Infinity Ward or Treyarch?
Infinity Ward (Modern Warfare)
22.2% (16)
22.2% (16)
Treyarch (Black Ops)
33.3% (24)
33.3% (24)
Both Good
2.8% (2)
2.8% (2)
Both Awful
13.9% (10)
13.9% (10)
I am neutral.
27.8% (20)
27.8% (20)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Call of Duty: Treyarch and Infinity Ward

Hello all.

TL;DR : Infinity ward games are stale yet favoured, whereas Treyarch's are new and changing yet disliked?

------

I am here today to ask you whether or not you agree with the general belief that Infinity Ward are a superior developer for the Call of Duty Franchise, generally, on the internet, it is agreed that Modern Warfare is the only reason the Franchise still has followers, and frankly i disagree.

Treyarch have brought several new things to the field to try and keep the game fresh, Such as branching storylines, Strikeforce missions, customization screens at the beginning of missions. They also update their games regularly and if any glitches or exploits are found, offenders are banned and reset, keeping the game fair and appealing. Whereas Infinity Wards servers are often filled with modded lobbies, hackers and glitches, and nothing is done about them for months?

Their zombies mode has grown and grown over the time to try and keep it new, but yet people still seem to favor Infinity Ward massively? Infinity ward never seem to change their formula of 'Terrorists with nukes' Campaign, Quickscoper online and Glitch filled maps.

i do love Modern Warfare series, and i buy and play them everytime,for hours on end at a time but i can't help but feel that a lot of Treyarch's hate is undeserved, at least they try to respons to community feedback, they try to keep their game new and appealing, and they want to shake the negative label Call of Duty has recieved. So i ask you,What is your opinion on Treyarch and Infinity Ward, which do you favour (if you have a favorite) and why, or do you agree with Treyarch reputation?

Option 3 and 4 in the poll are bugged.

This is odd. I always thought people enjoyed Treyarch's games more. During the BO2 reveal on steam(You know, the preorder that was 6 months early or something) the steam forums were a bit more excited for Treyarch and I've seen quite a few jabs at Infinity Ward for making the same damn game over and over again.

EDIT: Anyways, I'm neutral.

They are both awful at least with making multiplayer. I despise pretty much every single mechanic in the COD series from killstreak rewards (why reward camping?) to regen health to grenade buttons.

Treyarch doesn't know what they are doing with regards to multiplayer for sure. In Black Ops, the dev stated they don't want quickscoping in their game. What do they do? They break sniping, a whole playstyle, so there's no quickscoping. Why don't you just remove the aim-assist (which has no place in any competitive multiplayer) since that's what quickscopers exploit?

I recently picked up MW3 with the intention of just playing the Campaign and Spec Ops missions with my sister. I've never really liked the multiplayer in COD so I've just totally avoided it, and I think I'm enjoying the whole game a lot more because I've not stepped foot in the competitive side of the game.

But I went into the game thinking I'd absolutely hate the whole thing, because of what all my friends had told me about it. But in all honesty, I absolutely love the entire story, and the voice acting is bloody great (and they have a whole cutscene talking about Hereford, a small city in England where I happen to live :D) And the way the game managed to invoke actual excitement in me while I was playing it. I just loved the whole thing

But as soon as I started playing MW3, I couldn't believe how good the whole game felt. Everything had so much weight to it and it genuinely felt gritty, and it just felt absolutely goddamn awesome to play

I've not played Black Ops 2, but judging the first one, I really liked the campaign, but when I look back on the whole game, it felt much more cartooney if you know what I mean?

It didn't have the same raw tone MW3 had, the game kinda felt plastic..And I didn't feel I could go back and play the campaign after playing it once already, once the big twist comes out, replaying it just doesn't feel as wholesome

But I still really liked the game, I just think Infinity Ward have managed to invoke more excitement and satisfaction with their games

Infinity Ward made the only good CoD installment (the first MW) while Treyarch made the worst piece of shit FPS I've ever played, World at War. As I grew up and gained maturity, I didn't even like the first MW anymore. The multiplayer is pretty bad except for making terrible gamers think they're great at something, which explains it's popularity I guess.

Phoenixmgs:
They are both awful at least with making multiplayer. I despise pretty much every single mechanic in the COD series from killstreak rewards (why reward camping?)

But that's wrong m8. I wish you luck trying to get killstreaks while camping in BO2 in objective gamemodes.

OT: I'll echo the above sentiment to a point. COD multiplayer has been awful since COD 4. Full of imbalanced crap, poor design decisions and recently absolutely terrible maps.

However, COD 4 and MW2 still managed to be fun (MW2 because everything was so ridiculously powerful). When the old Infinity Ward went under, they lost it in my opinion. MW3, BO and BO2 kept the flaws of their predecessors, heaped on a few new ones and took out all the fun in one way or another - Treyarch by taking the speed out of the game in BO1, Infinity Ward by implementing that absolutely awful pointstreak system and having the absolute worst maps I have ever seen in an FPS in MW3, and Treyarch again by fucking up gun and killstreak balance in BO2.

I'll give Treyarch one thing: they do a good job of supporting their games after release as far as bugs and exploits are concerned (something you'd usually take for granted from a series as big as COD, but we all know what state MW2 was left in for the longest time), but I just found MW2 and COD4 a lot more fun than their efforts.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Phoenixmgs:
They are both awful at least with making multiplayer. I despise pretty much every single mechanic in the COD series from killstreak rewards (why reward camping?)

But that's wrong m8. I wish you luck trying to get killstreaks while camping in BO2 in objective gamemodes.

People already camp enough in games. Most matches of any shooter I play I literally have to go into the other team's spawn zone for kills and these are games without killstreaks. You add in rewards for camping, then there's even more camping. There should be mechanics that punish camping, not reward it. Pretty much every mechanic in COD is the exact opposite of what I prefer in a shooter. Has COD removed aim-assist yet?

It's ridiculous to compare the two at this point. The Infinity Ward team that made the Call of Duty games appealing in the first place is pretty much all gone, and the closest thing we have to that team now is Respawn Entertainment. Keep in mind, anyone who has been with CoD longer than the Modern Warfare trilogy is likely going to go with Infinity Ward, because most of us still remember how great CoD1, CoD2, and CoD4 were (not to mention how great MW2 was before the community ruined it), and we're also left remember how crappy CoD3 was and how much World at War was nothing more than a mediocre WWII expansion to CoD4. Black Ops also did little to redeem Treyarch's semi-bad reputation, at least for me, as most of its changes were completely meaningless (but hey, at least now you can customize your emblem and put it on your weapon! ZOMG!!!!), and the few changes that meant anything were mostly bad (killstreaks not stacking only encourages more camping, and changing looks based on perks rather than weapons makes it impossible to determine how to maneuver in a firefight, only encouraging camping more). There are more things that can be gone into, such as map design, balancing philosophy, etc., but understand that this is really what led people to enjoy IW over Treyarch in the first place, though it would take too long to go through all of it. Can't really speak for BO2, though, as I completely lost faith in Treyarch around BO and in CoD at MW3.

At this point, both developers really just suck. Infinity Ward isn't the team that it used to be, and Treyarch has never really been that great. However, if we're comparing the two as they were when the rivalry began, IW was unquestionably the better developer, at least for Call of Duty.

Phoenixmgs:
Most matches of any shooter I play I literally have to go into the other team's spawn zone for kills and these are games without killstreaks. You add in rewards for camping, then there's even more camping. There should be mechanics that punish camping, not reward it.

Then you clearly haven't played Black Ops 2.

Its funny because you started out by hating on the game, and now you're basically praising it without realizing what you're doing.

Protip: to get a killstreak thats worth a fuck in BO2 you need around 1200 points. Killing someone gets you 50 while killing someone on a flag will get you double that and succesfully capping a flag will net you a cool 200.

On top of that the perk that will make you immune to enemy UAVs and thus take you off their radar only works in your favor if you're moving around. Sit in a room and the perk stops working, and you'll show up on everyones HUD as if you didn't have the perk equipped.

And if that isn't enough to convince you: theres a massive COD community on Youtube which you should check out. I don't watch COD videos often but everytime I have stumbled across a video entitled "BLACK OPS 2 - SUPER LEGIT MLG 150 KILL GAME" its been a guy rushing with an SMG, not a guy sitting in the back of the map with an assault rifle. The former is clearly the more successful playstyle, though the latter is admittedly more likely to yield good results if BO2 is your first FPS.

Phoenixmgs:
Has COD removed aim-assist yet?

I have no idea. AFAIK its still present in the console versions while the PC version has never had aim assist. Come to think of it, that seems to be the standard. Or can you name a console FPS game that has no auto aim?

And for what its worth, you can turn autoaim off in the settings of every COD I've played on a console, although you're probably worried about other people using it.

I'd vote for old Infinity Ward, AKA Respawn Entertainment. Treyarch and Infinity Ward are dreadful at making new games.

I'm not a huge fan of either of them, but Treyarch games are more enjoyable for me. Infinity Ward hasn't really done much for the series while Treyarch is experimenting with each new installment.

Phoenixmgs:
Has COD removed aim-assist yet?

Nope.

That's something that bothers me tremendously about CoD is the auto aim system they have. Despite the insistence that it's 'aim assist' it's a full on aim bot. Snapped to a single target you can walk a full circle around them without using the right stick. Faced with multiple targets you can snap from target to target to target without using either stick at all.

I more or less stopped paying attention to CoD when the Infinity Wardamerung kicked off, but even before than the auto aim was an irritating system to deal with.

I only played the series up to Modern Warefare 2. So CoD3 was the only Treyarch installment I played, and it sucked ass.

I'm voting for Infinity Ward.

Why?

Well, not because of Modern Warfare. Heck, not even because of MW4. I consider all those games to be generic, compared to their heritage. But because of Call of Duty 1 and 2. Genre defining games and still amazing to play today.

Phoenixmgs:
They are both awful at least with making multiplayer. I despise pretty much every single mechanic in the COD series from killstreak rewards (why reward camping?) to regen health to grenade buttons.

Treyarch doesn't know what they are doing with regards to multiplayer for sure. In Black Ops, the dev stated they don't want quickscoping in their game. What do they do? They break sniping, a whole playstyle, so there's no quickscoping. Why don't you just remove the aim-assist (which has no place in any competitive multiplayer) since that's what quickscopers exploit?

Killstreaks don't reward camping, maybe you don't know how to play...

At least in Treyarch games, I personally dislike MW2 and MW3, World At War is the best in the series, it just sucks so few people play it.
Black Ops 2 was good, but the maps could've been better and there were Ping issues in PC version. Speaking about maps, it's a shame it starts getting worse and worse. Cod2 and MW maps were awesome, WaW were pretty good, Black Ops were ok, and MW3 were shit.

And aim assist does not exist in the PC master race.

______

I choose Treyarch if I count the more recent present, beacause the only great Cod IW made was Cod4 while Treyarch made Cod waW and BO. I'm only speaking for the MP and can't talk about BOII because I don't have it.
If we look behind however, IW is way better, COD 1 and 2 were awesome while 3 was crap.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Phoenixmgs:
Most matches of any shooter I play I literally have to go into the other team's spawn zone for kills and these are games without killstreaks. You add in rewards for camping, then there's even more camping. There should be mechanics that punish camping, not reward it.

Then you clearly haven't played Black Ops 2.

And if that isn't enough to convince you: theres a massive COD community on Youtube which you should check out. I don't watch COD videos often but everytime I have stumbled across a video entitled "BLACK OPS 2 - SUPER LEGIT MLG 150 KILL GAME" its been a guy rushing with an SMG, not a guy sitting in the back of the map with an assault rifle. The former is clearly the more successful playstyle, though the latter is admittedly more likely to yield good results if BO2 is your first FPS.

I don't need to have played Blops2. I realize the better players don't camp and I realize that you usually can't do well camping in objective games. The problem is all the other players camp. Even in games without killstreak rewards, the majority camp. Killstreak rewards just make even more people camp. Why reward playing in a manner where you don't die for long stretches?

I assume SMGs are still overpowered then. I don't even play COD anymore because the mechanics are very poor (like spawn points instead of spawn zones), and you can't count on the games having any balance whatsoever. Plus, COD is a FPS without leaning, I gotta have my leaning if I'm playing a FPS even though I'm on a console. MoH Warfighter blows COD out of the water even if it does have pointstreak rewards, the gunplay is immensely better with leaning and the ability to slide and shoot.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Phoenixmgs:
Has COD removed aim-assist yet?

I have no idea. AFAIK its still present in the console versions while the PC version has never had aim assist. Come to think of it, that seems to be the standard. Or can you name a console FPS game that has no auto aim?

And for what its worth, you can turn autoaim off in the settings of every COD I've played on a console, although you're probably worried about other people using it.

I'm not a big FPS fan so I probably couldn't tell you a FPS that doesn't have aim-assist. I played MGO for 4 years and that game didn't have any aim-assist, and MGO was a game that required headshots (since body shots did very little damage) and us console users had no problem getting headshots without any assistance in about 1 second flat.

The whole aim-assist/quickscoping thing about COD just shows both devs don't know what they're doing. The solution was to just either remove aim-assist from the game, code better aim-assist, or remove aim-assist on sniper rifles. Treyarch, on the other hand, decided to break sniping to remove quicksoping. The bigger problem is that aim-assist is more like auto-aim than aim-assist as fix-the-spade mentions:

fix-the-spade:
That's something that bothers me tremendously about CoD is the auto aim system they have. Despite the insistence that it's 'aim assist' it's a full on aim bot. Snapped to a single target you can walk a full circle around them without using the right stick. Faced with multiple targets you can snap from target to target to target without using either stick at all.

Rob Robson:
Infinity Ward made the only good CoD installment (the first MW) while Treyarch made the worst piece of shit FPS I've ever played, World at War. As I grew up and gained maturity, I didn't even like the first MW anymore. The multiplayer is pretty bad except for making terrible gamers think they're great at something, which explains it's popularity I guess.

On PS3 those terrible games moved to Killzone 2 and raged because they kept getting dropped in one handgun shot to the face when they were running around like morons with SMG's and the shotgun.

Oh the foaming mouthed screeches of "faggot". Good times.

OT: I prefer the co-op options offered up by IW but I quite enjoy Blops 2's multiplayer in splitscreen with bots. Even though every single map is exactly the fucking same.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

I have no idea. AFAIK its still present in the console versions while the PC version has never had aim assist. Come to think of it, that seems to be the standard. Or can you name a console FPS game that has no auto aim?

And for what its worth, you can turn autoaim off in the settings of every COD I've played on a console, although you're probably worried about other people using it.

I don't think Killzone 2 has aim-assist and if it does it's off by default and/or doesn't do a damn thing. I also don't think the first Resistance does.

Or any of the Metroid Prime games.

Where's the option to support Infinity Ward but not Infinity Ward 2? When Activision drove off the creators of IW, they also drove a lot of the original talent with them and replaced them basically with stooges (look at the wages of the original IW guys compared to the people who are the 'head' of Infinity Ward now. The original people had unprecedented creative control which is basically why they were fired).

I don't really consider MW3 Infinity Ward to be the same company as MW and MW2 IW

I like the original Infinity Ward. Treyarch makes fun games, but the multiplayer is just...well...bad. Most treyarch levels don't favor long range engagements and reward rushing forward like a jackass with an SMG or a shotgun and hoping you get the first shot. Exacerbating these issues are some of the ways guns can be tricked out. For example, if I shoot at someone with an assault rifle and hit them with two 3 round bursts center mass, there isn't any body armor on earth(save a tank or other armored vehicle) that will dissipate that impact enough for you to keep an aimed shot down range. But with the Flinch perk, an enemy can literally get shot by a bazooka and still aim as if he is in a tree stand aiming at an oblivious deer from 10 feet away. If he has a long barrel on his weapon, forget it. They can outshoot a sniper rifle with a shotgun. Especially if it is the slug gun. I also really, really hate the shotguns in both games. I understand they are powerful but if you're forcing me to fight close engagements anyway, can't they at least dumb down the range on the shotgun to a somewhat fair level? If an assault rifle isn't deadly accurate past 20 feet in the game, no way a shotgun should be.

TLDR: Old Inifiity Ward> Infinity Ward > Treyarch

I voted Treyarch because in this series (which I think is the definition of mediocrity by the way because I may sound a bit fanboyish here) Treyarch is the only one still trying, and they always have tried.

Infinity Ward stopped caring about making a good experience and focused entirely on the multiplayer with MW2, and this was before they all got fired and made MW3. Their games are stale to me, I wish they wouldn't be, but there you go.

Infinity Ward:
CoD 1: Ok I guess, hasn't aged well.
CoD 2: Better, but hasn't aged well.
CoD 4: Really loved, has aged well and has been the template for the 'modern' CoDs, and it's campaign is still enjoyable.
MW2: I really, really hated MW2. It's my least favourite Call of Duty overall.
MW3: An upgrade to MW2 (although nobody will agree with me), but it's still awful, and Modern Warfare 3 has the worst spawns in gaming history, even post patch. It's campaign is god awful as well, CoD's gameplay cannot support the lack of atmosphere, good storyline or interesting characters.

Treyarch:
CoD 2: BRO (heh, heh, bro): I actually quite liked it, it hasn't aged well but it's focus on characters is enjoyable.
CoD 3: Same as BRO, just not as good as it, introduced one of my favourite game modes in games (War).
CoD WaW: It's a carbon copy of CoD 4 but it's removed all the nonsense of it and tried upgrading it. WaW's my favourite Call of Duty.
CoD Black Ops: It tried being original (for Call of Duty standards anyway) and creative with it's ideas, it's campaign is certainly proof of that with it's interesting twists and attempts at character development.
CoD Black Ops II: Same as Black Ops, and I'd actually rate it's campaign as best in series despite it's horrific gameplay because it's restricted by Call of Duty standards. Multiplayer is meh but it's tried changing some things.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked