Treyarch or InfinityWard?

[Munkeh111]

KylieDog said:

Munkeh111 said:

KylieDog said:
If metacritic is your best defence I am laughing.


Guess what, what IW thinks players want and what players actually do want are different things also.


The co-op modes on WaW always have a crapload of people playing them...but of course all those people in fact dislike the co-op, they play it because they hate it.


They have the evidence right there that people like it, R2 also had many complaints when it was removed. BUT IW KNOW BETTER.

So why are CoD's 4 and 5 still played as much if WaW is so much better? (This week WaW 2nd on Live, last 4 2nd)

I'm using gamerankings because you won't listen to everyone else saying 4 is better, or all the critics saying 4 is better. Everyone will agree 4 had the better campaign, the pacing, level design and basically everything else was far better than WaW. Seriously, I don't know what you want me to say to convince you. Everyone else in this thread disagrees with you. I tried explaining why 4 is rated higher, but you ignored it so what do you want?

I'm not saying that co-op is bad, but the SP experience is worse because of it. WaW is more about large scale military conflicts, whereas for most of 4 you are working in small squads with the SAS, and so creating co-op modes seperate means that the SP can still be great

There's not much more I can say given that you ignore all my points.

What points?  You aren't stupid, I've read your posts elsewhere.  You know gamerankings or metacritic as far far from the be all and end all of stating how good a game is, why you would use this a defence I don't know.

You other point that IW say they know what makes co-op better is also hollow by the fact the CoD: WaW co-op is massive success, well liked and goes totally against what IW say.

Things like level design, being in WW2 and such or just individual opinion.  There is a reason there are so many WW2 games and that is because it is a very popular war and people like it.  Level design is totally in the eye of the player and again, people are playing it in mass so evidently people like it.

On a technical level WaW crapped all over MW and that is solid fact, no arguing it.  The rest is all personal preference which doesn't make one better or worse.  Quality vs quantity is always a bad argument anyway because a certain quantity needs be met or the quality doesn't matter.  A perfect meal once a week only is not preferable to an average meal daily.  Or for a more suited version if quality is all that mattered then why do so many Wii owners complain about lack of third party support, they have Nintendo games.

Aaaaahhhhhhhhhh! You're not listning. I am talking about how the SP on WaW is worse, because you can't include some of the best scenes from 4, because they work much better as lone experiences. And Resistance 2's MP has highly praised, though we don't know whether more people are playing R2 co-op or WaW, though I suspect the latter because of the brand name, but still dedicated co-op experiences generally work better. How many people think that 5 had a better SP than 4? And that is partially because of the fact that it did not have to be designed to accomodate co-op.

People are getting sick of WW 2 games, there are less and less, and the CoD series was reviltalised because 4 took it to a modern setting. The other thing is the pacing that 4 has. Everyone knows that 4 has a better SP than 5.

I don't really know about tech issues since I played both through on an SDTV

There are plenty of developers working on great shooters for PS360, we don't need a Call of Duty every year really. Indeed, even though Treyarch may be a jack of all trades, they are a master of none. There are enough developers around that we don't just need a few that make loads of different types of games. Quantity is also dependent on the size of the studio, and I know IW has 100+ employees, but I don't really know any more details on their employee numbers