By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
kibebr said:
famousringo said:
So far nobody has mentioned that Activision gave Treyarch a mere 8 months to make Call of Duty 3. Just 8 months, and they deliver a decent game to multiple platforms. I don't expect a better result from any other developer operating under such severe constraints.

Inifinity Ward has never had less than two years to finish one of their Call of Duty games.

So TreyArch needs a new board, because theyr games aren´t AAA+ or A, just B or C+... so, when a company has 2 years to do a game and RULEZ out, it´s incredible, a lot more profit comming in...

About being open mind, you must love then because they propose to do art and not comercial games... it´s smells not so good... they need to focus, be a man and do an A+ game...

So , if the problem is time do develop, change the president and board do TreyArch to have more time and be respected...

I see just Treyarch BOTs defending themselves...HERE.

You don't really understand the relationship between a developer and its publisher, do you? Activision tells Infinity Ward to make them a new Call of Duty every two years. Activision tells Treyarch to do everything else. Activision sets the project, the funding levels and the release date, and all Treyarch can do is deliver it the best they can with the constraints given to them.

Not sure why I'm arguing with you when all you do is hurl baseless ad-hominems in horrible English. You'd think that if I were an android built by Treyarch that I would have at least one game made by them in my collection...



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.