Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Goliath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Treyarch games have never been of the same quality as Infinity Ward

I would just point out that when Treyarch was working on World at War, they were also working on James Bond:Quantum of Solace and Spider-Man: Web of Shadows, they've said that they are putting 100% of their resources into Black-Ops, meaning that it will be much, much better than World at War.

They haven't been working on anything other than Black-Ops since 2008.

They put 100% into Call of Duty 3 too. About the same as WaW in quality.

I'm not saying they can't make a great game, just that history shows that while they make good games, and even great games, their Call of Duty titles never stand as strong as Infinity Ward's (ignoring MW2, it sucked)

Goliath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Treyarch games have never been of the same quality as Infinity Ward

I would just point out that when Treyarch was working on World at War, they were also working on James Bond:Quantum of Solace and Spider-Man: Web of Shadows, they've said that they are putting 100% of their resources into Black-Ops, meaning that it will be much, much better than World at War.

They haven't been working on anything other than Black-Ops since 2008.

So it's still gonna suck, cause those games were both made of fail, 3 fails added together makes one big fail.

dude, problems aside, MW2 did NOT suck. jeez.

Agreed. I had a great time playing MW2.

metallifan wrote:I've never heard of Crytek, but I'd buy a Ubisoft CoD in an instant. Mind you, I guess Ghost Recon will always be there for me. Hmm... On second thought, I'll just stick with Ghost Recon

Ghost recon is a fun game, I prefer my sneaking done sam fisher style my anti-terrorism rainbow six style, and my spec-ops done Ghost Recon style. Red Storm was also a fantastic developer, but I also enjoy volition and pandemic(who closed after The Saboteur).

Ooh, if ubisoft made a CoD game along with Volition, that would be amazing.

As to Treyarch though I will say some positive things.
1) I think they started the sniper rifle shine when the light hits the scope.
2) Tanks are always fun.
3) Hello, my name is Gibby and this my friend Nubs.
4) Lack of all powerful killstreak rewards.(Dogs are easy to kill).
5) First to allow extension of melee attack via bayonet
6) Sawed off shotgun
7) Sticky grenades(first in series)
8) Not all snipers had a ghillie suit(although I will give MW2 points for have ghillie suits that match terrain)
9) Night figthing

halonachos wrote:3) Hello, my name is Gibby and this my friend Nubs.

No idea what that's from, but it made me lol

@ Soladrin, except for the fact that WaW was good and Quantum of Solace was called the best Bond game since Goldeneye so I don't know about that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

metallifan wrote:

halonachos wrote:3) Hello, my name is Gibby and this my friend Nubs.

No idea what that's from, but it made me lol

It is from my Imagination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, I'm going to use it in a comic strip, I just gotta write it down.

No Bond Game will top Goldeneye IMHO. RPG/P90 Combo FTW

And I'll read this webcomic when you finish it

Not going to be a webcomic for awhile. I don't have a fancy shmancy computer drawing thing and colored pencil shows up bad on the scanner. It is most likely going to be done through deviant art though because I am cheap.

Armor Saves, a 40k comedy to be published with "Technicolor"(working title) a more serious 40k comic worked on by another artist, to be published with "Cecil the Cowardly Catfish" also by me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:

Goliath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Treyarch games have never been of the same quality as Infinity Ward

I would just point out that when Treyarch was working on World at War, they were also working on James Bond:Quantum of Solace and Spider-Man: Web of Shadows, they've said that they are putting 100% of their resources into Black-Ops, meaning that it will be much, much better than World at War.

They haven't been working on anything other than Black-Ops since 2008.

So it's still gonna suck, cause those games were both made of fail, 3 fails added together makes one big fail.

So, three decent games in which they didn't apply their full manpower, is equal to one decent game with full use of manpower?

You're logic makes no sense.

dude he's a bitter b, don't bother.

No, my point is I've never seen Treyarch make something that was actually really good, no matter how much manpower they invested.

The fail comments were meant as over exaggerated to get my point across~~ Sorry for that.

Soladrin wrote:No, my point is I've never seen Treyarch make something that was actually really good, no matter how much manpower they invested.

QFT

Treyarch's CoD games aren't bad. But they've never been as good as IW's, and with most of IW's key staff quitting, I doubt the CoD series will be able to maintain it's level of quality prior to the fiasco that was MW2. Will the games still be worth buy, fun to play, and generally good? I don't know. I just know we're past the peak of the series and it's not coming back. The only direction to go is slightly down or way down.

I'm sorry, but why do you keep on referring to MW2 as a failure, or a fiasco, or that it sucked?

It was the most successful game launch ever, how, in your opinion, is it bad?

Goliath wrote:I'm sorry, but why do you keep on referring to MW2 as a failure, or a fiasco, or that it sucked?

It was the most successful game launch ever, how, in your opinion, is it bad?

High sells and a successful launch does not mean a game is good. It's only a measure of whether or not people expect it to be good.

My problem with the game is that it is insanely simplistic. None of the guns carry recoil (Exaggeration, I can count the ones that have recoil on one hand) in addition to a general lack of weapon balance, you have an infinite number of tubes for your noob tube, and kill streaks are overpowered and unbalanced. Anyone can succeed in the game, even people with no skill or ability at it (Some people probably like that, I don't). The hit boxes are huge. They've always been big in CoD, but I mean they are huge. You can be hiding around a corner and still be shot because the hit boxes extend beyond your body. More so, hackers are present in almost every game, and the networking is horrible. The game is broken and at times unplayable. I decided to try it again last week and in the first game I joined: 1 multihacker, 2 wallhackers, and everyone had a noob tube. The game just isn't fun to play. I'd play private games but you gain no experience from them.

I'm not really gonna get into single player. I beat it on hardened in six hours. It wasn't worth sixty bucks no matter how flashy it is (granted, the part where helis are falling from the sky was hilarious because my buddy kept getting smashed). Spec Ops would be fun if there were a way to find people to play with other than begging a friend to suck it up and play with you.

Note that I am a PC gamer, and speak of the PC version of MW2. I've never played the console versions, and what sometimes doesn't fly on the PC will fly just fine on console. My biggest problem with MW2 is that when you use a mouse, its easier to ask how can I not get kills than how can I get kills, and the constant presence of hackers in the playlists (Ones who never seem to get banned). Consoles have fewer hackers, and a game pad lacks the same precision of a mouse in aiming. The game probably would be more enjoyable on my 360 but I just don't want to buy it again.

EDIT: More than that though, the quality of MW2 is nothing compared to what we saw in CoD2 and CoD4, both utterly amazing games. It's like they reproduced what looks like a Call of Duty game, and plays like a Call of Duty game, but the quack from the duck just seems to have a little less soul in it. CoD has degraded from a worthy shooter into a generic arcade gun runner (I should say tube runner/hacker fest as far as PC is concerned). I remember played CoD4 with my buddies and it was a blast. We had fun. In MW2 we had nothing but frustration and annoyance, and a general lack of actual fun after the first ten to twenty hours. Only two of my buds still play MW2 out of the ten who have it. The rest of us went back to CoD4 and then to BFBC2. I hand it to Activision. They may have created what I feel is a crappy game, but they've catered to players who for many years just haven't been able to get anywhere. The noobs. If you can't pwn in MW2, just uninstall your operating system. You're not going anywhere XD.

I'm going to go back to Unreal. If for no other reason than to watch people with no lives act with inhuman reflex and aim at a video game.

LordofHats wrote:The game just isn't fun to play. I'd play private games but you gain no experience from them.

So which is it you want from your game? Fun or points?

The Dreadnote wrote:

LordofHats wrote:The game just isn't fun to play. I'd play private games but you gain no experience from them.

So which is it you want from your game? Fun or points?

That's a silly statement. The experience points and leveling up are part of the fun.

If a game makes everything you try to do a hassle, there's not much of a point in playing it, and I find everything in MW2 a hassle between the catering to noobery, constant hacker presence, and the horrible networking mess that is IW Net.

Don't get me wrong, it's fun sometimes. Going 10-1 on my Kill to Death ratio is awesome when its so easy, but it only stays awesome for so long.

LordofHats wrote:

Goliath wrote:I'm sorry, but why do you keep on referring to MW2 as a failure, or a fiasco, or that it sucked?

It was the most successful game launch ever, how, in your opinion, is it bad?

High sells and a successful launch does not mean a game is good. It's only a measure of whether or not people expect it to be good.

My problem with the game is that it is insanely simplistic. None of the guns carry recoil (Exaggeration, I can count the ones that have recoil on one hand) in addition to a general lack of weapon balance, you have an infinite number of tubes for your noob tube, and kill streaks are overpowered and unbalanced. Anyone can succeed in the game, even people with no skill or ability at it (Some people probably like that, I don't). The hit boxes are huge. They've always been big in CoD, but I mean they are huge. You can be hiding around a corner and still be shot because the hit boxes extend beyond your body. More so, hackers are present in almost every game, and the networking is horrible. The game is broken and at times unplayable. I decided to try it again last week and in the first game I joined: 1 multihacker, 2 wallhackers, and everyone had a noob tube. The game just isn't fun to play. I'd play private games but you gain no experience from them.

I'm not really gonna get into single player. I beat it on hardened in six hours. It wasn't worth sixty bucks no matter how flashy it is (granted, the part where helis are falling from the sky was hilarious because my buddy kept getting smashed). Spec Ops would be fun if there were a way to find people to play with other than begging a friend to suck it up and play with you.

Note that I am a PC gamer, and speak of the PC version of MW2. I've never played the console versions, and what sometimes doesn't fly on the PC will fly just fine on console. My biggest problem with MW2 is that when you use a mouse, its easier to ask how can I not get kills than how can I get kills, and the constant presence of hackers in the playlists (Ones who never seem to get banned). Consoles have fewer hackers, and a game pad lacks the same precision of a mouse in aiming. The game probably would be more enjoyable on my 360 but I just don't want to buy it again.

EDIT: More than that though, the quality of MW2 is nothing compared to what we saw in CoD2 and CoD4, both utterly amazing games. It's like they reproduced what looks like a Call of Duty game, and plays like a Call of Duty game, but the quack from the duck just seems to have a little less soul in it. CoD has degraded from a worthy shooter into a generic arcade gun runner (I should say tube runner/hacker fest as far as PC is concerned). I remember played CoD4 with my buddies and it was a blast. We had fun. In MW2 we had nothing but frustration and annoyance, and a general lack of actual fun after the first ten to twenty hours. Only two of my buds still play MW2 out of the ten who have it. The rest of us went back to CoD4 and then to BFBC2. I hand it to Activision. They may have created what I feel is a crappy game, but they've catered to players who for many years just haven't been able to get anywhere. The noobs. If you can't pwn in MW2, just uninstall your operating system. You're not going anywhere XD.

I'm going to go back to Unreal. If for no other reason than to watch people with no lives act with inhuman reflex and aim at a video game.

everything you mentioned can be solved by joining a group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I play with a group of about 700, there are AT LEAST 20 people online at all times, the group is all about no hacks, no tubes, good connections, etc. it is invite only, and if somebody is caught doing any of these things, people just drop out of the room and unfriend the perp on steam. close to banning as you can get.

LordofHats wrote:everything you mentioned can be solved by joining a group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I play with a group of about 700, there are AT LEAST 20 people online at all times, the group is all about no hacks, no tubes, good connections, etc. it is invite only, and if somebody is caught doing any of these things, people just drop out of the room and unfriend the perp on steam. close to banning as you can get.

So? Why should I need to find a massive group of players to enjoy a game? Whether or not the problems can be solved by this or that doesn't matter. All problems can be solved, but the problems are there and Activision and IW have never tried to solve them. I shouldn't need to work my way into some exclusive band of friends to get a game going and enjoy it.

EDIT: Even in a group I still have to deal with unbalanced weapons and overpowered kill streaks. I'm sure there will be tube jockey's present too and the networking is still horrible. The only problem a group solves are the hacker problems. Wait... wasn't one of IW's excuses for IFail Net that we wouldn't need Clans to deal with hackers for us... Clans are a group of people and are invite only... WAIT A MINUTE!

I looked at the metacritic ratings and had some fun with it. I know some people hate metacritic because of their scoring system, but it works for the most part.

Halo: 97
Halo 2: 95
Halo 3: 94
Halo ODST: 83

CoD United Offensive: 87
CoD Big Red One: 77
CoD 3: 83
CoD 5: 85
MW Reflex Edition for Wii: 76

What I get from this is that the Halo games while good, are overhyped and are gradually falling to pieces, now that Bungie works for Activision I doubt they will make anymore Halo games.

I also get that Treyarch made a fantastic PC game, but suffered on their first console game. They have continued working on it to improve the game for the consoles. Unfortunately they made the Wii version of MW, which got a lower rating which is most likely due to the Wii being the Wii. I use the ghosbusters game as an example.

halonachos wrote:What I get from this is that the Halo games while good, are overhyped and are gradually falling to pieces, now that Bungie works for Activision I doubt they will make anymore Halo games.

Agreed about the Halo games. I blame Microsoft more than Bungie though. Publishers sometimes punish developers to get games out and often they come out premature or before they're ready. In Halo's case, Bungie really wasn't interested in extending the series past Halo 3 and I think that was effecting their mindset while they were making the game because they knew Microsoft wanted them to make more Halo games. I'll however point out Halo is no more overhyped than any other major release game including Call of Duty. Once a game hits a certain point hype just goes crazy, Halo, Call of Duty, and Gears of War being the examples that first come to my mind.

I will point out Bungie, unlike Infinity Ward and Treyarch, does not work for Activision. In most cases, when a game is developed, the Publisher retrains publishing and copy rights, effectively making them the owner of the franchise rather than the people making the game. For example we all know Bungie will never make another Halo. They don't hold the development rights, Microsoft does. Now that they left their ownership by MIcrosoft and no longer want to make Halo games, Bungie fans have known for a long time (Since ODST) that there weren't going to be anymore Halo games by Bungie after Reach. Bungie's agreement with Activision lets the Developer keep all copy rights, meaning they can leave their partnership with Activision whenever they want to, and Activision retains none of the ownership rights to Bungie's work, just the right to publish. This is extremely rare in the industry, and only a company with the hype of Bungie could probably get such a good deal.

It's not really abnormal for Bungie though. They've never been big on franchise games. They only made the Marathon Trilogy, and then 2 Myth's, and then the Halo Trilogy. I wouldn't be surprised to find them working on a stand alone or the first segment of another trilogy as their next project. Their agreement with Activision says that Activision will publish three multi-platform games, so I'm leaning towards trilogy.

halonachos wrote:I looked at the metacritic ratings and had some fun with it. I know some people hate metacritic because of their scoring system, but it works for the most part.

Halo: 97
Halo 2: 95
Halo 3: 94
Halo ODST: 83

CoD United Offensive: 87
CoD Big Red One: 77
CoD 3: 83
CoD 5: 85
MW Reflex Edition for Wii: 76

What I get from this is that the Halo games while good, are overhyped and are gradually falling to pieces, now that Bungie works for Activision I doubt they will make anymore Halo games.

I also get that Treyarch made a fantastic PC game, but suffered on their first console game. They have continued working on it to improve the game for the consoles. Unfortunately they made the Wii version of MW, which got a lower rating which is most likely due to the Wii being the Wii. I use the Ghostbusters game as an example.

I should point out that the lowest rated Halo game(ODST) is also the one that really wasn't intended for anyone but die-hard Halo fans who actually enjoy the background and not just the multiplayer aspect.

And one could easily argue that the only reason "United Offensive" got high marks is because 1)it wasn't anything more than an expansion pack for Call of Duty and 2) Infinity Ward/Gearbox basically gave them everything they could to ensure they didn't screw up.

If you like to argue that point point about the expansion then that makes it easier for me. Over time then, Treyarch has been only getting better with their games.

Also, it doesn't matter who ODST was aimed towards. There were most likely other reasons besides who it was intended for giving it relatively low scores.

If I said that WaW wasn't intended for anyone besides die-hard WW2 fans who actually enjoy the background and not just the multiplayer, would you feel that as a good argument.

No, that's a stupid argument because all World at War did was add in more multiplayer modes to the basic Call of Duty game.

Nazi Zombies and coop campaign, both of which were then scrapped in MW2.

P.S.:
Going from 87 to 76 doesn't equal "getting better with their games".

Well, if they had a lot of help with United Offensive and it was only expansion, its not fair to compare it to actual console games now is it?

All world at war did was add gibbing, a flash off of the sniper scope(MW2 used that), treyarch added tanks and vehicles, added a flamethrower which had been neglected in most other WW2 games, covered the pacific theater, added the possibility to extend melee range unlike MW(although MW2 did use that), added multiplayer night fighting(apparantly we don't fight in the dark anymore), not to mention the replay value went up due to the co-op campaign and of course the zombie mode.

MW2 scrapped those game modes, which is stupid as hell in my opinion. I want the co-op and if a series of missions is the only co-op offered then it sucks. Once I get 3 stars for each mission I'm done and there's no need for me to play them again so I go online.

WaW, I can play the co-op campaign with a friend and have a contest to see who's better at the end. Also, you can't beat zombie mode, literally. I can't get to level 25 and say "Look at that, I beat it." I can only say "Hey, I wonder if I can get farther.". So those two game modes alone make WaW better than MW2.

I truly believe that WaW suffered for only one reason, it was set during WW2.

There are a lot of WW2 games, but not too many modern war games. Although MW2 didn't do anything too special in terms of setting it during the modern era, after all Battlefield 2 beat them to the punch more than awhile back and offered more.

Flamethrowers were neglected in most other WW2 games because they didn't cover the Pacific Theater. They just weren't common outside of the Pacific or Eastern Fronts.

The "flash off the sniper scope" thing was used in Medal of Honor games prior to World at War. So that's not innovative. Same with bayonets.

As for Nazi Zombies...so what?
Firefight for ODST worked the same way. The only reason it got booed was the fact that Firefight required you to move around and actually work coherently with a team. You can't just get a random bunch of jackasses together and play it.

Actually, if you want to live you need to work as a team in zombie mode as well. The main difference is that you can hide behind cover in firefight and you have a set number of lives. In Zombie mode there is no cover, just choke points, and you can go on even after you're downed as long as the other guys survive the round or revive you before actual death.

Flamethrowers were used in both theaters, not just the pacific so that's no excuse for their lack of use. In fact there were two man flamethrower teams deployed at normandy during d-day.

Please reread the comment if you're going to try to have a productive conversation.

Flamethrowers were neglected in most other WW2 games because they didn't cover the Pacific Theater. They just weren't common outside of the Pacific or Eastern Fronts.

Normandy was one of the exceptions to the rule, simply because they were attacking heavily fortified positions and they knew it.

As for your other comment...
I've played with complete dumbasses in zombie mode. One person can carry the team, provided they know what they're doing.

The same doesn't generally work in Firefight.

Wait... 83 is a low score for you people? YOU BE CRAZY!

I guess it could be considered low when you take into account the four point scale.