@ thedarklord : you do know some people find 2d video games more appealing than 3d ...?
just a thought ...
1. yeah... hipsters... the nostalgic... and considering what N64/PS1/DC graphics looked like, I was inclined to agree during that generation, but not anymore, unless we're talking about developing, in which case 2d > 3d solely because 3d modelling is so hard
2. what does that have to do with my post? --- Blast'd kids and their posts that only say "Sig'd"! You can't sig "Sig'd"! -grand_maester PSN: Devilkingx2 msg me when you add
Treyarch is still more inept than post-lawsuit IW when it comes to programming, but at least they have ideas.
Also, my list:
CoD4 = MW2 >> MW3 >= BO1
CoD4 for obvious reasons. MW2 for notably amping up everything from CoD4 and only had issues with the M203. MW3 was more or less cloned wholesale from MW2, but MW2 was actually decent, so...not a total loss there. Haven't played WaW. BO1 had god-awful gun balance, glitches galore, terrible textures, and a useless currency system.
BO2 is a bit of an opinion mutant for me - great ideas, execution of said ideas are extremely variable in quality for all areas. Very questionable attachment and gun balance. Map design sucks (again). A notable amount of code (and therefore, bugs) were ported from BO1 to BO2, so there's an issue. Plays up way too much on 'trends' that it tried to establish in BO1 (Nuketown 2025 is dumb, go make a decent map instead of reskinning an old one). But what really makes me avoid this thing are the damn reloads for the game, specifically the sounds they make. I HATE them. --- Fortress of daylight, come here and standby...
IMO neither has done a good job on any of the last 4 CoD games. you would think since the game is running on the same engine every CoD has used since W@W, the problems with glitches, online MP and lag comp would be the only things to work on. but no such luck, guess it took all year to add a mute all except party button, pick 10 system, and design a dozen horrible excuses for online MP maps.
realistically though, its probably activisions fault in the end. where as other developers would delay their game a month or so to fix major problems with their game before release, activision insists CoD games be release every fall no matter what. doesnt matter if its glitchy, or that online MP was not beta tested at all and is barely playable due to lag comp issues, or if the game isnt quite finished, come november the yearly CoD games gets released no matter what. can hardly blame anyone but activision, they care more about releasing whatever crap they can stick a CoD title on during the x-mass shopping months, then they care about the games being any good.
I was torn between the two until MW3 dropped...clearly as things stand
As fun as grinding out the jugger missions with a friend, zombie had lasting value and frankly I've met better players to add to my list from BLOPS1 than any of the MW's.
*disclaimer* These are my experiences and in no way are meant to represent the opinions of the entire community --- I like asking if they are mad, then calling them my bro, when they clearly aren't. PSN: Spetsnaz420
Really!?!?! I dont understand all the hate for MW3. It is leaps and bounds better than BO2. I am not a game expert by any means but BO2 is by far the worst fps I have played. I can throw MW3 in and have a fair chance at things; I cannot say that for BO2. --- PS3: bringthe10pain It is just a game! Please treat it like one!
I'm going to say Treyarch, because they atleast take a risk and try to do something new. Past 3 IW games: Modern warfare, modern warfare, modern warfare. Past 3 Treyarch games: WW2, Vietnam/Cold war, Futury setting in the 20's.
IW has a habit of slapping a new feature or two onto their old product and shipping it out. Treyarch can atleast pretend to make effort into something new and creative.