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

[Fenring]

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.

Did you ever play any of the Brothers in Arms games? They're more tactical than the CoD series, but for WWII, they've got the best story imo.

On topic, Treyarch. Every time I play they seem to have added something new to the gameplay (throwing back grenades, vehicles) and I find their games much more varied than IW's. In my opinion, IW seems to stagnate a bit on gameplay and focuses too much on graphics.

 

[Squilookle]

People like Infinity Ward more because it's popular to bash WW2 games, despite the fact that WW2 offers far more variety for a shooter. All they want is some contrived modern setting they can somehow pretend could happen. Anything set before the mid 90s is beyond their imagination.

Personally I think 'modern' shooters out-saturate ww2 games in the FPS market by about 5 to 1.

 

[ArtVSscience]

Treyarch is worse because on veteran it is FUCKING BULL SHIT! Not that many grenades were used in all of history.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Yes, World at War was good, but it was the Call of Duty franchise's fourth World War II installment. True, World War II is one of my favorite wars, but I can't tell you how many games I've played that are based in World War II. We wanted variaty, not Nazi's, even if they do make great zombies.

 

[Autofaux]

Treyarch is Activision's filler Call of Duty dev. World at War was made using the Call of Duty 4 engine. Treyarch also made the (horrible) Spider-Man movie tie-in game, Call of Duty 2 Big Red One, and Call of Duty 3. Big Red One was rubbish, 3 was rubbish, WaW was rubbish. Treyarch has always been Activision's *****, and that is how it'll stay.

To be honest, MW2 is nothing hot either. I have it already. It's called Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.

 

[Dr. Gorgenflex]

*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 MW2: Reflex in 2010!

They also did most of the bad spiderman games (Web of Shadows, and spider man 3.)

OT: Infinity Ward put out all of the good Call Of Duty games. The only problem is that they come up with a new idea for a CoD game, then do it twice. CoD 1 & 2 were pretty much the same as well as CoD 4 & MW2. Treyarch on the other hand has put out good games, but most of there catalogue is full of terrible games.

 

[jedisensei]

Reading GameFAQs discussion boards (has the same effect as a weekend of binging on grain alcohol), it would seem treyarch is perceived as releasing a tighter, more-balanced+less-glitchy multiplayer experience.

Having never played the MP, I can only add that the Treyach Veteran campaigns have been flesh-rending, patience-testing, sanity-pushing endurance fests --particularly COD5 (where every enemy fires grenades instead of bullets and missed their calling as Major League Outfielders)-- whereas the IW Veteran campaigns were a less punishing challenge that did not mask weak AI with artificial difficulty. The pacing was better in the IW games, too (checkpoints were almost non-existent in COD3, forcing replays of infuriatingly long stretches with each FREQUENT death) and they overall felt more organic and less scripted.

 

[scnj]

I consider Treyarch the worse of the duo because they put out, in my opinion, the inferior games in the series.

 

[heavyblues]

I don't think either are better or worse, myself, they're just companies that make games - but it's probobly because treyarch is the "bastardizer'

Activision hired them on with the specific goal of making more money - and the 'hardcore' fans hate them for it, and then the less hardcore wanna-be-hardcore fans that just jump on the bandwagon hate them because their role models hate them

or at least that's what it seems like. it's like that with other series' too, like sonic recently (people hating the game before even giving it a chance) Rpg series' like Final Fantasy even (XII was hated for breaking the FF formula and bothering to try to be unique) etc.

I personally don't like their GAMES because I'm sick and damn tired of WWII games. Nazi zombies was really fun (but the iPod port sucked), and Museum mode from MW2 doesn't sound nearly as fun (thought I've never played it.

so they're prolly capable - they just need the chance to make their own IP

 

[braincore02]

Never played COD5, but COD3 was lightyears behind COD2. You're always on a linear path in these games, but in the Treyarch games I really notice it. There's too much scripting, too much funneling me down a "cinematic" experience, which really just boils down to having less freedom.

 

[Weaver]

Treyarch is considered inferior because Infinity Ward makes the CoD engines and then Treyarch uses them to shit out two games that, in my opinion, had really crappy level design. The only reason Cod3 and 5 didn't flop is because the hard work of making an engine that feels tight and responsive was done for them.

 

[WorldCritic]

Here's why I don't like them. COD 3 was the first COD game I had ever played and I hadn't heard any reviews about it yet. I play on a friends console up until almost the end at which point I said "Holy crap, this game sucks. I'm having even less fun than when I played an RTS." I was actually thankful to later find out that many other people thought the same thing. I like Infinity Ward because they didn't set their two big games in WWII and they actually were fun. Ok so both games had a lot that I complained about but they were good overall. COD 5 was ok at best, honestly I think the whole zombie thing was just a way Treyarch thought the game would sell better, but it felt unimpressive overall. So in the end I like Infinity Ward better and I honestly just want to ignore Treyarch. Keep in mind these are my opinions and I'm not judging anyone or their preferred games.

 

[Vergial]

I get a laugh when someone says a game sucks because of a certain difficulty. I'm sure I don't need to explain why this is retarded.

I'm not fond of the Treyarch games because, in my own opinion, I find them childish. The 'storytelling' should it be called that is more "Hey, I discovered the word 'fuck'! Let's use it a _LOT_" and less "How can we progress the story intelligently".

Another irritation of mine is that it's just so dull to me. I have to admit, I'm not sure why this is. It just bores me. Not exactly a legit complaint, but I'm under the impression that we should state why WE find them bad. Or good, for some.

 

[XMark]

COD 3 was pretty weak and I think that's where the hate is coming from. Although personally, I think Treyarch redeemed themselves with COD 5. I thought it was a great game, and I especially loved the desperate feel of the Japan missions. It separated itself from other WW2 games by being kind of a military spin on survival horror.

Sure, Infinity Ward had already done a lot of the hard work on the engine beforehand, but still, the engine is just the engine and the quality of the game itself relies on level and art design.

 

[Axle_Bullitt_19]

i prefer the Infinity Ward games because it seems all of the Treyarch games are all praticly carbon copies of the IW games. The only one from them I realy like and had an amazing story line was CoD2: Big Red One. But they will always have a place in my heart for my first online experiance, CoD3.

PS: Although it did seem in the CoD:WaW campaign that they were trying to make the Japanese and Germans look like soulless beast that should be exterminated from the face of the planet.

 

[bassdrum]

treyarch makes really good games.
infinity ward makes FANTASTIC games.

i loved w@w, but it doesn't compare to modern warfare. treyarch is in the unfortunate position of having to live up to cod4 and mw2--and they try their hardest, and make good games, but iw still has them beat.

 

[Xanadu84]

Treyarch isn't bad. Never played 3, but Ill accept that is wasn't good. CoD5 was good, but gets ignored because it's another WWII game. IW still wins though, because while Treyarch gave us Nazi Zombies, IW gave us the games roots, and gave us the Modern Warfare games, the strongest contenders in the series. Treyarch doesn't deserve the flak it gets, but its fair to hold more anticipation for a IW release.

 

[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.

1, 2, 3(not as bad as many say) and Ultimate(console versions).

By the way, Web of Shadows was not 'excellent', it was merely passible due to the apeing of the other games.

Ohhh, I'll have to get Ultimate.