Infinity Ward Not Borrowing Ideas from Treyarch for Modern Warfare 3

[MiracleOfSound]

Ok, i do agree that IW does handle coding much much better than treyarch (many a ragequit have happend because of this) But that dosn't make them the superior developer. Treyarch might not be the brightest bulb in the box, but by god are they trying haha

I think they tried hard to balance Blops at the beginning, but then the Map Pack greed took over and we're stuck with shitty hit detection, knives that kill you by hitting the air 5 feet behind you, Ghost campers slowing the game to a crawl and the most broken perk ever - Second Chance.

 

[THEoriginalBRIEN]

Combine Treyarch's ability to make their games significantly different than the last and Infinity Ward's ability to create competent targeting and respawn systems and you'd have one hell of a decent developer.

 

[THEoriginalBRIEN]

Of course, not everything that Treyarch has done for - or to - the Call of Duty brand has been positive: Black Ops received a great deal of criticism for multiplayer problems on the PC and PS3.

At least Black Ops on PC had dedicated servers.

Sorry, that simple little thing made Black Ops SOOOOO much better than Modern Warfare 2.

In fact I've heard no bitching about the PC version of Black ops, and after playing over 127 hours I haven't seen any significant problems that haven't been around since Cod4 era.

In fact Treyarch as done a lot of good for CoD online:
-got rid of the basically mandatory perk: Stopping power
-integrated game playback feature
-brought back CoD4 favourites (Skorpion, M60)
-no weapon glitches (MW2 had loads of weapon glitches like PERMANENTLY misaligned sights or non-functional suppressors)
-No commando-lunge
-less overpowered killstreaks
-no more killstreak chaining
-more interesting setting of Cold War era than generic modern-combat era

If Infinity Ward refuse to recognise this and go back to Modern Warfare 2's bullshit then I really won't bother.

I bought Black Ops to show solidarity and appreciation for a big publisher realising that Multiplayer on PC deserves Dedicated Servers. But if Infinity Ward decides MW3 doesn't need Dedicated Servers... well fuck that. The game ain't worth more than $20 to me then, I'd buy it a year later on sale... maybe.

This a thousand times over

-I play fine without Stopping Power
-Commando lunge is better that having a knife that doesn't recognize a direct hit half the time.
-Nothing about the BO maps make them anything that MW2 isn't. The only things that make it feel even remotely Cold War are the flamethrower and Infrared attachments which are both useless.

Dedicated servers aside, I think Black Ops has just many flaws as it has improvements.

 

[HaloHappy]

So you're basically going ignore anything Treyarch did better than you; like not letting Killstreaks count towards other Killstreaks, Shotguns as primaries etc. because you don't want to learn anything.

You idiots.

Excuse me but, shotguns as a primary? That was a stupid idea! Who in their right mind would want to go in with a shotgun and pistol/rocket/crossbow/balistic knife? The point is to carry a gun for mid-long range and keep a shotgun in your pocket for close quarters work. I'll agree with you on the killstreaks part, but each franchise has their weaknesses, and Treyarch's was making shotguns a primary.

 

[Vakz]

Yeah. Well for one you can't even try all the weapons, perks and kill-streaks till you have played for hours and hours and hours. So you can't say if the whole game is crap as maybe all the cools weapons are several hours of gameplay away... always promising more.

But seriously, if a game stays bad for more than a whole day of in-game time, can really a few more weapons suddenly make the game great? Have you honestly played every single game you disliked for more than 24 hours before deciding that it was indeed bad? How can one justify a game being bad for so many hours, and still trying to call it a good game?

 

[Treblaine]

what the fuck is wrong with you? honestly can you say that IW games are better? Treyarch COD games

My problem with Treyarch is that they are not very good at coding. The games are buggy and the netcode is atrocious.

I have so many clips where I kill dudes by missing and shooting metres to the left or right of them... it's a disgrace. IW are much better at coding.

Although that is a coding "problem" that is something inherent and the solution is even worse.

the main problem is LAG!

Traditionally (mainly PC) lag meant exactly that, you shot them yet they would not be damaged till the lag reaches them. That's not a problem on PC with dedicated servers ensuring low lag, but on console multiplayer where they try to have user-hosted games the lag is too high so they have to HIDE it.

The problem is trying to hide this lag through various tricks can cause glitches IF THE LAG IS TOO HIGH!

I have played Black ops on PC, and always choosing 50ms servers I haven't found these glitches to spite how in every other way the game is poorly coded i.e. inefficient graphics rendering, RAM hog and so on.

The solution is dedicated servers. But will Activision EVER do that for consoles? Not for free, or unless they are really REALLY desperate.

 

[Paragon Fury]

So you're basically going ignore anything Treyarch did better than you; like not letting Killstreaks count towards other Killstreaks, Shotguns as primaries etc. because you don't want to learn anything.

You idiots.

Excuse me but, shotguns as a primary? That was a stupid idea! Who in their right mind would want to go in with a shotgun and pistol/rocket/crossbow/balistic knife? The point is to carry a gun for mid-long range and keep a shotgun in your pocket for close quarters work. I'll agree with you on the killstreaks part, but each franchise has their weaknesses, and Treyarch's was making shotguns a primary.

SPAS-12.

1887s Pre-Second Nerf.

The fact that Shotguns in Black Ops SUCK BALLS, even though they are Primaries.

Shotguns should allowed to be as powerful as they are in MW2, but they should be Primaries, not Secondaries.

 

[Treblaine]

Yeah. Well for one you can't even try all the weapons, perks and kill-streaks till you have played for hours and hours and hours. So you can't say if the whole game is crap as maybe all the cools weapons are several hours of gameplay away... always promising more.

But seriously, if a game stays bad for more than a whole day of in-game time, can really a few more weapons suddenly make the game great? Have you honestly played every single game you disliked for more than 24 hours before deciding that it was indeed bad? How can one justify a game being bad for so many hours, and still trying to call it a good game?

The thing is it always teases more. It draws you in but no pay off.

I have played SOOO many hours of Black ops yet I honestly don't give a crap about the game.

It's not "bad", it's just not "good" either. It is - in a word - unsatisfying.

There are fleeting moments of excitement but it is in a sea of frustration on grinding, every encounter is the same damn way with guns that are so god damn similar. I was so glad when I quit and went back to TF2, a game full of REALLY different guns and enemy types.

 

[HaloHappy]

Thank God for this, I like both games, but each has their flaws, Black Ops more than MW2. In MW2 they need to fix (and have) fix the infinite noob tube, the people running around with tac-knife and only using that, and the Demolition spawn campers. Black Ops has the problem of damage and hit spots, the ever infamous "Magic bullet", and zombies. No matter how much you try to justify it, Left 4 Dead and Dead Rising 2 will always be infinitely better.

On the single player side, at least with Infinty Ward I don't feel like a lone gunman (at least in MW1). In WaW I would have Reznov shouting his head off about sparing no one, yet he stands there and gets shot to the point of Swiss Cheese and not shooting back. Same with Black Ops, and there my teammates were running ahead and ditching me in the middle of fire fights as well.

Either way, I can't wait for MW3 and hope the new Infinity Ward fixes the main issues of MW2.

 

[Vakz]

The thing is it always teases more. It draws you in but no pay off.

I have played SOOO many hours of Black ops yet I honestly don't give a crap about the game.

Heh, you should start playing an MMO. Blizzard would LOVE to have you as a customer.

 

[Treblaine]

So you're basically going ignore anything Treyarch did better than you; like not letting Killstreaks count towards other Killstreaks, Shotguns as primaries etc. because you don't want to learn anything.

You idiots.

Excuse me but, shotguns as a primary? That was a stupid idea! Who in their right mind would want to go in with a shotgun and pistol/rocket/crossbow/balistic knife? The point is to carry a gun for mid-long range and keep a shotgun in your pocket for close quarters work. I'll agree with you on the killstreaks part, but each franchise has their weaknesses, and Treyarch's was making shotguns a primary.

Shotguns SHOULD work as primaries for several reasons:
-they are big and heavy enough to be primary weapons
-they are powerful enough to be primary
-in real life they actually have enough range: lead-shot spreads 1-inch per metre, so about 20 metres range, lead slugs are accurate to 100m

Treyarch were dumb to nerf shotguns the way they did, I think the problem was they were trying to fix a perceived problem that they didn't even create

I think the best solution would be to have treated the hip-fire spread differently. In other words the hip-fire crosshairs show where the barrel COULD be aiming, based on how imprecise it can be aiming from the hip. Limit ranged shotgun use to aim-down-sights where it would have functioned much like the quick-scoping: quickly aim and pop off a solid shot for one solid kill.

Then I think the solution would have been a sniping weapon that works as a secondary.

I'd have gone with something like the AR-7 Survival Rifle. It's a folding rifle, Semi-auto that is very light and compact yet fires a very weak round though super accurate. It would be a zero recoil weapon that needs 5 body-shots / 3 headshots to kill.

So a pocket semi-auto sniper rifle with ACR-zero-recoil but is balanced as it has a lot of downsides:
-low power and small ammo capacity (10 + 10x3 = 40 rounds total)
-very slow switch time as it must be drawn and unfolded
-no special sights, iron sights only

Basically it is just there so that you can make that long range kill if you have the opportunity but only a short range weapon.

 

[CupboardNinja]

"and gamers weren't getting the same game every year"
Too late.

 

[Treblaine]

The thing is it always teases more. It draws you in but no pay off.

I have played SOOO many hours of Black ops yet I honestly don't give a crap about the game.

Heh, you should start playing an MMO. Blizzard would LOVE to have you as a customer.

That's precisely why I won't even start, the same reason I will NEVER use drugs.

Yes, I am comparing COD and WoW to illegal drugs... I went there.

Just because I get hooked doesn't mean I'll actually think it was worth while and good path to go down. I blame unimaginative games journalists in the 90's who popularised use of the term "addictive" to describe video games that were fun to play over and over.

Back then they didn't make games with skinner-box ideas of hooking players, they just tried to make good games.

The lingering effect is people now take addictive as some kind of endorsement of a game

PS: I also got a good 22 hours into Final Fantasy X before I gave up... I kept expecting it to get good, as good as all the FF Fanboys said it was. What can I say, I should know when to quit.

 

[rc0ll]

It's both refreshing and alarming - on one hand, if Treyarch and IW determinedly copied each other's previous game then we'd get improvements as incremental as Madden (although many will argue we do already). But the reality is that IW will just "improve" on MW2, a game that's two years old instead of one.

When you look at MW2 you tend to see a lot of patterns and counter-patterns that experienced players exploit and frustrate newbies. Like in Afghan, you'll probably end up with 5 extra kills just by noobtubing the two bunkers. On the same map, that little ledge at the top of the hill should've been a great sniping position, but everyone's aware of it so you try spend more than 10 seconds up there, even in prone, and no doubt someone will kill you. In every map players have certain tendencies.

Aside from killstreaks (who hasn't wanted to murder an enemy chopper gunner at some point?) and of course the painkiller deathstreak which became the new Martyrdom, undoubtedly the worst thing about COD is the camping. Now there are exceptions no doubt - I can understand a sniper camping, because that's what snipers do. Besides, the killcam leaves them vulnerable anyway. And if you're holding a defensive position (e.g. the House in Estate) then I believe its okay to camp inside the house. But people who crouch down behind garbage bins, keep their sights trained on doors, and basically are too scared to go out, earn some genuine kills and die in the process are not only greedy douchebags but also let the team down by effectively making the battle 6v5.

 

[EternalFacepalm]

They effect each other cod2 mp was basic, cod 3 had a great bunch of features & then cod 4 had that & much more then waw had zombies mw2 had spec ops & then they stopped changing it up so much.

IW/3arc go together without each other the series would've died long ago.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

OT: ...But they're essentially the same game. Except that CoD:BO has zombies.

 

[-Samurai-]

So, then, we won't be able to dolphin dive in MW3? For such a small feature, it sure changes the game quite a bit.

Gotta love the CoD hate in this thread already. The people that say the game is the same every year are likely the people that don't play it.

If all their games have been the same, how could anyone proclaim that CoD4 was the best, and MW2 was horrible? Wouldn't they be exactly the same, making them both as good as CoD4, or as bad(according to haters) as MW2?

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Cod 1 - 4 were good because they were fresh and new. Everything after that was the same. I've played all of them and every game from WaW just feels like an expansion pack.

Obviously I have no idea what I'm talking about. I've only played every CoD game in existence, and started the series shortly after its launch. So obviously I wouldn't have played enough of them to say that they're all different and they each bring something new to the table....obviously.

There are quite a lot of areas to fuck up. The graphics, sound, optimization and shit. MW1 was good but MW2 did not had dedicated servers. Do you know what dedicated servers are?

MW2s weapon models are far superior to the models from CoD4. Sound is more opinion. Sure, there are different bitrates and what not, but I'm sure Infinity Ward used the best sound quality they could. I had no problems with optimization. PS3 runs my copy just fine.

And no, I don't know what a dedicated server is. I only ran an R/O Harbor 24/7 SnD server for a few years.

And because no dedicated servers = bad game, right?

Is that so? 55 hours played in MW2, 28 hours in Black Ops. Is that not enough to judge if you love it or hate it? Or do you have to spend 100+ hours in a game your dislike before you're allowed to say it's a bad game?

Hence the word "likely".

Also; You can't say a game is bad unless you've played it. Have you played MW3? Has anyone in this thread played MW3? No? Then how are there so many people that are already proclaiming it "more of the same bad game as the last 2"?

Like I said; You gotta love the CoD hate.

 

[LilGherkin]

Hmm, the bit in bold? I assume you mean good story "for a generic military FPS" because you seem to be dismissing a lot of REALLY GOOD games stories that are FPS games:
-Half Life 2
-Bioshock 1 & 2
-Portal 1 & 2
-FEAR 1 & 2
-Halo series
-Fallout 3+
-Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, etc
-STALKER series

and COD4 was WAY better, and that's in precisely the same genre from the same developer

I'm in the same boat as monoochrom on the multiplayer unbalanced thing. While it's true that Black ops was quite boring at least it was balanced.

I've played through all of those except Halo, Fear, and STALKER. I'm just saying that I went in there expecting very bit of story, and it gave me more than I had hoped for. Which is what I liked about it.

 

[Treblaine]

Hmm, the bit in bold? I assume you mean good story "for a generic military FPS" because you seem to be dismissing a lot of REALLY GOOD games stories that are FPS games:
-Half Life 2
-Bioshock 1 & 2
-Portal 1 & 2
-FEAR 1 & 2
-Halo series
-Fallout 3+
-Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, etc
-STALKER series

and COD4 was WAY better, and that's in precisely the same genre from the same developer

I'm in the same boat as monoochrom on the multiplayer unbalanced thing. While it's true that Black ops was quite boring at least it was balanced.

I've played through all of those except Halo, Fear, and STALKER. I'm just saying that I went in there expecting very bit of story, and it gave me more than I had hoped for. Which is what I liked about it.

Well I played COD4 and I expected MW2 to be near as good, and honestly my expectations were it has to be at least as good as World at War's story.

It. Was. Not.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I liken the debate in this thread about whether Treyarch or Infinity Ward is more responsible for the shite that is the COD franchise to arguing over whether Kanye or 50 Cent is the bigger prick.

 

[Frostbite3789]

I solemnly swear to never buy a CoD game that is produced by Treyarch, I will however shell out for the Infinity Ward games. I believe that they are better overall than their counterpart.

This isn't IW. This is a sad imitation kept alive because Activision knows that IW is a recognizable name.