Jump to content

 

COD 4 vs. MW2 vs. Black Ops-Help me pick one


SasileUchiha92
 Share

Which one?  

83 members have voted

  1. 1. Which one?

    • COD 4
      27
    • MW2
      14
    • Black Ops
      37
    • They all suck!
      5


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Cod4 in everyway is the "perfect" Call of Duty, but despite the community still being large enough to find matches quite easily. It has turned into everyone just quick scoping etc etc.

 

MW2 though good for its time, has seemingly lost all "gentlemen" aspects to it in regards to player ethics as from the last time I played (3 weeks ago) it seems the amount of people using N00b Tubes and One Man Army has multiplied from the original already high amount. Plus everyone wants to be Grizz or Small Beans and quicks-scopes. You can afford to skip this one.

 

Black Ops, In my opinion is so close to being the best Call of Duty, and being a huge fan of the series it has been the one i put the most amount of time into. The amount of challenges has dramatically increased, there is more to do, the gameplay is slower and more defined and doesn't (as MW2 did) favour the run and gun crowd (despite the Ak-74u still needing to be fixed, i bearly notice the difference since the patch. still overpowered) Sniping is the best it has been, if you cant find a place to snipe then you either don't play the class right or aren't very good.

 

So yeah i feel Black Ops personally, however if they just re-did Cod4 (not because im a graphic whore but so much people would play it again and everyone would start new) I would jump on that. Its simple basic, amazing gameplay, no overpowered killstreaks, heck if they fixed the overpowered M16 it would literally be the perfect FPS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't touch MW2 online.

CoD4 if you want to geta feel for where it all started (MP-wise)

Black Ops if you want the most enjoyable and balanced gameplay.

 

CoD4 is great but it still has flaws, i.e. Jugg.

Thats my 2 cents :)

 

EDIT: agree with Mother Beef too :) especially about the sniping

Edited by dragonpwnr99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black Ops is completely unremarkable when it comes to multiplayer. It doesn't do anything that Call of Duty (or other games for that matter) haven't done before, and often times better. Really the only thing it has going for it now is the millions of people playing.

 

I much prefer Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer, but as Mother Beef said, games are now filled with people using all of the worst tactics from MW2 that they removed in Black Ops (One Man Army noob tubes, usually). Couple that with only about 40k people on at any one time, and it's just no fun anymore.

 

I don't know what Call of Duty 4's multiplayer is like these days, but I imagine it doesn't hit 10k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black Ops is completely unremarkable when it comes to multiplayer. It doesn't do anything that Call of Duty (or other games for that matter) haven't done before, and often times better.

 

I disagree with you here, about how often the other Call of Duty games have done the things that Black Ops does but better. To me, and a lot of others Black Ops has simply refined a lot of the aspects of the game instead of it being this mixed chaos battle-zone with a large lack of balance. Sure the gameplay offer very little that is "new" to the franchise but i am glad, im sick of all the gimmicks that each CoD game now is expected to offer especially when most of the time they don't have time / bother to ensure they are balanced and fit the gameplay. Black Ops didnt add these gimmicks (aside from the dreaded RC-XD) and they instead worked on making the gameplay the thing that separated it from the other Call of Duty's and personally i think it really shows.

 

Instead of the terrible, Blast Shield in MW2 there is Flack Jacket, which doesn't completely destroy your chances of survival by removing the radar and tends to work a lot better too. That is just one example but there are a ton of little tweaks such as that which really made the gameplay a lot more smoother and pleasant.

 

Of course we all have our opinions which is why you have said what you did and i have said what I have, i am just curious as to your explanation (in the nicest way possible, i dont meant to come across as me flaming you etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with you here, about how often the other Call of Duty games have done the things that Black Ops does but better. To me, and a lot of others Black Ops has simply refined a lot of the aspects of the game instead of it being this mixed chaos battle-zone with a large lack of balance. Sure the gameplay offer very little that is "new" to the franchise but i am glad, im sick of all the gimmicks that each CoD game now is expected to offer especially when most of the time they don't have time / bother to ensure they are balanced and fit the gameplay. Black Ops didnt add these gimmicks (aside from the dreaded RC-XD) and they instead worked on making the gameplay the thing that separated it from the other Call of Duty's and personally i think it really shows.

 

Instead of the terrible, Blast Shield in MW2 there is Flack Jacket, which doesn't completely destroy your chances of survival by removing the radar and tends to work a lot better too. That is just one example but there are a ton of little tweaks such as that which really made the gameplay a lot more smoother and pleasant.

 

Of course we all have our opinions which is why you have said what you did and i have said what I have, i am just curious as to your explanation (in the nicest way possible, i dont meant to come across as me flaming you etc)

 

Black Ops is bland and boring. I've put about 9 days of gametime into the multiplayer, and I'm bored with it now. I put 16 days into Modern Warfare 2, and I still wish I could go back and play the multiplayer without being berated by people exploiting game mechanics. I can't give you a defining reason why I felt it was better, but I can give you a couple of examples.

 

First off, there is simply no reason for me to go off the beaten path in Black Ops. This may seem stupid, but the Title/Emblem system in MW2 made it so I would use guns I normally wouldn't use, or gametypes I disliked (S&D, mostly). Acquiring all of those titles and emblems was kind of like gaining achievements for me. I needed to get as many of them as I could, and that kept me playing, and if I did something particularly difficult, or something I was proud of, I could show it off. Black Ops has Contracts, sure, but the rewards they offer are minimal and I have nothing to show for it once I am done. If I want to do some, I'll only choose the ones that fit my playstyle because otherwise what's the point? I've never even looked at the challenges list in Black Ops because it doesn't benefit me at all. Sure, if I prestige 11 times I get gold weapon camo, but that's about it.

 

Leaderboards are pretty useless in Black Ops as well. I had a pretty tight competition with a friend of mine regarding our accuracies in Modern Warfare 2 (which in one instance actually ended with some punches being thrown). Now there is no way for me to compare (overall, not just by gametype) the stats of me, my friends, and everyone else who is playing. I like that I can check to see how I fare against the people in the lobby, but I can't look at all my friends and see how long they've been playing, K/D ratios, etc. This takes out a huge competitive aspect of the game for me.

 

As I've stated in other topics, there is really no difference between many of the guns. Sure, you say this was done to balance everything out, but in previous Call of Duty games it meant that when I prestiged I was going to be at a disadvantage. I want more powerful guns for being a higher level. For the first 6 or so days I played Black Ops I used nothing but the AK74u. I unlock that at level 18 (I believe). For the next 15-20 hours of my prestige I used nothing else. And going back to the "challenges mean nothing" argument I gave earlier, I don't need to work on getting kills with it or any other weapon to get my Reflex Sight or Rapid Fire or any other attachments I may want to use. Granted, in Modern Warfare 2 my weapons of choice were Barret/SPAS-12, which you unlock from the get-go, but I did enjoy some ACR action down the road. And speaking of sniper rifles and shotguns, they are practically useless in Black Ops. As someone said in the "snipers vs campers" thread you posted in, it doesn't make sense to run around with a Sniper anymore because you are limited to long-range effectiveness, and even then the hit detection makes them inaccurate as hell.

 

Treyarch is Activision's bitch. They churn out games when all the real developers are working on good games. This holds true going all the way back to the Tony Hawk games. Treyarch did the ports of the first Pro Skaters for Dreamcast. In fact, most of they games they develop are ports. They take all the hard work and innovation other people accomplished and then make money off of it. Even if we just look back at the past two Treyarch Call of Duty games, World at War and Black Ops, all they did is take what Infinity Ward had done a year prior and changed around a couple aspects so they could rebrand it. Short of things like the Ballistic Knife, Hacker/Hardline Pro and a couple of killstreaks, what has Treyarch really done?

Edited by WackFiend
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black Ops is bland and boring. I've put about 9 days of gametime into the multiplayer, and I'm bored with it now. I put 16 days into Modern Warfare 2, and I still wish I could go back and play the multiplayer without being berated by people exploiting game mechanics. I can't give you a defining reason why I felt it was better, but I can give you a couple of examples.

 

I have been playing only mw2 for over a week now. And not once have I ended up in a hacked lobby, with people using the game ruining class setups. In fact, I am having a lot of fun with the game, like I used to before black ops released. Give it a go man. I am just bored of Black Ops now. It just did not have the 'fun' factor that mw2 had while playing it.

 

Short of things like the Ballistic Knife, Hacker/Hardline Pro and a couple of killstreaks, what has Treyarch really done?

 

Treyarch have done a lot of things to the game to make it better.

 

- The removal of stopping power/juggernaut style perks has opened up perk characteristics not normally seen in Call of Duty.

 

- The ability to search 'Locale only' improves matchmaking for those outside the United States, so we don't end up in lobbies with naught but a two bar connection.

 

- Removing Sleight of hand pro on snipers makes them not the quickscoping beasts that they were in Modern Warfare 2. Adversely though, I think they have gone too far with the modification of the sniper rifles, they are simply not a match for assault rifles/smg's.

 

- Flack Jacket is one of the most effective perks I have ever seen. I think that ought to be mentioned as one of the significant changes to the game, and I hope some of these perks are implemented in future games as well.

 

- Also, post game support by Treyarch has been outstanding. Sure, I may not agree with the forms of support they are giving but the level of support and attention to the game that they are doing to Black ops is very good. Something that Infinity Ward did not to even closely.

 

 

I dont think Treyarch are to be branded as a 'copy and paste' developer. Bear in mind that they had but a year to make Black Ops, as per their contract with Activision. Activision's bitch? Not fully knowing the circumstances, I dont think that is a fair call. They are legally bound to make games for the publisher under their contract, I would not call that being someones 'bitch'.

 

Just my opinion bro, not flaming. Being a law student, I like to explore both sides of the argument :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just me, but I thought snipers were supposed to only be long range... Sorry, I hate quick scopers like a rash on my privates.

 

They are. I hate quick scoping too. But I would like to have a sniper rifle around for when I need those long range shots. But if I select one as my primary, I'm limited to using a pistol (or weapons that are even worse), which just don't cut it in terms of firepower.

 

Treyarch have done a lot of things to the game to make it better.

 

- The removal of stopping power/juggernaut style perks has opened up perk characteristics not normally seen in Call of Duty.

 

- The ability to search 'Locale only' improves matchmaking for those outside the United States, so we don't end up in lobbies with naught but a two bar connection.

 

- Removing Sleight of hand pro on snipers makes them not the quickscoping beasts that they were in Modern Warfare 2. Adversely though, I think they have gone too far with the modification of the sniper rifles, they are simply not a match for assault rifles/smg's.

 

- Flack Jacket is one of the most effective perks I have ever seen. I think that ought to be mentioned as one of the significant changes to the game, and I hope some of these perks are implemented in future games as well.

 

- Also, post game support by Treyarch has been outstanding. Sure, I may not agree with the forms of support they are giving but the level of support and attention to the game that they are doing to Black ops is very good. Something that Infinity Ward did not to even closely.

 

 

I dont think Treyarch are to be branded as a 'copy and paste' developer. Bear in mind that they had but a year to make Black Ops, as per their contract with Activision. Activision's bitch? Not fully knowing the circumstances, I dont think that is a fair call. They are legally bound to make games for the publisher under their contract, I would not call that being someones 'bitch'.

 

Treyarch removed content from the game that people complained about, whether they were legitimate mechanics that needs tweaks (quick scoping), or just people bitching. Stopping Power was a perk in Call of Dury 4, World at War, and Modern Warfare 2, and people didn't seem to mind it so much until the game got to 15 million people playing. Same thing with Juggernaut. They weren't bad perks, and they didn't break the game, but enough people complained and Treyarch took it out. That's actually really all Treyarch did. After the whole Infinity Ward fiasco, they probably felt like they needed to come out as the good guys and decided to appease all their "loyal fans"

 

In terms of what you mean by "opened up perk characteristics" by removing Stopping Power and Juggernaut, I don't quite follow.

 

Flak Jacket was actually already a perk in World at War and did the exact same thing. The resetting of grenades feature was the purpose of the Toss Back perk, also in World at War. So while Treyarch did come up with them, they're not new to Black Ops.

 

And as for the post-launch support, keep in mind that in March 2010 Activision fired the founders of Infinity Ward, and as a result most of the other staff quit. So the lack of support after that was probably minimal due to the fact that there wasn't anyone to do it. This is probably one of the reasons Activision announced the new Beachhead studio to cover all post-launch support for Call of Duty games from now on.

 

As for Treyarch being a shitty developer, since they were acquired by Activision in 2001 they have not created a single new IP (and only created one prior). Every game they have developed has been either a port, a sequel, or a licensed game. I am confident in saying that there are no creative minds or innovators working behind the company's doors, and if there are they need to get the fuck out and find a company worth a damn to work for.

 

Let's go over what Infinity Ward engineered and improved with just Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2:

 

- First Call of Duty game to not be set in World War II. When Vince Zampella and Jason West were fired for "insubordination", Bobby Kotick was referring to the fact that he wanted IW to continue making Call of Duty a World War II game when they had other plans. the Modern Warfare sub-series remain Activision's best sellers to date. Treyarch, on the other hand continue to focus on World War II (even Black Ops has a WWII level), further proving they have no creativity.

 

- Class customization/Perks. To the best of my knowledge, no first-person shooter allowed you as much robustness to your characters customization as Call of Duty 4 (games like Rainbow Six and Counter-Strike did somewhat). This mechanic of the game is being mimic to this very day (Medal of Honor, Halo: Reach, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Crysis 2)

 

- Killstreaks. Again, to the best of my knowledge, no first-person shooter awarded you bonuses for Killstreaks. Another mechanic that has been copied and mimic many times since.

 

- Further adding to the perk system with "Pro" perks in Modern Warfare 2.

 

- Adding more Killstreaks with Modern Warfare 2, and allowing them to be chosen by the player.

 

- Titles/Emblems. I discussed the benefit of this a good bit earlier.

 

- Prestiging, so that you and your peers had a better way of showing/knowing how much you play the game, while increasing difficulty for those that did.

 

Inifinity Ward does such a great job with their games that I hope, pray, would even kill for Respawn Entertainmnt to secure the rights to the Modern Warfare franchise so they can develop Modern Warfare 3 and have EA publish it. I like Activision because they merged with Vivendi and now own World of Warcraft, but they are a dirty company and a shitty publisher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of what you mean by "opened up perk characteristics" by removing Stopping Power and Juggernaut, I don't quite follow.

 

 

What I meant was that the removal of those perks opened up the ability for other perks in that perk tier to be used, in cod4 and mw2 for example the majority of people used stopping power on their gun classes, so the other perks (barring danger close) weren't used as much.

 

 

Your summary is very succinct. I also agree with you in saying that Infinity Ward created the better Call of Duty games. The differences in development can be seen, when I left Black Ops and went back to mw2. The hit detection is crisp (to the degree of connection) and the connections themselves were much more smooth.

 

The innovations that were put into the game were those that made the franchise the number one first person shooter in the console market. Innovations that were created by an Infinity Ward that was whole, not the fractured and broken one that is rumoured to created Modern Warfare: 3.

 

I must admit I did not consider the fact that the legal lawsuit barred IW from providing full support of the game. That is a very good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still play COD4 on occasion and I love how stripped down and immediate it is.

 

MW2 has flaws but is very enjoyable and one of the games I played most in 2009/2010.

 

I like Black Ops as you can "make it your own". I love all the customisations, the perk challenges to upgrade them, the mechainics have been tweaked so no quick scoping and gameplay is far more balanced. I love some of the new first strike maps and miss some of the original COD4 multiplayer maps. I'd go with Black Ops over MW2.

 

To address the comment about Treyarch being Activision's bitch, I'd have to disagree. They're a good developer in their own right, it's just that Infinity Ward were truly great. It's a shame they'll never be the same again. Black Ops was Treyarch opportunity to trump Infinity Ward and on so many levels they did. They actually listen to the community to, what they've done with knives, kill asissts etc in the latets update was admirable. I like them and they've picked up the ball and ran with it. Their aggregate score on metacritic being lower that MW2, when analysed you see it's because reviewers are generally sick of the format. You can hardly blame Treyarch for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MW2 - IMO is the most fun out of all the CoD's. It has a few flaws. ie Commando perk. But the pro's far outweigh the con's. Online is more stable than BO

 

CoD4 - Is the most balanced with the best maps. But lacks alot of the new features the others have. Online is more stable than BO, but there alot less people playing.

 

Bo - Its good, but not as much fun as MW2. 80% of the weapons are too weak. Perks have been moved and put in the wrong places. And unless you have mega fast internet, you'll get loads of connection issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are just getting into the call of duty series I would not recommend black ops. Its a decent game, but alot of people got bored of it really quick. COD4 is widely regarded as the best COD. However, the number of people who still actually play it is very small. Since you are looking to play online i wouldnt recommend cod 4. You will hear alot of people bitch that MW2 has a million glitches. The reality is that most of these glitches have been fixed, and most of the morons have now moved onto black ops. The mw2 community is the best its been since the game came out. There is still alot of people playing it so you will never have a problem finding games. On the other hand there arent SO many people playing it that the game is getting glitched and whored. My recommendation (if you are in the US) is to get the deal at gamestop. I last saw them selling mw2 with mw for around $45.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant was that the removal of those perks opened up the ability for other perks in that perk tier to be used, in cod4 and mw2 for example the majority of people used stopping power on their gun classes, so the other perks (barring danger close) weren't used as much

 

Stopping Power and Juggernaut were both in the same perk slot, until MW2 when Juggernaut became Painkiller and became a death streak (also a innovation on IW's part, and a good way to address people complaining about Juggernaut). The only other perk from that slot that is still around is Cold Blooded (Slight of Hand switched slots in MW2). If They would have remained in the game (with Juggernaut/Painkiller going back to being a perk) I imagine Painkiller would be a Tier 1 and Stopping Power a Tier 2 (Tier 1 typically affects the player, Tier 2 the weapon, and Tier 3 the environment). While their exclusion forces people to use other perks, had they been included you would see a lot less people with Ghost, Slight of Hand, etc. If anything, removing them REDUCED the available class combinations and further provides to the blandness of the game, or what some call "balance".

 

To address the comment about Treyarch being Activision's bitch, I'd have to disagree. They're a good developer in their own right, it's just that Infinity Ward were truly great. It's a shame they'll never be the same again. Black Ops was Treyarch opportunity to trump Infinity Ward and on so many levels they did. They actually listen to the community to, what they've done with knives, kill asissts etc in the latets update was admirable. I like them and they've picked up the ball and ran with it. Their aggregate score on metacritic being lower that MW2, when analysed you see it's because reviewers are generally sick of the format. You can hardly blame Treyarch for that.

 

I think I've covered the fact that Treyarch is no good pretty substantially, so I'll limit it here. If the Modern Warfare series had never existed, and Treyarch continued developing Call of Duty games after the third (which they developed), do you really think Black Ops would have done as well as it did? Everyone bought the damn thing because Modern Warfare 2 was so great, and they were expecting great things from this as well. It got less than stellar scores because it is a less than stellar game. There is no reason you can give that makes Black Ops better than Modern Warfare 2 other than what was done to appease whiny players (like removing Commando).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as for the post-launch support, keep in mind that in March 2010 Activision fired the founders of Infinity Ward, and as a result most of the other staff quit. So the lack of support after that was probably minimal due to the fact that there wasn't anyone to do it.

Not an Excuse, there were plenty of employees still left at infinity ward, and Activision hired new employees very quickly.

As for Treyarch being a shitty developer, since they were acquired by Activision in 2001 they have not created a single new IP (and only created one prior). Every game they have developed has been either a port, a sequel, or a licensed game. I am confident in saying that there are no creative minds or innovators working behind the company's doors, and if there are they need to get the fuck out and find a company worth a damn to work for.

If you think Either infinity ward or Treyarch have Any Say at all in what they do, then your mistaken. Activision Says what they do. If you think Treyarch is Activision's bitch, then your precious infinity ward is no Different. So what if they Haven't Created a New IP in a While, If your boss told you to do something and you did't do it, then you'd be replaced by someone who would. Just so you know, infinity ward also hasn't created a new IP since 2003. And don't even try to say the Original Call of Duty was "Revolutionary", Because it was simply Medal of Honor on the Quake 3 Engine. It was even Created by Previous Medal of Honor Developers. The Fact That Treyarch simply keeps improving upon the Call of Duty Franchise is proof of Exactly why they haven't put on a different project.

 

And you think there is no Creativity at Treyarch? Have you Even Played the Single Player in Black Ops? Or found any Secrets in any of the Zombie maps? Or Read anything in the CIA Terminal?

 

If you had you would be blown away by the Story and Mystery the people at Treyarch can create, and the way they intertwine their Story with Real World Events.

- First Call of Duty game to not be set in World War II. When Vince Zampella and Jason West were fired for "insubordination", Bobby Kotick was referring to the fact that he wanted IW to continue making Call of Duty a World War II game when they had other plans. the Modern Warfare sub-series remain Activision's best sellers to date. Treyarch, on the other hand continue to focus on World War II (even Black Ops has a WWII level), further proving they have no creativity.

Thats so incorrect I don't even know where to start. Also, World at War sold more then Call of Duty 4 in Half the time. Did you Even play World at War? It is a Fantastic Game, Very well done, and is Very Historically accurate. Also , Black Ops has a World War 2 Level because it Is Relevant to the Story in Black Ops, not because Treyarch couldn't think of something to do. Your absolutely Ridiculous.

- Class customization/Perks. To the best of my knowledge, no first-person shooter allowed you as much robustness to your characters customization as Call of Duty 4 (games like Rainbow Six and Counter-Strike did somewhat). This mechanic of the game is being mimic to this very day (Medal of Honor, Halo: Reach, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Crysis 2)

  • Custom Classes, perks, and Sprinting, all have their Origins in Call of Duty 3, a Treyarch Game
  • Call of Duty 4's Matchmaking, and multiplayer draws Many, Many Aspects from Halo 2.

- Further adding to the perk system with "Pro" perks in Modern Warfare 2.

 

- Adding more Killstreaks with Modern Warfare 2, and allowing them to be chosen by the player.

 

- Titles/Emblems. I discussed the benefit of this a good bit earlier.

All these things were hastily added to modern warfare 2. Most of all are the titles and emblems. 75% of them are the same, and most look like they were created by a 15 year old. "Yeah Guys! Lets see how many times we can Reference Marijuana in our Titles and Emblems.! Because thats COOL!"

 

I'm not saying that infinity ward can't make a good game, I completely agree that they make a good game. But your refusal to Accept that infinity wards shit does in fact stink, and your blatant, irrational bashing of Treyarch is complete ridiculous.

 

OT: You Forgot World at War. It is a very well Created, solid, and most Balanced Call of Duty Game. But if you really want to Start playing Call of Duty, Black Ops is as good a place as any to start. Its a shame you'll miss out on World at War though.

Edited by ZingZitang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think Either infinity ward or Treyarch have Any Say at all in what they do, then your mistaken. Activision Says what they do. If you think Treyarch is Activision's bitch, then your precious infinity ward is no Different. So what if they Haven't Created a New IP in a While, If your boss told you to do something and you did't do it, then you'd be replaced by someone who would. Just so you know, infinity ward also hasn't created a new IP since 2003. And don't even try to say the Original Call of Duty was "Revolutionary", Because it was simply Medal of Honor on the Quake 3 Engine. It was even Created by Previous Medal of Honor Developers. The Fact That Treyarch simply keeps improving upon the Call of Duty Franchise is proof of Exactly why they haven't put on a different project.

 

Publishers own developers. This is obvious. But innovation is defined as going outside the conventions of the rules set forth, whether by society or in this case an employer. If everyone listened to their superiors we wouldn't have anywhere near the types of technology and entertainment we have today. Hell, there wouldn't be a United States of America (yeah, I went there).

 

And you think there is no Creativity at Treyarch? Have you Even Played the Single Player in Black Ops? Or found any Secrets in any of the Zombie maps? Or Read anything in the CIA Terminal?

 

If you had you would be blown away by the Story and Mystery the people at Treyarch can create, and the way they intertwine their Story with Real World Events.

As a matter of fact, I have. The gameplay doesn't flow well due to the fact that each mission is just a segmented part of a story that takes place over, what, ten years? I figured out Reznov was ***SPOILER ALERT*** in your head the entire time after a SINGLE mission had three instances of people asking what the fuck you were doing while you talked to him. And Ed Harris has a pretty distinct voice and speech pattern that it's hard to not know *** ANOTHER SPOILER*** Hudson was behind the glass the whole time. Treyarch did not make an engrossing story.

 

I'll give you zombies. Zombies is the most fun aspect of Black Ops, and World at War (which blew, by the way). I wish they would make a retail game that further explores the storyline behind it, but they most likely won't because what would you do with the multiplayer (because EVERY game needs multiplayer) and not nearly as many people would by it.

 

Thats so incorrect I don't even know where to start. Also, World at War sold more then Call of Duty 4 in Half the time. Did you Even play World at War? It is a Fantastic Game, Very well done, and is Very Historically accurate. Also , Black Ops has a World War 2 Level because it Is Relevant to the Story in Black Ops, not because Treyarch couldn't think of something to do. Your absolutely Ridiculous.
Call of Duty 4 was originally supposed to be set in World War II as all the other Call of Duty games were. That actually happened, I'm not just making it up.

 

  • Custom Classes, perks, and Sprinting, all have their Origins in Call of Duty 3, a Treyarch Game
  • Call of Duty 4's Matchmaking, and multiplayer draws Many, Many Aspects from Halo 2.

Classes actually originated in Battlefield 1942 which came out almost a whole two years prior to Call of Duty 3. I never said IW invented it, they just made it better.

 

All these things were hastily added to modern warfare 2. Most of all are the titles and emblems. 75% of them are the same, and most look like they were created by a 15 year old. "Yeah Guys! Lets see how many times we can Reference Marijuana in our Titles and Emblems.! Because thats COOL!"
Maybe they were added last minute, I don't know. But were they poorly implemented? Not in the slightest. It doesn't matter if it takes you 12 years or 6 months to make a game, if it's good it's good.

 

And as for the titles/emblems, I never said they looked nice, I said they provided replay value and promoted variety of play. And in that aspect they succeeded.

 

I'm not saying that infinity ward can't make a good game, I completely agree that they make a good game. But your refusal to Accept that infinity wards shit does in fact stink, and your blatant, irrational bashing of Treyarch is complete ridiculous.

 

You haven't provided me with reasoning to think that Infinity Ward is anything but a great company (or at least was). Sure, IW has only developed Call of Duty games (and I would consider the Modern Warfare 2 series a new IP considering it's departure from typical Call of Duty mechanics) but they have focus. Treyarch doesn't. And they have been put on other projects. They developed Quantum of Solace and Spider-Man: Web of Shadows, both just as unremarkable as Black Ops.

 

Your argument is irrational and ridiculous. I'm providing detailed and well documented opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
  • Create New...