Poll: Why is Treyarch considered the worse of the duo?

[Dogstile]

Treyarch made Call Of Duty 3 and 5. Both of these were said to be complete and utter poop and while I cannot comment on COD 3, I can say that Call Of Duty 5 was excellent in terms of storytelling and making the player feel more immersed in the game. The lighting effects were brilliant, the guns were sufficiently powerful and the sounds seemed legit. They even put zombies into their game which turned out to be one of the most fun game modes I have ever played.

Which is why I'm infuriated that they are considered worse than Infinity Ward every time they are compared. Infinity ward seem to just be on a crash course of "more explosions = better" lately. The story is to patchy to actually make you care (with Modern Warfare 2 at least) and the guns are either too accurate or not accurate enough or even worse screw with the range. As far as I can remember they also seem to release they're games with more glitch's in them too.

So why is Infinity Ward considered better? Personally I think it's because people heard that 3 was bad and entered the game with a bad attitude towards it from the beginning, but i'm interested in your thoughts.

(I also heard that people were tired of hearing about ME2 and stopped complaining about the MW2 threads, so I figured I can post this without being flamed now.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I really do like them both.

But I like Treyarch better. Barely.

Because they gave us CAMPAIGN co-op.

 

[sms_117b]

The multiplayer mode just felt slower and a bit incomplete when compared to CoD4 and now MW2, I don't know really, that's all I can think of, was my only complaint about the game anyway.

 

[BeeRye]

I just did not like either COD 3 or 5 as much as I did the others. I didn't think they were utter crap or anything, but they just didn't do it for me.

 

[Uszi]

Treyarch gets hate because they refuse to move beyond WW2.
But there's a good reason. WW2 games are sweet. I enjoy them a lot. And many other people do too.

 

[The87Italians]

The only reason I've ever thought Treyarch was crap was because COD5 was just a re skinned version of COD4 with a fancy new zombie mode (which is really the only reason I played through single player). Did anyone else notice how the level in Stalingrad was a whole lot like the Cherynobl level in COD4?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I loved the COD WAW campaign.

The multi got annoying after five minutes due to the stupid commentators and wonky animations.

Treyarch make better shooters than 99% of devs, it's just that Infinity Ward make better set pieces.

 

[-Drifter-]

It probably has to do with the multiplayer, which I never played in either game. Found the campaign of World at War much more fun than CoD4 though (in other words, it didn't bore me to tears.)

 

[dmase]

CoD3 was utter crap i can't help it. It felt exactly like 1&2 except worse. 5 I liked good game and all that, but I'm so damn tired of WWII that Modern Warfare has me. Anything under 2010 in a historical timeline is going to feel like a let down now.

 

[Apocalypse Tank]

Treyarch made Call Of Duty 3 and 5. Both of these were said to be complete and utter poop and while I cannot comment on COD 3, I can say that Call Of Duty 5 was excellent in terms of storytelling and making the player feel more immersed in the game. The lighting effects were brilliant, the guns were sufficiently powerful and the sounds seemed legit. They even put zombies into their game which turned out to be one of the most fun game modes I have ever played.

Which is why I'm infuriated that they are considered worse than Infinity Ward every time they are compared. Infinity ward seem to just be on a crash course of "more explosions = better" lately. The story is to patchy to actually make you care (with Modern Warfare 2 at least) and the guns are either too accurate or not accurate enough or even worse screw with the range. As far as I can remember they also seem to release they're games with more glitch's in them too.

So why is Infinity Ward considered better? Personally I think it's because people heard that 3 was bad and entered the game with a bad attitude towards it from the beginning, but i'm interested in your thoughts.

(I also heard that people were tired of hearing about ME2 and stopped complaining about the MW2 threads, so I figured I can post this without being flamed now.

Treyarch have absolutely zero creativity. They take what infinityward made the year before and refurbish it in a setting that was done to death. The Call of Duty series would be better actually, if they took out the treyarch 'fillers'.

 

[Mr. Gency]

The only reason I've ever thought Treyarch was crap was because COD5 was just a re skinned version of COD4 with a fancy new zombie mode (which is really the only reason I played through single player). Did anyone else notice how the level in Stalingrad was a whole lot like the Cherynobl level in COD4?

cod5 made me think of what it would be like if Infinity Ward stayed in WW2

 

[TaborMallory]

I can think of three reasons that got blown into epic proportions:
-CoD3 sucked
-Infinity Ward made Modern Warfare
-Treyarch brought CoD5 back to WWII (The very mention of World War II turns the stomach of many people, regardless of whether or not the actual game was good or not.)

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

*sniff*Because*sniff*cuz theyz don't maek hardcore modirnz!!!!!

OT: Infinity Ward has done nothing but war shooters. Treyarch did all the good spiderman games, and for that I will always love them. Not to mention they look out for little people by porting an extremely good game to the Wii successfully along with their own creation. Here's hoping for MW@: Reflex in 2010!

They didn't do ALL the good Spiderman games. They did SMan 2. but they also did the terrible Spiderman 3. The excellent Web of Shadows was someone else.

 

[Chechosaurus]

I think that CoD 3 was just... awful buuuuuuuuuuuut, CoD 5 was a considerable improvement. That being said, I still prefer Infinity Ward but I think that's really just because I, and pretty much every one else, is sick of WWII. Modern Warfare was new and different and while there was nothing wrong with World at War, it was let down by its setting if you ask me.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I think that CoD 3 was just... awful buuuuuuuuuuuut, CoD 5 was a considerable improvement. That being said, I still prefer Infinity Ward but I think that's really just because I, and pretty much every one else, is sick of WWII. Modern Warfare was new and different and while there was nothing wrong with World at War, it was let down by its setting if you ask me.

oddly, I'm sick of Modern Shooters, having not played many WW2 games.

 

[Mr. Gency]

Treyarch made Call Of Duty 3 and 5. Both of these were said to be complete and utter poop and while I cannot comment on COD 3, I can say that Call Of Duty 5 was excellent in terms of storytelling and making the player feel more immersed in the game. The lighting effects were brilliant, the guns were sufficiently powerful and the sounds seemed legit. They even put zombies into their game which turned out to be one of the most fun game modes I have ever played.

Which is why I'm infuriated that they are considered worse than Infinity Ward every time they are compared. Infinity ward seem to just be on a crash course of "more explosions = better" lately. The story is to patchy to actually make you care (with Modern Warfare 2 at least) and the guns are either too accurate or not accurate enough or even worse screw with the range. As far as I can remember they also seem to release they're games with more glitch's in them too.

So why is Infinity Ward considered better? Personally I think it's because people heard that 3 was bad and entered the game with a bad attitude towards it from the beginning, but i'm interested in your thoughts.

(I also heard that people were tired of hearing about ME2 and stopped complaining about the MW2 threads, so I figured I can post this without being flamed now.

Treyarch have absolutely zero creativity. They take what infinityward made the year before and refurbish it in a setting that was done to death. The Call of Duty series would be better actually, if they took out the treyarch 'fillers'.

But when you think about it it gives Infinity Ward an extra year to do their thing

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I liked both of them and Call of Duty 3 was the game that got me into the series. Treyarch if anything did the Veteran diffculty right and made it EXTREMELY hard. The other games had less enemies to deal with so it was a lot simpler.

 

[Agiel7]

I actually thought more highly of World at War than Modern Warfare 1 and 2. The grittier narrative and a theme of the true horrors of war made for a better story, even in a setting that's been done many times before. Whereas the story of Modern Warfare 2 was shallow, World at War was simply a harrowing and intense experience.

As for the Stalingrad level being a copy of "All Ghillied Up," I think Stalingrad was one of the better FPS sequences I've played, from you playing dead as a grenadier hoses your writhing buddies with his MP-40, to the improvised tactics you and your comrades use, to the moments when the Germans vengefully hose the building you and you're friend are in with Napalm, it made for a very intense experience.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Was W@W really that good? MP copy-pasted from Cod4 with even less balance and a SP mode which decides that the only thing that changes with difficulty is whether or not you're inundated with grenades every 5 feet (even CoD4 wasn't that bad) say that it's not.