Let me just start by saying this:
- CoD 2; love it!
- I played Modern Warfare 1. Masterpiece.
- I didn't play MW2, but I watched a walkthrough ( I love Arma 1 so much, it's probably illegal! So I'm also a big story-guy ). MW2 looked really good.
- I played MW3, and . . .
[OK, quick side comment: Lag comp is about unifying hitboxes with models. Without l / c we might as well try to play with our monitors switched off. I only mention that in order to say . . . . ]
. . . MW3 getting 'shot around corners' - I was OK with that. I understand how it happens, and I realise the alternative is worse**. But insta-death? . . I was not OK with that! I do not see why we should have insta-death; especially when some other guys go warrioring around the map, eating up half-clips and just walking it off. And Ghosts is just more-of-the-same plus some other stuff.
( **yeah, I know. There is another alternative: dedicated servers. But that's a moot point. There's no incentive to bring back DS if p2p CoD continues selling. If we really want dedicated servers, then we need to show it in Activision's sales figures. Though I don't get why they stopped allowing PC players to make their own servers & mods. But I digress.. )
So Treyarch gave us SFDF. I hated that. But that's fine because we call them out for it all the time. Every time someone mentions Treyarch, someone soon afterwards mentions SFDF. Again, that's fine because it's accurate and correct. But when someone mentions IW, no one mentions insta-death. Why? OK, IW is taking a lot of heat for other stuff, but they are still disproportionately favoured to Treyarch in the pubs-community due to SFDF. It ought to be closer if the major gripe is gun battle anomalies. IW has some of their own, too.
At least with SFDF, after turning the air blue during the killcam with some words beginning with 'F', you think to yourself: "maybe if I would have landed a headshot," or "next time, I'm drop shotting," or "now i'm shotgunning / quickscoping." But insta-death has you dropped before you even realise you were in a gun fight. There is zero you can do about it...
IW ought to be as synonymous with Insta-death as 3arc w/ SFDF; probably even more so. I'd just like to ask why they aren't . . .
Well that was confusing.
I think you are overstating the Community's views. Overall, it seems some favor IW, others Treyarch, and the rest of us are able to see the strengths and weaknesses in each.
I don't really favour one over. the other, but I think you have to bear in mind everybody has a different experience due to connections, matchmaking and generally just how the game runs. For me...
W@W (Treyarch) ran good
MW2 (IW) ran superbly
Black Ops (Treyarch) was almost unplayable, certainly my least enjoyable CoD experience
MW3 (IW) ran okay
Black ops 2 (Treyarch) ran okay
Ghosts (IW) runs very good, just the odd game that has issues.
So overall I personally have had better experiences with IW, but really I have little preference and if Treyarch made a game that ran as well as MW2 it wouldn't make me love them any more or less. Both have the ability to make a good or bad gaming experience. If it turns out to be bad one I will just play something different until the next iteration, as I did with Black ops.
I think why people call MW1 a masterpiece is because it was something entirely new at the time and it set a new era, and though the years of the repeated formula people got tired. What is it that made MW1 a masterpiece? It was because it was here first to the gamers. So people cant really say anything about the MW series because it is a repeated formula. But WaW came around and started a new line of favoritism. What Im trying to say is that people have their own pros and cons for every COD.
When theres an IW game out, everyone hates IW and loves Treyarch. When theres a Treyarch game out, everyone hates Treyarch and loves IW.
People just don't have the ability to take off their rose colored glasses.
I personally prefer Treyarch. Most of the people I have talked to about it do as well. I haven't heard many players holding IW in high regard since before MW3.
Many thanks for the replies so far.
First of all @Shadowelite555: Regarding the love for MW1, you make valid points. Regarding people not being able to say anything about other MWs because they follow the formula of MW1 - this is interesting. So, if I'm not misunderstanding, then we're suggesting that the cachet that IW got from releasing MW1 might have shielded MW3 from being evaluated solely on it's own merits & deficiencies (?). That could be one answer to my original question, thanks .
I kind of emphasised how much I liked MW1 because I didn't want the tone of my thread to come across as indiscriminate IW-bashing. I'm not bashing, I'm just asking why there's an inequality in their favour when both studios' recent titles have equally devastating gun-battle issues. ( Or maybe I should say 'apparent inequality' if @Nicedrewishfela is correct by suggesting that I'm overstating this ). It's possible that I could be, but I honestly feel as though I see Treyarch criticised more harshly than IW for similar gun-battle issues.
I acknowledge that IW is now under immense pressure for the other stuff in Ghosts, and this restores the balance somewhat. But there should have been a balance anyway because, as @Sennalike points out, different people have different experiences with each iteration. So I would've expected similar issues to result in similar amounts of criticism for each side for these issues. i.e. if BO2 has SFDF for some people & MW3 has insta-death for some people, both titles should have received similar amounts of community uproar . . . but it wasn't close. Ghosts is a difficult case to compare because insta-death could possibly have been getting the spotlight it deserves if it weren't for the more fundamental issues with the game. But then, MW3 got a pass . . so who knows? I also don't want to get too serious and burst a vessel about this. I'm just interested to hear from people why there's such a difference in community perception of the 2 studios ( *excluding* the shift towards parity caused by Ghosts' other issues ).
You will see two things happen every year:
Its a vicious cycle of BS when they can easily stop playing the game and play another one, but from their hateful posts its clear they LOVE playing the game.
Moaners aside WE SHOULD be able =
to pl;ay - zombies - on fog
not a problem to make ,weve paid enough out,the numbers (online ) are woeful
so get more content,seems "ok" if you like team deathmatch !
I hold them in high regard because they didn't resort to giving us another Black Ops II. They took a huge step back and focused on the basics. They gave us a well balanced game, an interesting perk system (I don't mind how they do the perks but I think it's revealed some inherent flaws), and the maps are great in principle.
If (note the word "if") they continue down this path I think they've given themselves a good foundation to work with. The maps need some major workings to help balance the traffic flow and keep spawns from becoming a clusterfuck that they are now. Perks might need to be a bit more simple as there are too many perks that are greatly needed and players often have to forgo perks they generally enjoy.
The weapon balance was, originally, spot on. However, nerfs and buffs were counter productive. SMGs are still far more useful than I feel they should be and some of the more skilled ARs got nerfs they shouldn't.
All in all, Ghosts is the most enjoyable CoD since Black Ops for me and Black Ops was my favorite. I greatly enjoy the gun on gun experience and not having to worry about endless airsupport.