I do the games that were created entirely by the developer.

Infinity Ward:

- Modern Warfare: Great
- Modern Warfare 2:

Treyarch:

- Call of Duty 3: bad
- Call of Duty, World at War: bad


I don't think it's a coincidence that this is Treyarch's FIRST good game, and it also just so happens to be exactly like Modern Warfare 2. There is no way that is a coincidence. Compare the original made-from-scratch games and Infinity Ward is clearly the better developer.

Wooooooosh! The "your friend is working for the enemy and will stab you in the back" is kind of the plot of no russian AKA MW2. (he isn't working with the enemy but he still stabs you in the back kinda)

I got the Black ops story 'cos anybody can follow it, I think it is a really well done story. I think it beats Resistance, Halo and killzone very easily (Resistance and Halo = aliens are coming kill them and killzone = ... kill new age Hitler?).

I don't follow the story that closley in games, I just kind of go with the flow of it. For example when he put the gun upto the guys head, I thought it was a kind of "I really want to kill this guy" moment and forgot about it.

It's not the same as MW2 though, unless your thinking of the boradest strokes like "it's an FPS" well so is quake. MW2 is a rabbit on speed and roids, it's all big explosions and fast as hell.

Black ops is held back a little bit it's not as fast as MW2 but it's not as slow as bad company 2, it's a nice pace. It's not got as many cheap kills, can't abuse noob tubes for example.

Like I said I can't remember the other games that well.

I think there is a tendancy to pick and pick at a game till the general concesus is the game is good or bad, or people just remembering the bad parts. I bet some people would be suprised at games they claim to hate if they gave them another shot.

 

[Aesir23]

I'd have to say that Infinity Ward was the best because at least they tried something different with Modern Warfare after Call of Duty 1 & 2.

It seemed like with Black Ops, Treyarch took a portion of what IW had done with the Modern Warfare games, put their own spin on it and tried to make it edgier. (With the glass-in-mouth-face-smashing, near beheading, eye gouging, etc)