Why do people hate Treyarch?
- Thread starter mitchell271
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not exactly beacons of quality, originality or general good-game making, are they?
Their release history is uninspired, to say the least. I don't think people hate them, because that would mean they'd have to do something of interest - indifference is about all I can manage.
Their release history is uninspired, to say the least. I don't think people hate them, because that would mean they'd have to do something of interest - indifference is about all I can manage.
Saddam Hussein could have been put in charge of making BlOps, it would have still sold. The studio doesn't come into play - hell, I imagine the majority of Call of Duty players don't know the difference between IW and Treyarch.GrizzlerBorno said:
Metalhandkerchief said:
UNITED OFFENSIVE.
A lot of the talent behind that, the greatest part of the COD franchise, went into treyarch (look it up yourself)
they tried something completely different with COD3, made THE BEST movie-based game ever (spiderman 2), actually try different things like vehicles in COD.
they've done better than IW.
I understood the story perfectly and I still thought it was retarded.chemicalreaper said:
Just more of "America is da best!!!!! Fuck dem commies!"
Treyarch doesn't so much suck as I think they're more than a bit narratively challenged.
At the moment, I'm taking a break from Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare 2 and while the story itself is a cluster-fuck of epic proportions, damn it if the game isn't really effective at making me forget it. From a story point of view, I don't have the slightest clue what I'm supposed to be doing or why its important, but the in-game narrative knows how to point me in the right direction and make everything I do seem really fucking important. Even when I played the demo level, I was just gripped by it... even though I was at a total loss as to what I was doing and why it was important. The game told me to do something, I did it, and wackiness ensued.
One of the last levels in MW2 I played was the EMP level, which starts off with you trapped in a chopper taking pot-shots at the hordes of Russians moving in on your position. Simply being able to interact with the environment in my most natural way (shooting shit) made the scene far more immersive than it would have been if I had just been a spectator controlling a camera. Infinity Ward understands that and doesn't take the power to shoot away from you very often or for very long. I've not seen any evidence that Treyarch has learned this lesson. Nor Valve or Rock Star or Epic or just about any company that has attempted to utilize the Half-Life style of story telling in their games.
I still regard CoD4 as being one of the best mix of story and gameplay I've ever seen (lots of games have had better stories, but none as well-told in my opinion). Most games load up the cinematics with the necessary bits of plot. While Half-Life (and to a less extent Bioshock) relied too heavily on the locked room mechanic, as some NPC slowly explained the plot to us in what was essentially an impossible to skip cut-scene (see also Black Ops' infamous Pentagon scene), which might be more immersive than a cut-scene, but is also far, far, far more boring. CoD4's story, while simple, just unfolded from gameplay in a way I've not seen before or since; but Infinity Ward has always has always been extremely good at constructing strong set-pieces that play all the required emotions of the story masterfully.
Having played Quantum Of Solace, the first half of CoD 3, and the demos for WaW and Black Ops... I've never felt that same level of immersion from Treyarch. I might know what I'm doing and why it's important, but they're simply not as good at constructing the necessary set pieces to make me feel it.
At the moment, I'm taking a break from Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare 2 and while the story itself is a cluster-fuck of epic proportions, damn it if the game isn't really effective at making me forget it. From a story point of view, I don't have the slightest clue what I'm supposed to be doing or why its important, but the in-game narrative knows how to point me in the right direction and make everything I do seem really fucking important. Even when I played the demo level, I was just gripped by it... even though I was at a total loss as to what I was doing and why it was important. The game told me to do something, I did it, and wackiness ensued.
One of the last levels in MW2 I played was the EMP level, which starts off with you trapped in a chopper taking pot-shots at the hordes of Russians moving in on your position. Simply being able to interact with the environment in my most natural way (shooting shit) made the scene far more immersive than it would have been if I had just been a spectator controlling a camera. Infinity Ward understands that and doesn't take the power to shoot away from you very often or for very long. I've not seen any evidence that Treyarch has learned this lesson. Nor Valve or Rock Star or Epic or just about any company that has attempted to utilize the Half-Life style of story telling in their games.
I still regard CoD4 as being one of the best mix of story and gameplay I've ever seen (lots of games have had better stories, but none as well-told in my opinion). Most games load up the cinematics with the necessary bits of plot. While Half-Life (and to a less extent Bioshock) relied too heavily on the locked room mechanic, as some NPC slowly explained the plot to us in what was essentially an impossible to skip cut-scene (see also Black Ops' infamous Pentagon scene), which might be more immersive than a cut-scene, but is also far, far, far more boring. CoD4's story, while simple, just unfolded from gameplay in a way I've not seen before or since; but Infinity Ward has always has always been extremely good at constructing strong set-pieces that play all the required emotions of the story masterfully.
Having played Quantum Of Solace, the first half of CoD 3, and the demos for WaW and Black Ops... I've never felt that same level of immersion from Treyarch. I might know what I'm doing and why it's important, but they're simply not as good at constructing the necessary set pieces to make me feel it.
Actually, that is truer then you think. With so many players, the game has so many people who find and complain about the tiniest of flaws as full blown deal breakers :/MiracleOfSound said:
...I don't think you understand how business works. They're in this to make money. If they keep making the same good game over and over, and people buy it, then that's what they're going to do. They don't care that they're just remaking the same game.Arontala said:
Getting the same game over and over?Arontala said:
I said, that's a result of business strategy. Look at Madden, Final Fantasy. Developers don't deviate from formulas that work. You're criticizing Treyarch for taking the proven IW formula and being successful with it, but that's exactly their intent. Why would they bother taking a risk and changing things up which will probably end up with a flop, when they can basically just tweak the IW setup and end up with a good game that's going to make them a lot of money? It seems silly to criticize a company for doing what is in the company's best interests.
I don't hate Treyarch, but their cod games feel like stuff made by people who just want to cash in on someone (the now deceased infinity ward) else's work that was popular. The games are very dull.
No, this isn't fanboyism, I got tired of modern warfare 2 quick but cod 4 is, by comparison a more fun game than cod 5 (my opinion).
No, this isn't fanboyism, I got tired of modern warfare 2 quick but cod 4 is, by comparison a more fun game than cod 5 (my opinion).
I thought the PC single player on the PC version of Black Ops was pretty enjoyable, my favorite campaign in the series since 4.
The multiplayer on the other hand, is a buggy piece of shit, and Treyarch has been taking their time making map packs instead of fixing bugs.
The multiplayer on the other hand, is a buggy piece of shit, and Treyarch has been taking their time making map packs instead of fixing bugs.
Black Ops was not total garbage as you put it. It was not particularly innovative and the story was bad, but it wasn't a bad game. It may not be the best game ever, but there certainly was a lot of stuff released in 2010 that was worse than Black Ops:Arontala said:
Army of Two: The 40th Day
MAG
White Knight Chronicles
Dante's Inferno
Nier
Naughty Bear
Crackdown 2
Kane and Lynch 2
Ninty-Nine Nights 2
Just to name a few.
The only thing Treyarch brought to the field is Nazi Zombies (which isn't even that good) and having every single one of their weapons feel the exact same. I liked MW2 in the fact that if you needed acurracy, you'll pull out a scar-h. If you needed power you'd bring in a Tar-21. If you need speed you'd get your ACR or F2000. In Black Ops, there is no difference in weapons. You'd go do your job just as efficiently when using an Enfield as you would using the famas or the galil or the aug.