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.
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:
- When IW is the developer you get haters appearing on the forums and talk smack as if they know how to do things better
- When Treyarch is the developer you get haters appearing on the forums and talk smack as if they know how to do things better
- Even before Sledgehammer has officially made an entrance you already have disapproving posts that the game (should) play as before. When released, you will have haters swearing that the game sucks and that previous titles are better.
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.
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.
I think that the what made players dismay with Ghost is that it went away form the basic principle of the previous CoD games of the three lanes system.
For years they knew that there were three major lanes and they worked their style on this basic principle. Suddenly there is a very big change and instead of players coming out of only three ways now they could come out from lots of places. So many places that you don't know where to run and cut off the opposition.
Know they have to use their brain and anticipate where the players will come from. And this means that they have to predict the opponent players movements and adopt to their movement and tactics.
This requires skill, experience and the use of your brain. It's no longer lane 1,2 or 3. Run anywhere or camp anywhere and someone will always come to you. Now you really have to work for your kill. You have to work for your streak.
So now that the game does not comes easy to them they start to complain. And to cover their own weakness of mastering the game they start to complain on this and that. OP weapons, under-powered weapons, lag, frame drop and many more things.
They place their inability of doing well on others. What confuses me is that they all think that they are the best players and if they die is not their fault but it's the game that is broken.
Ghost has improved on a lot of thing. Weapons, perks, equipment, streaks and hit detection.
And I agree with others that Ghost together with BO1 are the most enjoyable games.
The three lane system is just too easy. CoD vets can pound on players all day long without a second thought and that's was a huge problem in Black Ops II. You have 6 guys and 3 lanes. That's 2 per lane.
Most gamemodes became a "who can spawntrap first" that in large part was due to the incredibly brainless strategy that a three lane map allowed. Ghosts did the right thing with expanding the maps into a more location oriented layout but what they didn't factor in was that the maps are too multi-leveled and open for 6 players. I agree with the way they made the maps but it doesn't work if only 6 guys are on a team. GW works beautifully in Ghosts and those extra few players make all the difference.
I think Black Ops 2 made the three lane system far too simple. It seemed like every map had three parallel lanes that all ran together at the middle of the map. I think Black Ops 1 did a much better job with a "modified" 3 lane system where the lanes weren't straight or perfectly parallel and had buildings, walls, cover, etc. I think the maps in BO2 actually hurt vets in certain scenarios. It forced a lot of connection based gunfights due to the lack of cover and power positions that could easily make up for a bad connection in previous games.
IDK, one could argue Ghosts is the opposite of a step back - changing the basics is not a step back but more of a side-step.
I strongly agree that they need to tweak the maps for flow and spawn systems need a total overhaul.
I still think the reason people rant about BO2 etc so much is that they are basic, fast and rewarding.
Ghosts is far more tactical and strategic with a slower pace and greater accuracy.
People who like the older COD's generally don't want a serious, strategic and passive game - they want predictable fast based reflex shooters.
That's why I like the two games for their respective reasons.
However I can say I don't play Ghosts anymore, too few players, horrible lag (because of player-count), too serious and competitive.
Not to say I won't play it again I just can't stand it anymore - most of my friends and clan have given up on it (in Aus we only see on average 11-12,000 players on each night) plus since the BF4 netcode patch that game is rocking.
Not to mention BF Hardline Beta is fun as !
Thanks @Ghamorra, @C_CHRIS11 & everyone for your replies!
I think most people would agree that both studios are excellent at innovating. The innovation has been back-and-forth between the two since MW1. In terms of content, it's been great for the franchise. Hopefully this continues.
Your favourites ( BO1, Ghosts ) place you into a particularly interesting position concerning my question, and so I'd like to explore this a bit further. As you have most likely seen, I am of the view that IW's titles take less of a hit from us than Treyarch's when the issues are similar. I could have sworn I witnessed this over the lifetimes of MW3 & BO2, but it's starting to look as though I might be alone with this.
Unfortunately, I can't ask for a straight up comparison between the volumes of criticism directed towards BO1 and Ghosts because the community's gripes are too different in each case. Ideally, I should be asking somebody whose two favourites are MW3 & BO2, but in the absence of such a person, I'll try and learn something anyway.
BO1 was my first console shooter, but I was very late with it. I would have had it much earlier on PC, but I was still trying to resist Steam – that's actually why I missed MW2. I was also still having so much fun on BF2 (not BFBC2).
[ Let me just digress for a sec.. A small observation about BF2 on PC: It was an amazing game! It had a tonne of dedicated servers. It was common practice for servers to enforce ping restrictions on the players. Despite this, there was still a hitbox/model sync issue. It wasn't game-breaking though ( it was actually hardly ever a problem ) because if you ever wanted to hit anything in BF2, you had to set your posture, aim and control your fire. So most infantry battles took place long range and between stationary guys that were prone or on a knee (err.. or head glitching). But if you were all set up, and you were trying to hit a guy sprinting across you at some range, you had to do a bit of searching with the aim. I remember some guys pixellated the various gun-sights in search of the 'sweet spot', heh . Of course, all players are now a lot more informed about the effects of lag. Their work was very appreciated though. Just something to think about for those that believe that dedicated servers alone are the holy grail ].
Aaanyway . . I think I remember the big gripe in the community with BO1 was lag stuff & host migration. 'Lag Ops' was a phrase I seem to remember seeing. I don't think there was an equivalent to SFDF that completely distorted gun fights. You guys probably did not experience too many issues with BO1, but did you see the complaints from those that did? If so, how vociferous were they in general? Obviously we've all seen extreme guys that issue death threats for, like, 0.05s on a ADS. We're not interested those types. Just the general level of dissatisfaction of the majority. I'm hoping that since BO1 was especially enjoyable for you, you might have a somewhat accurate recollection of this.
I had a quick glance at the archives to check community outrage about quickscoping in MW3 compared to BO2, and.... well, there's just generally a whole load of outrage. I don't think there was as much QSing done in BO1; so it wouldn't make much sense for me to ask about that. From what I've seen, non-snipers seem to be retrospectively satisfied with BO1 sniping mechanics and laud them as the preferred route for current CoDs.
- The BO2 forum had a tonne of anti-QS sentiments, but a lot of them were before the release of BO2. So those sentiments would probably have been a reaction to MW3.
- Ghosts is getting destroyed for QS: “is a joke” is up to page 17, “plenty kids” is on page 90 and “getting rid” & “needs to be fixed” have about 100 posts combined. But, again, Ghosts is in a different position because the anti-quickscopers’ hopes were raised before release.
I haven’t seen many huge anti-QS threads against BO2. Maybe someone could enlighten me (?). “QS-ing in Ghosts” is 8 pages, but half of it was before the release of Ghosts i.e. during BO2. “Vonderhaar fix” had 6 pages.
So it seems as though MW3 might have taken more outrage for QS-ing than BO2. And this is despite the fact that BO2 is back to being the most preferred QS-ing platform because of the Ghosts sniper-updates.
Hmm . . that was unexpected! Kind of goes against my hypothesis just a bit .
Cheers guys! Any more thoughts? . .
[ EDITED (formatting) ]
Both companies can and have produced better games than I am capable of producing, so I really can't weigh my own beliefs too strongly in terms of my dislikes.
The ONLY reason I have more... Trust (hard to find the right word for it) in 3arc is because of the MW3 "moving the multiplayer max prestige" events, especially when prestiging meant losing everything.
I am not saying either company is better than the other. I feel that people prefer companies based on a number of factors that are weighed differently be every individual. At the end of the day, both companies produce a game far superior to what I could produce, so I'll continue to play as long as I'm having fun doing so.