I read an article recently claiming that video game enthusiasts have been too harsh on developers Treyarch when comparing their renditions of the popular Call Of Duty game series to mainstay developers Infinity Ward's versions. This is, in my own humble opinion, a load of bull.

Here is the article: http://forums.xbox.com/23202585/ShowPost.aspx

Now then, here is the part of the article that I am staunchly opposed to...

"I'm not buying anything from Treyarch, they made COD3..."
*Sighs*
Before you put Infinity ward on a pedestal, know this before doing so: Treyarch made one of the best games to ever be made, back when they were named Grey Matter Studios, which was Return to Castle: Wolfenstein. They were also given only 8 months to make COD3, and the normal FPS takes two years.
This time around they had two years, and they decided they are using the COD4 engine.

Please. We don't need to make excuses for Treyarch. The proof is in the games.

They have created two Call of Duty games at this point -- Call of Duty 2: Big Red One, and Call Of Duty 3. Both have been mediocre. This should be evidence in itself that Treyarch does not hold a candle to Infinity Ward, especially after the gem that Infinity Ward dropped with Call Of Duty 4.

Furthermore, citing the Return to Castle Wolfenstein as a reason why Treyarch should be respected is complete nonsense. First of all: Return to Castle Wolfenstein was a very good game, yes. But if you really think it was one of the "greatest games ever to be made" you desperately need to get out there and game a little bit more before you start broadcasting your opinion onto the internet.

Secondly; Gray Matter did not become Treyarch, they merged with Treyarch before the development of Big Red One, and more than three quarters of the staff that developed Return to Castle Wolfenstein did not take part in putting out Call Of Duty 3. The whole "they were Gray Matter seven years ago" argument is completely weak, unfounded, and only serves as proof that the writer of this segment is grasping at straws.

Don't even start talking about time spent on development. Lack of time put into development results in buggy, broken games. Call Of Duty 3 wasn't a bag game because of functionality issues. It was a bad game because the story and gameplay were equally stale, the dialogue was poorly written and unbelievable, and the entire game didn't compare to Call Of Duty 2 in terms of overall quality in the core aspects of video game making. When you consider that Big Red One suffered from the same pitfalls years ago that Call Of Duty 3 did more recently, you start to put two and two together.

Treyarch doesn't need any excuses to be made for them. They have a record of developing mediocre games thus far, and as long as they keep treading the same rails laid by Infinity Ward years ago, they will never be a stellar developer. Infinity Ward made leaps and bounds in the industry last year to pull themselves out of the dry, beaten-to-death hole that is first-person World War II-themed games. While they were doing that, Treyarch passed them on the same path while walking the opposite way.

A stale concept done by a convictedly mediocre developer does not scream "good game". If you've played the original Call of Duty, there's nothing more to see here. Unless you're an absolutely rabid Call Of Duty fanboy, stay far away from Treyarch's next effort in Call Of Duty: World At War and purchase the year-old Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare if you haven't already.