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

[Baron_BJ]

I'm a single player man, and IW seems to have a more polished product, story aside MW2's campaign did play smoothly, weapons looked and felt beautiful, especially in comparison to Treyarch games.

 

[Mcface]

Infinity ward hasn't made a good game since 2.

You really didn't like MW1?

nope.
unbalanced guns and over powered perks.

everyone used the m16, mp5 or a sniper.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

IMO:

I.W. games are far more innovative, they push the series in new directions with fresh additions and developments to existing formulas. Their games are technically superior (graphics, netcode, etc.; they run smoother with fewer hiccups), the soundtracks are MUCH better (Hans Zimmer > all), the gameplay in both SP and MP is intense and over-the-top, and they are generally more epic in scope.

Treyarch seems to take the innovation and development that I.W. has established, they re-skin it, and then tweak it in order to balance it better. They clearly support their games after release better, and listen to the community much more often. They play it safe and maintain the status quo, and do a good job of it.

So the question of who is the "superior developer" depends on what you consider important. Treyarch games may be better supported/balanced, but they wouldn't even be in this conversation if it weren't for the innovations and ideas of I.W. in the first place.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

The M16 ruled everything because it was a two-bullet kill with stopping power, making it a shotgun up close and a one-burst kill anywhere else.

I have to be honest here I have heard a couple complain about this but they were all on console. Not to sound elitist by that it is just an observation. On PC and with myself personally I never found this weapon to be imbalanced what so ever. Especially on Hardcore. I found it to be completely pants in close quarters compared to nearly every other Assault Rifle and was only good in Mid to longe range. Even at that I still prefered the G3 for HC while I would use it for normal. So anyway I don't know if the weapon is a big deal on the consoles due to aim assist but it was not a big weapon on the PC. It was not that widely used and no one ever complained about it. The AK47 or the M14(I think it is M14 been awhile. The one that is a more accurate but less damaging AK) were the usually go to assualt rifles for scrims. The odd person taking the M16 as an assualt rifle.

OT: I think IW is better but onnly because at the moment they have made more better games than Treyarch. CoD 1, 2 & 4(stop calling it MW I don't want it affiliate with that other game) were all good in my eyes but I refuse to touch the steaming pile that is MW2. Although technically speaking that is a spin off and not part of the main franchise.

Treyarch CoD 3 was pants, CoD WaW was alright but it was basically just CoD 4 reskinned with a couple of new toys like flamethrower and bayonettes and vehicles. Although so far Blops is shaping up to be quite good. The only problems I have with it are the game on Single randomly freezes for no reason and I spent Christmas fixing the same problem for the multiplayer and a problem where the game didn't want to go over 10fps.

 

[Danpascooch]

Infinity ward hasn't made a good game since 2.

You really didn't like MW1?

nope.
unbalanced guns and over powered perks.

everyone used the m16, mp5 or a sniper.

Oh, I was really talking about Campaign, I never really did multiplayer in MW1, so I have no idea if it was good or bad.

 

[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.

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.

Are you freaking kidding me? Did you even READ my post? I JUST SAID that the "your friend is working for the enemy and will stab you in the back" was NOT the twist in Black Ops, I KNOW it was the twist in No Russian.

Dear god dude, PAY ATTENTION!

 

[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.

Are you freaking kidding me? Did you even READ my post? I JUST SAID that the "your friend is working for the enemy and will stab you in the back" was NOT the twist in Black Ops, I KNOW it was the twist in No Russian.

Dear god dude, PAY ATTENTION!

Aren't you the who should be paying attention, I said it, you repeated it, so I said it again, now your saying it again.

 

[voetballeeuw]

Well, my vote goes for Treyarch. COD3 was the first game I played on Xbox Live and I thought it was awesome. The maps were interesting and I loved the class system. I thought WAW was better overall as well. I enjoyed the maps for multiplayer. A lot of them were quite interesting, good sniper spots. I also enjoyed the bolt action rifles. Blops though, in my mind, is not the strongest game. The story is convoluted and seizure inducing. Needless violence is thrown in constantly just to prove the game is "hardcore". I think they ultimately failed to give the franchise the typical epic feel at the end. Instead of some new ridiculous scenario they did the whole

Spoiler

The ship is sinking scenario over again and a measly strangling scene. At least in MW2 I threw a knife at someone.

The gameplay was fun but it bordered the edge of absurdity and batshit insanity. The multiplayer is a blast to play though, when I'm not punching holes in my wall. Even though, I'm not that big of a Blops fan I still prefer it to MW and MW2.

 

[Jack and Calumon]

Infinity Ward doesn't know the meaning of the word "Balance."

Treyarch doesn't know the meaning to the words "Bug Testing."

Sledgehammer doesn't know what they're getting into.

I picked I.W out of pity for suffering Activision's iron fist seeped in Lava.

Calumon: Can't we say they're both good? Or Bad, since you guys like moaning a lot. It is kinda silly. ^^

 

[Geekosaurus]

For me Treyarch just seem to copy Infinity Ward.

 

[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.

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.

Are you freaking kidding me? Did you even READ my post? I JUST SAID that the "your friend is working for the enemy and will stab you in the back" was NOT the twist in Black Ops, I KNOW it was the twist in No Russian.

Dear god dude, PAY ATTENTION!

Aren't you the who should be paying attention, I said it, you repeated it, so I said it again, now your saying it again.

No, I started by saying "The twist was really obvious"

Then you said "Yeah, it was betrayal, just like No Russian"

then I said "That wasn't the twist, it wasn't a betrayal, it was being a sleeper agent"

and then you just replied "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." as if you thought I just said the twist was betrayal, totally demonstrating that you have no idea what is going on.

I'm going to stop now, it's impossible to talk when you think I'm arguing the exact opposite of what I'm arguing, there's no way I can discuss this when you have absolutely no idea what I've been saying.

 

[rory12345]

COD1 was the best game of the series, so IW.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

N-space because they never really gave me an issue to complain about (except maybe the controls a bit).

 

[Baron_BJ]

N-space because they never really gave me an issue to complain about (except maybe the controls a bit).

I feel like a fool for asking this, but who are N-space and what CoD game did they create at all?

 

[Ashcrexl]

easy. treyarch has made one mediocre game (3) one game that starts off great, but gets progressively more stupid (5), and one awesome game (7). meanwhile, IW has made 4 absolutely fantastic games with one being one of my all time favorite FPS's (4). definitely IW. luv ya guys. now get on that MW3!

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

N-space because they never really gave me an issue to complain about (except maybe the controls a bit).

I feel like a fool for asking this, but who are N-space and what CoD game did they create at all?

They made the DS ports of all the post CoD4 games. They are a developer who only makes DS games.

 

[Karma168]

I'm gonna say IW

treyarch haven't had an innovative idea in years, the only semi decent thing is zombies (and sorry folks its not that good)

some of the things i clocked in black ops:

vehicle sections - IW introduce them in MW2 to great excitment so treyarch stick in two 10 second token drives and a practical copy of MW2's section

split-screen online multiplayer: straight rip from halo as co-op multiplayer is really popular on that game

Cod points - reach beta, need i say more


p.s why did treyarch do so much work on the combat training A.I and have the campaign A.I seems to have been beaten savagely with the stupid stick?

 

[northeast rower]

I'm gonna say IW

treyarch haven't had an innovative idea in years, the only semi decent thing is zombies (and sorry folks its not that good)

some of the things i clocked in black ops:

vehicle sections - IW introduce them in MW2 to great excitment so treyarch stick in two 10 second token drives and a practical copy of MW2's section

split-screen online multiplayer: straight rip from halo as co-op multiplayer is really popular on that game

Cod points - reach beta, need i say more


p.s why did treyarch do so much work on the combat training A.I and have the campaign A.I seems to have been beaten savagely with the stupid stick?

I think the way Treyard did vehicles kept them from getting stale. Same thing with IW. You don't want a shooter focused on vehicles. On that note, Treyarch was actually the first to introduce driving sections into a CoD game (CoD 3). Besides which, Treyarch's "10 second toke drives" were, from what I remember, a motorcycle chase lasting roughly as long as the snowmobile sequence from MW2, a few escort missions, and an entire fucking level based around piloting a helicopter.

Also, the CoD point system works differently from that of Halo. Halo's system has you upgrading the LOOKS of armor, not anything that can actually customize your character's abilities. CoD points unlock guns, perks, attachments, etc. If you really want to get technical, Splinter Cell: Conviction did it before either of those two games.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Personally I'd like it if Treyarch was more willing to listen to the community, They continue to add infinetly spawning enemies who are constantly throwing grenades that can never run out, despite the fact that these functions have been universally despised and panned from all corners, whilst IF was still able to create functional levels without using either of these horrible mechanics.

Yeah, but to me MW2 looked nice but was otherwise a monstrosity, though then again Activison fucked that one up, not Infinity Ward.

Anyways, this is my view on the games.

Infinity Ward
-
CoD 1 - 4.5ish
CoD 2 - 5
CoD 4 - 5
MW2 - 3.5ish

Treyarch
-
CoD 3 - 3
Console spin-offs - 3
CoD WaW - 4

Epic snip.

Agreed...mostly.

Black Ops has more issues than CoD 4 overall, but then again its a bigger game.
You forgot to mention the SMG's of doom in World at War, you also didn't mention S Power or Juggernaut in any of the games.
And its somewhat understandable the M1887 patches took a while, but the whole damn game should've been patched too.

Though I think we can agree MW2 was f'ed in the head.

 

[NewYork_Comedian]

I like both, i thought that World at War and Black ops > Modern Warfare 2, but Call of Duty 1, 2, and 4 are amazing, so I like both, but IW takes the cake.