In Defense Of Treyarch
This article was written by: Nathan Hardisty
Every year without Infinty Ward’s outing, it is set in stone that Treyarch develop a Call of Duty title. Their titles apparently ‘’suck” and Infinity Ward is better. This article intends to look at Treyarch’s Call of Duties, and them more as a studio and less of a list of developers that you likely avoid. I can see now that you’re already clicking away in absolute ignorance, but hear my plea; Treyarch does not suck. They get flak for going back into the past and showing us the true face of history, a brutal retelling, and maybe that doesn’t show in one of their titles; they deserve better.
A little history for you. Treyarch was founded in 1996 and merged with Grey Matter in 2005. The studio was bought out by Activision in 2001 and ever since a little title called Call of Duty came along, their reputation has never been the same. This whole article will show you what Treyarch is capable of, and how you should never just think that Treyarch ‘’suck”, because, you’ve more than likely enjoyed one of their games. You may have been younger, but one of their titles may just be on your list of faves, without you even knowing it.
1. Treyarch made the Spider-Man games – You may not be so familiar with these titles, or you may have simply ignored them. Before the COD behemoth took over Trey’s arch of gaming goodness, Spider-Man was what they were remembered for. More importantly, Spider-Man 2. The one game that ranks up in Zero Punctuation’s ‘best game ever’ list, and is still considered by many to be the best movie-tie in game. Having played the game myself, and Spider-Man Ultimate, I can safely say that these should be how Treyarch should be remembered.
2. Activision treats them like the end of their rear – Everyone constantly banters on and on about how it is Treyarch’s fault. Unfortunately, many of them do not know how the gaming industry works. There’s a little big corporation called Activision who is trying to ruin everyone’s gaming fun and turn it into a largely profitable medium by and means necessary. This include them butchering up Treyarch’s reputation in way of their billion-dollar cash cow franchise Call of Duty. Take, for example, Call of Duty 3. Want to know how long Activision gave them? Eight months. That’s how long it took to make COD2’s expansion for crying out loud!
3. World at War was a good game - Call of Duty: World at War receives a lot of flak, largely due to its setting. I must admit, I was surprised that Activision gave this one a green light, after seeing how much Modern Warfare made. To most people it seemed like too tired of a setting and that it had been done before. They considered it weaker because it was set in WWII, and well, they were all wrong. To me, World at War is the best WWII FPS I have ever played. It’s a one last effort to remind us of the brutality. It’s just too bad that the multiplayer sucks, thanks to Activision once again pressuring them to make one AND make it player friendly.
Nazi Zombies is awesome as hell though.
4. Dedicated Servers – On top of WaW’s awesomeness is the fact that, on the PC, you can play custom-content on dedicated servers and what-not. This makes for interesting Nazi Zombies maps, some even set in giant swamps or in the Big Ben clock tower. It reminds me a hell lot of Left 4 Dead’s survival mode, but done right. It’s just too bad that Infinity Ward chose to eliminate costs and such, or maybe it was Activision, and cut dedicated servers out of the frame. You can still find it in Treyarch’s masterpiece, and I’m sure you’ll have a blast online.
5. They’re awesome - Remember when they announced that their COD title would be set in WWII? They got widely panned for it, and everybody took it the wrong way. Instead of shutting out the community and concentrating on their own vision, they took in the feedback from Modern Warfare. Co-op, Nazi Zombies, DLC – all of this as a result of the fanboy uprising. You all wanted this stuff, and you got it, you just didn’t like that it was set in WWII? That’s ignorance right there, and you’ve missed out big time. Banter all you want, but at least WaW didn’t get that awful patch that Modern Warfare did – which limited the rate at which you can fire your pistol.
Just my two cents.
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
I think W@W was already in development when MW1 came out.
No, the Modern Warfare engine was finished a few months before MW released. Treyarch began concept before they got their hands on the engine. WaW took a year and a bit to develop.
Maybe you misread, COD3 took eight months, not WaW.
W@W was started before MW1 was released. it uses COD4 engine and almost all assests except the look which Treyarch just took from COD3. Treyarch didn’t “develop” anything cept the story for W@W.
This comment was written before the editing took place….
not running away at all, but kinda hard to read. you in UK? might explain some of the issues.
Next. “spider-man” games is your first argument? played any of them yourself? i believe 2 was the best and the rest were not good.
2. The blame big brother routine. i can see it but the games are made by the people at the companies. They didn’t give Treyarch 8 months. Treyarch accepted the job and it had a timeline of 8 months. Treyarch new what another COD game would do for them so they accepted and made one of the worst FPS’ ever.
3. I take it you didn’t play W@W much cept for the zombies. I know of no one that gives it flak for its setting. Treyarch had extra from 3 lying around and a great engine in COD4s and why not merge the two and make a killing. W@W is funding Treyarch future butchering of titles.
W@W itself is horrible, again not for setting, but for its grenade spamming, endless spawn tunnels, horrible hit detection; and that is just in the SP. MP wise its terrible spawning system, (mostly) horrible maps and glitches lazy Treyarch refuses to fix. Oh Treyarch has said multiple times “you will never spawn in front of an ememy”. Yet it will happen to you each and every MP game you play. Treyarch is just that bad of a developer.
4. PC? really come with a PC comment. Who plays on PC? people who can’t hack it on a console. (i’m kidding, that is humor, play where you will but majority is on consoles)
5. Umm I didn’t want Zombies in a WWII game. Does that make sense? were there zombies in WWII? As a WWII history buff I know the Nazi’s might have like to have zombies are fighters but don’t think they every did. therefore un-realistic and lame! Maybe we did ask for co-op but in a fun, enjoyable game not W@W. and 3 DLC packs? I don’t know of anyone that asked for that. That just means there was a lot left on the floor from COD3 and W@W and Treyarch knows this is it for them and WWII so they put the crap out.
And OMFG a patch to correct the rate of fire on a pistol? NO FING WAY. where is W@W’s patch to fix anyone of its 1000s of issues? oh right, never coming because Treyarch has moved on to ruin another COD game!!
Hope you enjoy it!
Sorry that seemed like a rant. I take my COD games personally and to try and defend one of the worst FPS I have ever played is ridiculous to me. And yes I have played W@W. Beat on Veteran on both consoles. Platinum of PS3 and THANK GOD didn’t have to pay for ONE POS map pack but have them all on both consoles also.
Anyways a better game is out now in Modern Warfare 2 and it will be better then anything Treyarch will ever produce.
I really liked World at War, it had a lot of action, love fighting the japanese army, trailers alone just got me pumped to play it. To me, World at War was better in many many ways than modern warfare 1, with great and real co-op, and nazi zombies, and story was great, along with the upgrade in graphics, it was a great game. Modern Warfare 2 was is better than World at War, but World at war is still a great game, cant wait to see their next game, Vietnam sounds cool !
I really do not get why people hate Treyarch so much, I like them a lot. And I like Infinity Ward as well.
And I personally think some of Treyarchs games are superior to IW’s games. WAW is better than MW2 in many aspects.
And Nazi Zombies is the greatest mini game of all time. Specs ops has nothing on it.
I personally like the WW2 setting a lot as well. I could not care less if the next 7 COD games were all WW2. I love that time period. Good on Treyarch for staying with it a little llonger.
COD: WAW MP doesn’t suck
it’s not as good as COD4, killzone 2 or MW2 but it’s better than most other FPS
I don’t think W@W sucks. Its actually quite good. Ok so they stand in the shadow of the mighty Infinity Ward but hey, those are big shoes to fill!!!!
Ok so Nazi Zombies wasn’t realistic, but neither is getting hit 5 times before dying. Neither is killstreak rewards. The point I’m trying to make is that we go to play video games as an escape from everyday realism and sit down to ENJOY them. To me, and many others, Nazi Zombies was a VERY enjoyable experience.
Another thing is that Treyarch seems to treat both PS3 and Xbox360 equal. Something you don’t really see today.
No, they arent as good as IW but like I said, they have big shoes to fill. So hats off to Treyarch for a job well done even in the shodow of the mighty IW….
Too many idiots forever labeled them as crap for COD3, a POS they only had 8 months to make.
All these idiot haters would’ve loved WAW if it said IW on the box instead of Treyarch.
Are ppl seriously ragging on zombies b/c its “unrealistic”?
Are you really that stupid? Kill yourselves.
I have nothing against Treyarch and believe there problem is the fact that they don’t always have the creative freedom to choose what they work on. I liked World At War, but I also am tired of WW2 games.
This article was written before the editor thought of it.
That Treyarch picture is sick:)
I was playing some WAW yesterday on Hardened and I was thinking that it is one hell of an epic game compared to MW2! But then I got spawn/grenade spammed and I had to quit and I just couldn’t be bothered to do any more! But as I said it is an epic story!
To make COD 7 perfect they need a little bit longer story and Nazi Zombies (Swamp Zombies, if it will be in Vietnam) mode in much more depth (Spec Ops + Left 4 Dead) and create a totally new multiplayer setup! Don’t just do what MW2 does! Try and do something like Killzone 2! Support clans like they did and do a class system like what they did but let the player completely customize there person like MAG. And just make the gameplay like you did before but try and jazz it up somehow. And that would be how COD7 would be the best COD ever and Treyarch would earn alot of respect!
But after COD7 (Vietname?) and MW3 (didn’t you see the ending?) they (Infinity Ward, because they handle multiplayer the best) should make a game called Call of Duty Online. Where it is Call of Duty Multiplayer with ALL THE MAPS even DLC and make the class system and character personilization like what I said above and release a map pack every month then that would be even more perfect! Because now that Medal of Honor is back up and running again I always preferred their games for the story so I can just rely on that again.
Cod3 and Cod5 get flak because they are unbalanced, buggy and poor. A lot of people do complain that it is set in WW2 but more importantly they complain because the single player is a poorly designed mess and the multiplayer is balanced.
I myself love WW2 and i never tire of WW2 games so my objective with the Treyarch COD games has nothing to do with the setting, just the poor content.
The spiderman series is not a good defense, the 1st and 3rd are terrible and 2 is good, but only for a movie game.
Modern Warfare 2 is a joke on PC but i think the lack of user servers is Activision’s decision not IW. And if you have played both MW and WAW on PC you will know that neither of the games have good online capabilities and WAW has many more problems.