They may have different engines but they look almost identical. And World At War was nothing at all like Mw1, how was that a rip off? No doubt Black Ops borrowed some from Mw1, and a bit from 2 but spin-off? I wouldn't call it that. That's like saying that Infamous 2 was a 'spin off' of infamous 1. No it wasn't it was a sequal, they continue it on. Black Ops, though made by a different developers, they are all Call of Duty, continued on, learning from their predecessors. And who is Infinity Ward to say such a thing? Everyone knows that Spec Ops was just IW's attempt to cash in on the love for the Zombies mode that Treyarch stumbled upon. For Mw3 they aren't even trying to cover this with their announced horde mode in Spec Ops. But I don't see you complaining about Infinity Wards terrible spin-offs that wish they had Nazi Zombies.Tf2 H3aVy said:It's impossible for both companies games to look the same, the use different graphics engines for god's sake! i hate when people make this argument, you need to have an eye for detail when judging graphics. Infinity Ward uses the IW2 graphics engine, CoD4 used the IW1 graphics engine. I'm not certain of what engine treyarch uses but it's sure as shit not the IW brand engine, that's Infinity Ward's. The IW engine allows for the barrel to go all the way into the receiver (thats the body of the rifle in case you don't know anything about the wonderful world of fire arms) while Treyarch's barrels have a crater going into the tip of the barrel. These types of things make the games render differently. Treyarch has lower quality gun and character models to allow the game to render faster and smoother but still has atrocious glitches and an unsolved lag problem, have fun playing the terrible Treyarch spin-offs that wish they we're CoD4.Rex Fallout said:1- What? Better graphics? Their graphics are equal, they arent different at all.Tf2 H3aVy said:In my opinion, Infinity Ward is a vastly superior developer to their counterpart Treyarch. I have a few arguments to support my side;
>Superior graphics and aesthetics
>(opinion) Better campaigns
>(opinion) Superior mulitplayer
>more realistic firearm design and kickback
>Wider selection of kill-streaks, not just dogs, SAM turrets, and air support
All in all i think that IW is a much better developer than Treyarch, but if you folks disagree, feel free to comment below and let me know what you think.
2- No. Just no. Mw1 had a great campaign I will give you that, but no not Mw2. Treyarch did a wonderful job with W@W in my honest opinion, (especially considering the whole World War 2 thing has been done to death) And they have their Zombies storyline in the same game to boot. Black Ops also had a wonderful story, and I dont understand how some people couldn't follow it.
3- debatable. Mw1 had great multi, I will give you that, but I enjoyed W@W's just as much. I have NO fun playing MW2, (a reason why I sold it like a week after I got it) and Black Ops seemed to combine great elements that I loved from both Mw1 and W@W.
4- guns are the same in those aspects.
5- Do you remember what the killsteaks were in Mw1? and for that matter Mw2? Same thing! Mw2 just added the Nuke which people complained so much about that it was taken out in Black Ops.
EDIT: the kill streaks in MW1 we're balanced, any idiot with an LMG could tear the attack chopper, the boogie man of MW1.
But thank you I will enjoy Black Ops. Not Mw3 because I wont be buying another call of duty game ever again probably, but I will enjoy zombies as long as I have it.