Did you ever notice: Why Cod Four is better than Cod War (Part 2)

For this I have way too many thoughts to put into this one post and I don't feel like compiling a word document with all my thoughts like I'm prepping for writing an essay so I'm just going to release a multi-part series of posts about why I wish Infinity Ward didn't let Activision take over ever other year. This includes spoilers for Call of Duty 4 and probably some for World at War too.

Did you ever notice that Call of Duty: World at War isn't as great as reviewers said it is, or great at all for that matter? The second problem I want to bring up is the step down in A.I. The same thing happened in Call of Duty 3, where people complained that the excellent Call of Duty 2 had better AI, despite it being a 360 launch title. This is one of the things that really screws up the game, even if you don't notice it. This problem makes the game very easy and very anoying (not hard, mind you, but annoying). One thing the AI will do in the middle of abattlefield is get out of cover and feel perfectly content to stand there in the open shooting at your troops (and you). It's something that most people don't really complain about since you can just kill those guys really quickly and forget about it, but it brings down the challenge. The other thing the enemy AI will do it have a lapse in intelligence and stand there while your troops advance. This is really annoying because you will walk past them and assume they were an ally because "how could an enemy be stupid enough to do that?" but sure enough, it's just an enemy who froze there and then later decides to start shooting. This sounds like some kind of Japanese tactic when I describe it (I only encountered this problem in the American campaign) but when you see it happening in gameplay you can tell it's not meant to happen.

Another thing, having to do with your allies this time, is that the voice acting is inconsistent with the characters' actions. In some parts they will go from whispering to screaming without the proper amount of time between the lines. Sometimes they don't look in the direction of the guys they're talking to when the line is too quiet to be spoken in that way (meaning where the tough guy won't look at the guy he's talking to for dramatic effect). One of the things that really pissed me off about the voice acting was that the voices didn't express any exertion of energy. For example, at one part Kiefer Sutherland is pushing a table out of the way or smashing a door in or doing something that you have to put your muscle behind in order to do, but he was still talking to you in a normal voice while doing it. You would have a flare in your voice if you smashed your shoulder into a door while you were talking, no matter how tough you are. It would seem like a small thing but it happens frequently enough to be noticeable, and for me that is really a sign of weakness and a poor job by the guys who directed the actors in the recording sessions. Call of Duty 4's voice acting was consistently excellent and every single tiny detail in the character behavior was completely authentic. It's the kind of thing where you feel like you could know how to do what an SAS operative does from seeing these guys do all these formations and movements. (Obviously you couldn't but it makes you feel that way and that's something special.) It was that good.
10 Comments
11 Comments
Posted by SpikeDelight
For this I have way too many thoughts to put into this one post and I don't feel like compiling a word document with all my thoughts like I'm prepping for writing an essay so I'm just going to release a multi-part series of posts about why I wish Infinity Ward didn't let Activision take over ever other year. This includes spoilers for Call of Duty 4 and probably some for World at War too.

Did you ever notice that Call of Duty: World at War isn't as great as reviewers said it is, or great at all for that matter? The second problem I want to bring up is the step down in A.I. The same thing happened in Call of Duty 3, where people complained that the excellent Call of Duty 2 had better AI, despite it being a 360 launch title. This is one of the things that really screws up the game, even if you don't notice it. This problem makes the game very easy and very anoying (not hard, mind you, but annoying). One thing the AI will do in the middle of abattlefield is get out of cover and feel perfectly content to stand there in the open shooting at your troops (and you). It's something that most people don't really complain about since you can just kill those guys really quickly and forget about it, but it brings down the challenge. The other thing the enemy AI will do it have a lapse in intelligence and stand there while your troops advance. This is really annoying because you will walk past them and assume they were an ally because "how could an enemy be stupid enough to do that?" but sure enough, it's just an enemy who froze there and then later decides to start shooting. This sounds like some kind of Japanese tactic when I describe it (I only encountered this problem in the American campaign) but when you see it happening in gameplay you can tell it's not meant to happen.

Another thing, having to do with your allies this time, is that the voice acting is inconsistent with the characters' actions. In some parts they will go from whispering to screaming without the proper amount of time between the lines. Sometimes they don't look in the direction of the guys they're talking to when the line is too quiet to be spoken in that way (meaning where the tough guy won't look at the guy he's talking to for dramatic effect). One of the things that really pissed me off about the voice acting was that the voices didn't express any exertion of energy. For example, at one part Kiefer Sutherland is pushing a table out of the way or smashing a door in or doing something that you have to put your muscle behind in order to do, but he was still talking to you in a normal voice while doing it. You would have a flare in your voice if you smashed your shoulder into a door while you were talking, no matter how tough you are. It would seem like a small thing but it happens frequently enough to be noticeable, and for me that is really a sign of weakness and a poor job by the guys who directed the actors in the recording sessions. Call of Duty 4's voice acting was consistently excellent and every single tiny detail in the character behavior was completely authentic. It's the kind of thing where you feel like you could know how to do what an SAS operative does from seeing these guys do all these formations and movements. (Obviously you couldn't but it makes you feel that way and that's something special.) It was that good.
Posted by Cirdain
Posted by suneku

You're reasons are valid, but, Infinity Ward can't really tell their bosses (activision) what to do.

Posted by MadMatr07

suneku said:

"You're reasons are valid, but, Infinity Ward can't really tell their bosses (activision) what to do."


I agree it's Activision's fault. Both Infinity Ward and Treyarch are just doing their jobs.

Posted by SpikeDelight

Yeah I know they can't tell their bosses what to do and it's a shame because there's such a difference in quality. These posts are mostly just about why I wish they wouldn't allow Treyarch to do it every other year. It brings down the Call of Duty name I think to keep putting out a new game every year like this.

Posted by Vinchenzo

Fact: Treyarch sucks.
Fact: Infinity Ward rocks.
Fact: Activision milks franchises as long as they get money.
Fact: Activision products start out promising (Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk, Call of Duty) and after the 5th iteration or so diminish in quality. The developers, their udders, they hurt!
Fact: Blizzard should not be associated with Activision, but unfortunately we must live with it.
Fact: Blizzard is a sexy company.

Posted by BlackWaterCO
Posted by SpikeDelight
Vinchenzo said:
"Fact: Treyarch sucks.
Fact: Infinity Ward rocks.
Fact: Activision milks franchises as long as they get money.
Fact: Activision products start out promising (Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk, Call of Duty) and after the 5th iteration or so diminish in quality. The developers, their udders, they hurt!
Fact: Blizzard should not be associated with Activision, but unfortunately we must live with it.
Fact: Blizzard is a sexy company."
This man speaks the truth.
Posted by Sparky_Buzzsaw

While I liked them both, I do agree there's a distinct drop in quality between the two products.  Unfortunately, for the short term, I think we're going to see a lot less risk-taking from publishers and developers.  I think once the bigger companies start to see returns from their mergers and acquisitions, they'll start to take a few tiny steps towards original IPs.  But until then, they're going to milk games like Call of Duty for all they're worth.

Moderator
Edited by Bucketdeth
BlackWaterCO said:
"

Wish Activison would leave blizzard alone

now we have to buy starcarft 2 in three packages over the course of half a decade

"
Funny but I agree with you, I`m not sure if Blizzard is becoming money hungry because of Wow, or Activision is giving them little hints or something.
Posted by wwedx

COD WaW is better than COD4 treyarch is better than IW IMO