Jump to content

Treyarch VS. Infinity Ward


Treyarch VS. Infinity Ward  

97 members have voted

  1. 1. Treyarch VS. Infinity Ward

    • Treyarch
      46
    • Infinity Ward
      28
    • I don't care, just give me the game!
      23


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bullshit, W@W was basically a failure without Zombies. The MW campains destroy W@W. Not to mention that Activision forced Treyarch to use IW's engine for for W@W. Activision was tired of trey's versions sucking so much ass that they were going to pull them completely off the CoD franchise. Im not saying the what remains of IW is better but what IW was most certainly was better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol i looked at this poll and thought what a stupid idea, of course everyones gonna be supporting treyarch over iw after mw2's failed multiplayer but its nice to see its still getting some support instead of the same old criticisms, i mean come on they made a mistake dont dwell on it, whoever makes the next modern warfare in the series will just know what not to do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullshit, W@W was basically a failure without Zombies. The MW campains destroy W@W. Not to mention that Activision forced Treyarch to use IW's engine for for W@W. Activision was tired of trey's versions sucking so much ass that they were going to pull them completely off the CoD franchise. Im not saying the what remains of IW is better but what IW was most certainly was better.

Right, because MW2's generic Hollywood action story is way more interesting then shit that actually happened? I'm not suggesting the characters in the game were real, I'm suggesting that it takes place in real locations apart of a battle that actually happened. This is why the story was better then MW2's stupid 'TWO GUYS, AGAINST THE WORLD. THEY'RE GOING TO KILL HUNDREDS ALONE TO BE BETRAYED.' nonsense. Also, now that Black Ops is going to take place during 'Nam, then that's another great story just waiting to happen.

Edited by Cornagandarub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, because MW2's generic Hollywood action story is way more interesting then shit that actually happened? I'm not suggesting the characters in the game were real, I'm suggesting that it takes place in real locations apart of a battle that actually happened. This is why the story was better then MW2's stupid 'TWO GUYS, AGAINST THE WORLD. THEY'RE GOING TO KILL HUNDREDS ALONE TO BE BETRAYED.' nonsense. Also, now that Black Ops is going to take place during 'Nam, then that's another great story just waiting to happen.

 

 

Keep on trollin, I find it funny how you praise W@W for being realistic but bash Medal of honor when that clearly takes place in real life locations ect ect ect, your posts are full of shit man im dont even responding to your garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep on trollin, I find it funny how you praise W@W for being realistic but bash Medal of honor when that clearly takes place in real life locations ect ect ect, your posts are full of shit man im dont even responding to your garbage.

Why are you accusing me of trolling? Treyarch is clearly a better developer because they write good stories and actually listen to the community. Medal of Honor was just a generic shooter and that's that. What did World At War bring? A unique zombie survival mode that countless of other games have recreated (Uncharted 2, Gears of War 2, soon to be Red Dead Redemption), and a WWII story actually worth playing through. Also, World at War showed how Russia really won WWII, and didn't just try to write off the United States as being the ultimate victor who did everything. Infinity Ward may be the one who created the engine, but then look at all the features like zombies and a theatre mode people hoped for in MW2 and that they didn't deliver. IW also promised a wide array of DLC besides map packs (like Spec Ops missions, possibly new single player stuff), and all they did was deliver 6 new maps and 4 old ones for a ridiculous pricing. If I'm being accused for trolling because I like Treyarch, I guess that makes everyone else in this thread a troll too.

Edited by Cornagandarub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you accusing me of trolling? Treyarch is clearly a better developer because they write good stories and actually listen to the community..

 

Activision sure as hell didnt think so thats why they were almost dumped. And that is your opinion, Cod 3 was shit 5 was barely passable the only thing that carried the sales was the CoD name. Without Zombies it would have been a failure

 

Medal of Honor was just a generic shooter and that's that.

 

You play it, NOPE you dont have a clue. You just like to repeat buzz words you read on the net. Get a life and stop repeating shit you read elsewhere and try having your own thoughts....

 

 

What did World At War bring? A unique zombie survival mode that countless of other games have recreated (Uncharted 2, Gears of War 2, soon to be Red Dead Redemption), .

 

Oh really? Perhpas you need to reaserch a fella names George A Romero.

 

and a WWII story actually worth playing through.

 

I cant argue there since WW2 game generall suck ass. Never did i say this one was bad but its nothing like the stories of the far superior Mw

 

 

Also, World at War showed how Russia really won WWII, and didn't just try to write off the United States as being the ultimate victor who did everything.

 

What the hell does this have to with anything, This is about entertainment not fucking history class.

 

Infinity Ward may be the one who created the engine, but then look at all the features like zombies and a theatre mode people hoped for in MW2 and that they didn't deliver. IW also promised a wide array of DLC besides map packs (like Spec Ops missions, possibly new single player stuff), and all they did was deliver 6 new maps and 4 old ones for a ridiculous pricing. If I'm being accused for trolling because I like Treyarch, I guess that makes everyone else in this thread a troll too.

 

AGain no clue, You do realize that IW and Activision were at odds with West & Zampella pretty much immediatly after MW2's relelase???? Im sure they wanted to do all that shit, not their fault that bonuses were pulled its all business. You think that If activision tried this stuff with Trey there wouldnt be problems. Not to mention that Activision has already tapped Raven software(singularity, Xmen Origins Wolverine) to make ALL the DLC for Black ops.. Time to move on little troll..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Activision sure as hell didnt think so thats why they were almost dumped. And that is your opinion, Cod 3 was shit 5 was barely passable the only thing that carried the sales was the CoD name. Without Zombies it would have been a failure

 

 

 

You play it, NOPE you dont have a clue. You just like to repeat buzz words you read on the net. Get a life and stop repeating shit you read elsewhere and try having your own thoughts....

 

 

 

 

Oh really? Perhpas you need to reaserch a fella names George A Romero.

 

 

 

I cant argue there since WW2 game generall suck ass. Never did i say this one was bad but its nothing like the stories of the far superior Mw

 

 

 

 

What the hell does this have to with anything, This is about entertainment not fucking history class.

 

 

 

AGain no clue, You do realize that IW and Activision were at odds with West & Zampella pretty much immediatly after MW2's relelase???? Im sure they wanted to do all that shit, not their fault that bonuses were pulled its all business. You think that If activision tried this stuff with Trey there wouldnt be problems. Not to mention that Activision has already tapped Raven software(singularity, Xmen Origins Wolverine) to make ALL the DLC for Black ops.. Time to move on little troll..

And, yet, you call me a troll for liking real wars as opposed to fake made up garbage. I like MW2 for the multiplayer and Spec Ops if a friend and I want to play. I like WaW for the single player experience and Zombie/co-op mode. The multiplayer in Black Ops looks to be fairly improved, so I'm pretty confident it will be a better game. Treyarch makes better games in my opinion (and you can argue all you want, this thread is about personal opinion). Also, you can't tell me I haven't played a game just because it's not in my trophy list. I was in the beta and I have friends outside of PSN who I can play it with.

Edited by Cornagandarub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm I would have to go with the opposite..

 

I like MW2's campaign way more than Treyarch (17 grenades in 35 seconds on WaW? Really?!?!)

 

WaW doesnt have all the crazy ass "never ending air support rape" problem like MW2, But the spawn system sucked much ass in WaW.. It was barely better in MW2, but better.. IMO

 

Treyarch's idea of difficult is to just lob unending grenades... That isnt hard.. Thats a major annoyance,its the exact same thing as a tard noobtubing the entire match, with danger close and One Man Army, only its done by the AI.. Nothing more.. "Instead of making the enemies harder, we will just grenade spam every step of the way"...Retarded...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...