Call of Duty: Treyarch Vs. Infinity Ward



Show me yer mean face, boy!!



Umm...I can't make a mean face with all of
 this gear on.

       VS. 

  

Far be it for me to hammer this first person shooter debate into the ground, but recent rumors have cropped up regarding Treyarch and the possibility that the next Call of Duty title may be released on next generation consoles.  However, the popular opinion of many gaming enthusiasts seems to be that current gen consoles will be here to stay for at least one or two more years due to the continued climb in sales figures for the XBox360 and Playstation 3 platforms.  Keep in mind that Microsoft's XBox360 system continues to put out increasing sales figures year after year despite the long life span the console has already endured. 

With all of that said, what does this have to do with Call of Duty's two main development studios?  The answer lies in the fact that the last two Call of Duty titles, Black Ops by Treyarch and Modern Warfare 3 by Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Studios have broken sales records for every known video game release for 2 years running.  MW3 single handedly holds the title for the most successful entertainment release of all time above all other releases including sales figures reported by the Hollywood film industry.  Whether you love CoD or hate it, the fact remains that it is the most successful franchise in the gaming world hands down and Activision is loving every minute of it.

However, one can't ignore the fact that since CoD is solidly the top dog of gaming, Treyarch and Infinity Ward have only each other to compete against with a new CoD title being released annually.  Each studio makes games that feel very CoD like, but each title also feels decidedly different in terms of general game play and artistic direction.  Ignoring the fact that Black Ops is a 60s era Cold War themed shooter, and that MW3 is a near future World War 3 scenario game, each system tweaked the multiplayer game play in ways that set them leagues apart.  What makes things even more interesting is that fans of the franchise have developed loyalties to titles released by one camp or the other, but what factors make consumers gravitate to one camp or the other?

To clear things up, Infinity Ward Studios created the original CoD games, and Treyarch borrows most of their game play elements directly from IW.  However, which studio does CoD best?  I will only focus on Black Ops and MW3 in this comparison for the sake of my own sanity, but the following is a list of features that helped make my decision regarding which of these two record breaking titles suits my tastes better.  I'll break the discussion into 4 separate categories of comparison including perks, leveling, weapon unlocks, and map design.  Let's kick this thing off!

Perks:

Blops perks......look familiar?

Perks, in one shape or form, have become somewhat of a staple in many military first person shooter titles and CoD has fully embraced them as gospel for every release since Call of Duty 4.  But what is different about how Black Ops and MW3 use perks?  Blops essentially maintains the various effects and names of perks as they were implemented in CoD 4 with unlocks hinging directly upon a player's rank and earned XP.  Each perk has a basic effect like quicker reloading, silent footsteps, etc., but the way that pro versions of perks are unlocked is what sets Blops apart from the rest of the franchise.  Pro perks are unlocked by completing a variety of tasks that force players to explore other game modes found throughout the multiplayer suite, and they even encourage team oriented play styles over lone wolf tactics in some cases.  The result is that in order for a player to earn a pro perk effect, he or she must step outside of game modes that they may find comfortable thereby encouraging more varied gameplay.

The downside to this strategy is that some players may feel alienated by the complex, challenge based unlock system.  The result is that players get shoehorned into unlocking only the easiest of pro perk combinations thereby diluting the general play style of casual fans of the series.  Lobbies are commonly rife with players who stick with the most exploitative perk combinations, and joining matches such as these can be frustrating for those looking to explore more rounded class setups.



MW3 mixes things up a little.

MW3 takes things a step further and essentially multiplies the number of available perks by having the original perk system as well as a newly implemented weapon perk system.  Some perks from CoD 4 and MW2 have returned, but others have been completely re imagined to address issues that consumers had brought up regarding their implementation in MW2.  For example, the "slight of hand" perk from previous games still allows players to reduce the reload time for any equipped weapon, but the pro version no longer leads to the faster aim function of previous installments.  Instead, "slight of hand pro" reduces the time that it takes to switch weapons and cuts down recovery time after a player tosses a tactical or lethal grenade. 

MW3's new weapon leveling system, which I will discuss later, employs more weapon specific perks such as less recoil or better the ability to employ 2 weapon attachments at a time.  If you are the kind of player who pours over perks trying to find the most perfect combination to improve your game, this system is probably perfect for you.  However, some may feel that the ability to have as many as 5 active perks (including secondary weapons) cheapens the experience.  MW2's perk system allowed players to choose their perks, but players often played with weapons that played upon their play style's strengths.  In MW3, a perk that allows a weapon with higher recoil to perform more like a ranged weapon can dilute the variety of options players were previously given with previous titles.  So much variety also has the possible side effect of enabling exploitative behaviour where players are sticking with cheap perk combinations rather than exploring less familiar options that encourage team oriented play styles.

The winner in my book: Blops

In my opinion, the fewer perks the better.  I have always felt like CoD perks take too much away from the importance of gamer skill, and even though the balance of some perks has been adjusted to a certain extent in MW3, they have added other weapon perks that nullify many of those adjustments.  Some people say, if it ain't broke don't fix it, but in this case it's "well it's already broken, but let's nerf it so we can break something else in its place".  Perhaps that's a bit extreme, but then again it's just my opinion. 

Leveling:

MW3 hasn't really mixed things up too much in terms of how XP is gained in comparison with previous installments, but weapon leveling is new  to the franchise.  Previously, weapon kills were solely responsible for unlocking weapon attachments, but now time spent with the weapon holds a great deal of importance in how the weapon handles regardless of what current attachment is equipped.  Leveling your gun is dependant on XP, and is only gained when said weapon is being actively used during matches.  Unlocking gun levels makes more gun perks available over time thereby creating more perk variety. 

The biggest benefit to this system may apply to players who don't care to "prestige" their profile after maxing out their rank level.  There are those amongst us who don't care to start from square 1 weapon wise after reaching the highest rank, and weapon leveling is definitely a viable way to funnel the otherwise wasted XP.  The only drawback to this system is mentioned in the previous "perks" section, but that has little to do with leveling in general. 

Blops sticks to a more traditional leveling system, and nothing really sticks out about how rank levels work for Treyarch's endeavor other than the wagering system.  XP isn't the only thing to be gained in Blops, and CoD cash was a welcome addition to the franchise.  Instead of having everything tied to XP, CoD cash provides players with a different angle on how to play Blops. 

Thank goodness I don't have to waste
real dollars on crap like this.

Instead of sticking with traditional lobbies, players can play wager matches for virtual cash.   How this affects weapon unlocks will be discussed later, but players can use cash to customize their emblem, or camouflage in ways that aren't available in IW titles.  Furthermore, players are given more incentive to prestige by making some customization tools available only after several levels of prestige.  However, beyond the implementation of CoD cash and some customization options, there is nothing really new here.  As far as CoD games go, Blops leveling is basically more of the same. 

The advantage goes to........Blops again (let the flaming begin)

I know that this seems like a Treyarch love fest so far, but my reasoning for this one breaks down to grinding.  I'm not a huge fan of maxing everything out just to see how it would work with every different unlock.  The implementation of CoD cash on top of XP made playing through matches just a little more rewarding for me, and I don't care for having to scroll through menu layers just to see everything I have unlocked  after hearing that metal guitar riff twenty times during a given match.  Ok......breathe.  Some may enjoy the extra satisfaction of maxing every level of every gun, but I just want to unlock it and use it.  If I don't like it, I don't use it.  There you go.  Satisfied?

Weapon Unlocks:

Realistically, both games use the same system in this department, with different weapons and tactical equipment being unlocked at different ranks.  The biggest difference is that Blops requires that you use CoD cash to purchase weapons and attachments after they are unlocked.  It's no longer enough that you reached the required level, but you also have to decide if that weapon is valuable enough to burn your hard earned cash on instead of buying more camo, or attachments for your current stash. 

The problem with this system is that once the gun is purchased, all of the attachments are unlocked with the exception that they need to be purchased.  This system virtually ensures that if a weapon/attachment exploit exists, most players will be using that exploit as soon as the weapon is available.  MW3 brings back the trusty attachment unlock system that forces players to accomplish specific tasks before further attachments can be made available.  Therefore, exploits might still be available, but they are just a little bit harder to get to without going through the same steps that everyone else had to (hackers and modders excluded).

Who wins the chicken dinner here?  Modern Warfare 3!



It's a bad picture, but I love the variety here.

 I enjoyed getting familiar with my guns in MW2, and I was glad to see this mechanic return in MW3.  In fact, playing this way made it so using newer weapons forced me to adjust my play style a little when I was switching from one gun to another.  Granted, there are some weapons that feel somewhat generic across the board, but all together, MW3 makes sticking to your guns just a little more rewarding.  See what I did there with the "sticking to your guns" thing?   Pretty clever if you ask me.....oh never mind.  Just keep reading.

Map Design:

To be fair, MW3's downloadable content cycle doesn't officially start until January 24th, and Blops' maps are all out there for consumption, but it stands to be argued that a game's first run maps are usually a pretty good indication of things to come.  With that said, MW3 maps are a bit of a step away from those featured in MW2.  MW3's current maps seem to favor smaller arenas with multiple levels of vertical development.  In short, there are more buildings, stairs, ramps, ladders and tunnels than previous maps.  The result is that rather than having maps that have a few well known choke points, the entire map can feel like a choke point maze. 

There are one or two maps that have open spaces for more long range confrontations, but when compared to MW2's maps which featured a fair balance of long viewing angles and frenetic choke points, MW3 seems cramped for a lack of a better word.  The obvious disadvantage is that players without good twitch reflexes may find themselves frustrated with the pacing that the new levels promote. 

Blops maps are built in such a way that each environment presents open area engagement opportunities as well as close quarter clutch points pretty consistently across the board.  There are a few maps (Nuketown for example) that were built specifically for more frenetic pacing, but most of the others seem to feature an equal ratio of indoor and outdoor areas to move through. 

Perhaps the biggest limitation here is that if players from each team prefer one environment or the other, they will tend to stick to what they know best, and the result can often be camping.  Those who prefer to run and gun will find themselves at the mercy of snipers in outdoor areas, or corner campers in indoor areas which can cheapen any experience.

And the Oscar goes too.......Blops (Gasp)!

The truth is that this is really a half formed opinion due to the fact that I really enjoyed the map design that MW2 used, and I actually preferred most of those maps to the ones found in Blops.  MW3's DLC cycle has not yet begun, and it is quite likely that rehashed versions of maps found in either Modern Warfare or MW2 will come into the fray which would be completely fine with me.  However, it is also entirely possible that MW3 will stick to the current design model that IW has been following which would be unfortunate.  Nonetheless, Blops employs maps that appeal more to my own run and gun play style regardless of whether or not my face is getting sniped off or whether my back is being peppered with sub machine gun fire in narrow corridors. 

I stole your sweet roll. 
What you gonna do about it?

If I were to consider these two titles as being representative of the direction that CoD will be taking for the foreseeable future, I would have to side with the Treyarch camp in this particular discussion.  If the rumors of the next CoD being developed for the next generation of consoles is true, then there is a possibility that either developer may take things in a completely different direction all together, but what do you think?  Do you have a different view about how things are moving along for the most popular video game franchise of all time?  Sound off in the comment section below and let us know what you think.  What do you think we can expect from the next CoD?  Also, do you want to see more articles like this, or should we stick with nitty gritty reviews?  Your input will help us build G4F, and any input would be appreciated.

Keep gaming comrades!
~KGB