Why treyarch makes the lesser sequel.

im of course talking about call of duty. Infinity ward will make the blockbuster hit everytime, i feel treyarch is just a safety net so a new cod is released annually. But IW seem to make the better game by far each and everytime, where as Treyarch make the worse game and milk it with map packs.

but the real reason i think IW overrules is because they are now putting a story line in their games, whereas treyarch is just win the war, IW shares the same story but adds twists in the strory line, eg kill 1 man to get attention :P. Treyarch is pretty straight forward take this city , that bunker, hold the bunker finish the mission.

please help me explain why IW is better i know they are but i just cant put my finger on it.

I think that the reason CoD 3 was made by treyarch was because :evil:Activision:evil: couldn't wait another year for Modern Warfare and the same goes for WaW. I don't even see why people bought those map packs. Seen them, they basically put all their effort for the map packs in zombies (which was a stupid idea in the first place).

im of course talking about call of duty. Infinity ward will make the blockbuster hit everytime, i feel treyarch is just a safety net so a new cod is released annually. But IW seem to make the better game by far each and everytime, where as Treyarch make the worse game and milk it with map packs.

but the real reason i think IW overrules is because they are now putting a story line in their games, whereas treyarch is just win the war, IW shares the same story but adds twists in the strory line, eg kill 1 man to get attention :P. Treyarch is pretty straight forward take this city , that bunker, hold the bunker finish the mission.

please help me explain why IW is better i know they are but i just cant put my finger on it.

Getix-01

Treyarch is a studio that makes meh games that cash in on hype and licenses. Just like their crap Spider-Man games that they put no effort into and their COD games that are just rehashes that do nothing new and are just there to cash on on the COD name.

I didn't play CoD3. Alot of people complained about it. But I honestly found World at War more enjoyable than CoD4. Co-op campaign was awesome and the Nazi zombie mode was pretty cool. Ever since they added the whole kill streak bonus, perks and shooting through walls bs in CoD4 I haven't really liked the competetive multiplayer.

As for the stories, I've never cared. The characters aren't exactly memorable and half the time I don't really get why whats going on is happening. Typically the stories take place between two different factions(two different stories) and instead of consistently telling one story through out they just keep switching factions each level. And half the time it feels like some levels have no relevance to the over all plot, such as that level where you're in the plane... well, in both World at War and CoD 4.

CoD3 may have been bad, I don't know. I didn't play it, but I also hear they weren't even given a full year to make their game. Regardless, WaW was a great game. Even if you don't think they did as good a job as Infinity Ward they still deserve props for doing a good job. Not everyone can be the best.

i just feel when im playing cod 4 that the it actually does have a story line, and its has more personal vendettas ( Price and zakhaev ) and previous storys come together to make modern warfare.

WAW is about 2 different soldiers, fighting the same war in different places, it doesn't really give you task, where as modern warfare gives tasks like hunting different people, to get to another and disable nukes. Its just hard to ecplain why i think modern warfare is better lol.

i just feel when im playing cod 4 that the it actually does have a story line, and its has more personal vendettas ( Price and zakhaev ) and previous storys come together to make modern warfare.

WAW is about 2 different soldiers, fighting the same war in different places, it doesn't really give you task, where as modern warfare gives tasks like hunting different people, to get to another and disable nukes. Its just hard to ecplain why i think modern warfare is better lol.

Getix-01

In all Honesty treyarch has come into their own and World at war is a triple AAA title. Every title that has over a 100000 people online should be supported with bi monthly map packs IMO. Treyarch has done a fabulous job of adding content. I'm very happy and believe that world at war holds it's own against COD4. Not that they are in a competition but they are both fantastic games with the multiplayer map nod going to treyarch.

I think that the reason CoD 3 was made by treyarch was because :evil:Activision:evil: couldn't wait another year for Modern Warfare and the same goes for WaW. I don't even see why people bought those map packs. Seen them, they basically put all their effort for the map packs in zombies (which was a stupid idea in the first place).

XxChicagoTedXx

When will game developers relax and let us play as the Germans and/or other Axis members. I think it's possibly one of the only ways to keep the WWII genre fresh. I know it was extremely refreshing and enjoyable playing as the Germans in Company of Heroes.

And yes it would be quite easy for them skip over those particularly dark aspects of WWII, then again Treyarch didn't have much of a problem showing Russians kill unarmed Germans in WaW.

The only things that Treyarch did well with Waw in my opinion, was the continued support with map packs, and the addition of zombies...

IW will always be a better dev. than treyarch.

WaW was just as good as COD4. People make up thier mind about a non IW COD even before they see the first screenshot, so of course you would think its inferior. WaW had a story as well, people hype MW one because it is not WWII even though it kept the same basic elements of past WWII COD games and it IW name slapped on the box. If the games were reversed and IW was behind WaW people would be saying that was better. Sepewrath

In conclusion, Treyarch would be nothing without Call of Duty

In conclusion, Treyarch would be nothing without Call of Duty

SovietAgent

[QUOTE="SovietAgent"]

In conclusion, Treyarch would be nothing without Call of Duty

glesniak

[QUOTE="glesniak"][QUOTE="SovietAgent"]

In conclusion, Treyarch would be nothing without Call of Duty

RoslindaleOne

It's definitely an economic decision, Ubisoft split up the Splinter Cell series between their Montreal and Shanghai offices and had 2 different teams develop alternating games in that franchise as well. It just makes good business sense, since if you can put out stellar games (like Call of Duty 4) and follow them up with serviceable re-treads like World at War, then you're making bucketloads. Not to say that World at War is a terrible game, but I started playing it and realized, "---- ----, I've seen this before, three years ago when I got my Xbox, and it was called Call of Duty 2!"

As for why it's not as good...well, there isn't exactly a huge surplus of talented, inventive game designers just sitting around twiddling their thumbs and making mediocre games rated 7.0 instead of AAA blockbusters rated 9.0+. In the industry, you have very few studios that combine the talent and resources to make AAA games. Imagine if Blizzard out-sourced Starcraft II to another studio in 1999 while they worked on Starcraft III. I shudder to think about it (and how much money they would have made).

The thing is that Infinity Ward actually created a great multiplayer system and the Call of Duty engine while Treyarch pratically leeched off those two things in order to make World at War successful. The only thing that was "new" in world at war, was Nazi Zombies.

lol sorry, you can probably tell that I defidently prefer IW to Treyarch

thats just the way it goes.

Treyarch is actually a pretty Meh Developer. Until they got their hands on Call of Duty their games were laughable Jokes that no one played.

Its funny how a License can change a company around, I see it all the time in my world. A Mediocre Company can become a giant if they make the right connection, that will never change in any industry

IW is just the better developer plain and simple.treyarch is the reason cod is milked.if it wasnt for activision trying to make as much money as possible.then the cod franchise would be rather fresh.as MW2 would only be the 4th game in the franchise.and its been around for nearly 7 years.

In conclusion, Treyarch would be nothing without Call of Duty

SovietAgent