# COD BLACK OPS



## Korex (Jan 11, 2011)

OMG ever since it came out i got hooked with it~

Multiplayer is awesomez.... 

But still somehow i miss MW2 to sadly when i checked how many players were playing it kinda went low but not that low


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 11, 2011)

How can you actually miss MW2 when Black Ops is essentially a reskin? The games have been reskinned like that ever since No.4 which was just a CSS wannabe. The only thing that COD4 had going for it was customisable weapon loadouts which was pretty cool plus a pretty overrated level-up system. Plus there's loadsa COD threads.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 11, 2011)

Gibby said:


> How can you actually miss MW2 when Black Ops is essentially a reskin? The games have been reskinned like that ever since No.4 which was just a CSS wannabe. The only thing that COD4 had going for it was customisable weapon loadouts which was pretty cool plus a pretty overrated level-up system. Plus there's loadsa COD threads.


 
this, so hard.
i wish people would stop buying generic shooters so that we can finally get some new original games >_>


----------



## Don (Jan 11, 2011)

CaptainCool said:


> this, so hard.
> i wish people would stop buying generic shooters so that we can finally get some new original games >_>


 
I very much agree. If they need to make shooters, then how about something other than WWII/Modern Day? There are tons of wars in the 20th century that are nearly unknown in gaming. World War I, Korea, the Russian Civil War, and even Vietnam to an extent are horribly overlooked despite all being significant events in our history.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 11, 2011)

Gibby said:


> How can you actually miss MW2 when Black Ops is essentially a reskin? The games have been reskinned like that ever since No.4 which was just a CSS wannabe. The only thing that COD4 had going for it was customisable weapon loadouts which was pretty cool plus a pretty overrated level-up system. Plus there's loadsa COD threads.


 
There's significant differences between the two multiplayers.

For one, Black Ops' leveling system is a lot easier to burn through to Prestige, however it is considerably more difficult to kill enemies this time around.  Snipers are essentially useless, killstreak kills don't count towards building more killstreaks, acceptable loadouts are easier to attain.

MW2 may have been "easier" but when you can burn through all three of your killstreaks and sometimes manage to attain a Tactical Nuke, it helps with instant gratification.  Black Ops at times seems more rewarding for the skill you have to have to play the game as well as the deeper level of customization and balancing.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 11, 2011)

Don_Wolf said:


> I very much agree. If they need to make shooters, then how about something other than WWII/Modern Day? There are tons of wars in the 20th century that are nearly unknown in gaming. World War I, Korea, the Russian Civil War, and even Vietnam to an extent are horribly overlooked despite all being significant events in our history.


 
Speaking of WW1, you might wanna look at this: http://www.ironeuropegame.com/news.php 

(There's also a Vietnam thing in development)

It's a mod for the upcoming unreal engine 3 game, Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad and it is by far the _best_ WW2 shooter I've seen. Realistic, immersive and just plain impressive. There's also the first game, Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-44. When generic WW2 shooters died, Red Orchestra was made as something of a "quiet masterpiece" and it's WW2 gaming redefined. Look it up, you'd probably be impressed. Get it, even. Once you pass the learning curve you'd hate to be playing most competitive FPS games ever again. The same guys who made RO also did Killing Floor, a hilariously awesome co-op wave shooter.

And yes, this is PC.

/loladvertising.



> There's significant differences between the two multiplayers.
> 
> For one, Black Ops' leveling system is a lot easier to burn through to  Prestige, however it is considerably more difficult to kill enemies this  time around.  Snipers are essentially useless, killstreak kills don't  count towards building more killstreaks, acceptable loadouts are easier  to attain.
> 
> MW2 may have been "easier" but when you can burn through all three of  your killstreaks and sometimes manage to attain a Tactical Nuke, it  helps with instant gratification.  Black Ops at times seems more  rewarding for the skill you have to have to play the game as well as the  deeper level of customization and balancing.



Really, this "new" version of multiplayer in blackops where killstreaks were altered and snipers had their nuts cut off could've easily been obtained via balance patch. But no, Activision wants everyone to pay full-price for it. 

And I fail to see COD as an actual skill game... It's a lot easier than most other games, especially since it relies on twitch, point, click-style gameplay and not actual thinking. Don't say that finding a camping spot or getting good cover requires real thinking. Even getting up to the top of the scoreboard isn't very skillful in COD. All you do is perform a few cheap tricks and exploit the game's poor balance (think when smoke grenades were a "tactic" for getting out of a sniper's sights which was then ruined with thermal scopes that _everyone_ had come MW2) and once you got a few kills from those cheapass tricks, and then you can call in flying shits that kill everything _for you._All you have to do is just use this system and get up in a few levels where you get much better equipment than everyone else which suddenly makes you the better player.

I also laugh at CODders who call themselves Hardcore gamers. Just because they play hardcore mode, they're suddenly hardcore. Hardcore games are when the game doesn't actually try and _help_ you along the way, but it demands all of your ability because it's basically trying to kill you. In COD HC mode, the only difference is the limitation of the HUD and the reduction of player health but everything that makes the game casual and easy is still left in. In a hardcore game, you play, get absolutely, painfully buttfucked, but you enjoy it. You don't get assisted in any way, you don't get aim-assist as an option, you don't get a three-second respawn, you don't get an easily exploitable balance setup, you don't get points at the end of the game for doing fuck-all. Problem is, easy games sell.

This is because the casual gamer market is made up of a collosal  number of people. These kind of gamers are more easily impressed by  graphics and action. *Easy gratification without having to really think  about what they are doing.* Take Call Of Duty as a major staple mark. The "hardcore games" are _really_ the games that require a lot of tactical and forward thinking and all of which are very unforgiving.

Gaming has become very mainstream in the last few years. Back  when we were younger when gaming was a much more reclusive hobby for a  more select audience, there was no such thing as checkpoints, most games  had to be completed in 1 sitting start to finish. Furthermore alot of  them had "Lives" meaning it was frequently possible to "Game Over" and  need to start again from scratch. This meant that casual gamers were  nearly non existant, because they might have a blast on a game for an  hour or 2 but had no intention of putting in the time to actually finish  and beat the game.

The problem with this is almost every major game developer has started  focus on pleasing this crowd rather than making a truly immersive  experience. Story, balance, teamwork, strategy has all gone by the  wayside. Its damned near impossible to find even a bloody local coop  game nowadays, becasue sadly this online Kill Death ratio mentaility  sells.

Finding a game now that has any real depth, where the player has to  really analyse the situation and think about what he is doing to  overcome his obstacles is few and far between. I'll go with examples of the games I enjoy: Take Killing Floor, this game started as a mod for hardcore gamers, and was taken on by TWI,  hardcore gamers themselves who made Red Orchestra, another game for  hardcore gamers. Why should developers make so many games to please casual players who already have choice up the  arse? It's very hard to find a game for the "hardcore" nowadays. 

Really, the COD series has some kind of magnet in it which attracts complete dumbasses - dumbasses who are willing to pay Â£50 for just a few alterations, explosions and the same fucking game modes from other parts of the series and the only thing they get out of it is the chance for them to wank it at their K/D ratio and brag about their 1337ness when if they'd play a "hardcore" game, they'd try it for a few minutes then look online for hacks.

God, COD makes me annoyed. It's ruined PC gaming totally. First game was good though, but even then it was a Medal Of Honour wannabe but it had decent, balanced multiplayer which got buttfucked by the introduction of COD4.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 11, 2011)

Don_Wolf said:


> I very much agree. If they need to make shooters, then how about something other than WWII/Modern Day? There are tons of wars in the 20th century that are nearly unknown in gaming. World War I, Korea, the Russian Civil War, and even Vietnam to an extent are horribly overlooked despite all being significant events in our history.


 
thats not really what i meant, i just dont want to see FPS games anymore  developers are pumping them out left and right because thats the most selling genre right now... i want all new and original concepts!


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 11, 2011)

CaptainCool said:


> thats not really what i meant, i just dont want to see FPS games anymore  developers are pumping them out left and right because thats the most selling genre right now... i want all new and original concepts!


 
An FPS game in itself isn't generic. It's all about the content. Of course, the ones that borrow from other games like COD, MOH, BF and stuff like that are all crap.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 11, 2011)

Gibby said:


> An FPS game in itself isn't generic. It's all about the content. Of course, the ones that borrow from other games like COD, MOH, BF and stuff like that are all crap.


 
take gun, aim at bad guys. the basic concept is the same every single time, even different conent cant save that for me. the story is always crap and way too short... and really? does it make the game THAT much different if you kill people with different guns than you did in the prequel? 
i just cant stand this genre anymore and i hate that other genres are suffering because of that... publishers are sometimes even delaying their games because they fear a generic brown FPS would overshadow their sales if they release the game on the same day XP
i want good adventure games, decent plots, good and well thought out puzzles, memorable characters and parts in between different segments of the game that totally change the gameplay!


----------



## Willow (Jan 11, 2011)

Gibby said:


> How can you actually miss MW2 when Black Ops is essentially a reskin? The games have been reskinned like that ever since No.4 which was just a CSS wannabe. The only thing that COD4 had going for it was customisable weapon loadouts which was pretty cool plus a pretty overrated level-up system. Plus there's loadsa COD threads.


 Yet people still want to swear up and down that Black Ops is the best shooter yet. It really isn't, it doesn't even have a solid plot that I could find. Unlike Halo, COD will more than likely continue on until the fanboys realize they've been playing the same game 20 times over just in a different setting and era of time. Kinda like with Final Fantasy in a sense. 

And speaking of generic shooters, IMO Bioshock wasn't generic.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 11, 2011)

Willow said:


> Yet people still want to swear up and down that Black Ops is the best shooter yet. It really isn't, it doesn't even have a solid plot that I could find. Unlike Halo, COD will more than likely continue on until the fanboys realize they've been playing the same game 20 times over just in a different setting and era of time. Kinda like with Final Fantasy in a sense.
> 
> And speaking of generic shooters, IMO Bioshock wasn't generic.



When COD fanboys realise that each new COD game is exactly the same as the last, the developers will probably give it a new name and different looks, maybe. The cycle will probably start again and again. They cannot be saved. :V

Of course, Bioshock isn't generic. Sure, it has FPS elements but that doesn't make it generic at all. Like I said, it's all about content. I haven't played Bioshock myself but the game definitely had stuff going for it that set itself apart from other games.


----------



## Delta (Jan 11, 2011)

Still playing bad company 2, still loving my bullet drop/traveltime.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 11, 2011)

Didn't realize my comment of key general differences between the two multiplayers required a rant that size, but alright.



Gibby said:


> Really, this "new" version of multiplayer in blackops where killstreaks were altered and snipers had their nuts cut off could've easily been obtained via balance patch. But no, Activision wants everyone to pay full-price for it.


 
There's so much more in the package that you clearly aren't getting.  Zombie maps, the arcade shooter, a decent and challenging single-player.  Activision had every right to charge people 60 bucks for it.  Though it may be true that the more things change, the more they can stay the same, there's enough new features in this game that I, as a gamer, would qualify as being worth the price of admission.  You make it seem like we gamers are just getting new team deathmatch maps at 60 bucks and that's it, which is extremely unfair and ignorant of you.

If you want to argue that the possibility of a new COD game coming out every year is bad, I'm not going to argue with you on that.  I'm not a fan of that business model that Activision apparently wants to go down.  But as far as the transition from MW2 to Black Ops is concerned, I feel there's enough of a difference between the two games to warrant the new game, and I certainly feel I'm getting more out of that game than I have with any others I've played recently, save for Red Dead Redemption and possibly New Vegas when I get back to playing it.



> And I fail to see COD as an actual skill game... It's a lot easier than most other games, especially since it relies on twitch, point, click-style gameplay and not actual thinking. Don't say that finding a camping spot or getting good cover requires real thinking. Even getting up to the top of the scoreboard isn't very skillful in COD. All you do is perform a few cheap tricks and exploit the game's poor balance (think when smoke grenades were a "tactic" for getting out of a sniper's sights which was then ruined with thermal scopes that everyone had come MW2) and once you got a few kills from those cheapass tricks, and then you can call in flying shits that kill everything for you.All you have to do is just use this system and get up in a few levels where you get much better equipment than everyone else which suddenly makes you the better player.



Which is why a lot of that was changed in the new Black Ops.  You can't refresh your claymores, your killstreaks don't build on one-another, etc.  I'm an aggressive player by nature, I don't usually hide, if anything I sneak around, but at a quick enough pace that I'm always moving.  Knowing the maps, having a feel for what players are doing and thinking fast factor in the skills you need to be able to do good in that game.  Very few tricks work in the new game, aside from the ol' standby of prone-shot, but that's used across the board.  Quick-scoping is virtually impossible now and knifing has become melee again instead of a hand-shotgun.  Thermal scopes also suck in the new game.

Better equipment is also a non-issue as I've already mentioned.  The balance and ability to buy what guns you want eliminates most complaints of "he had a better gun".  Shit, the MP5K in my opinion is the best sub machine gun, and you get that right away.



> I also laugh at CODders who call themselves Hardcore gamers. Just because they play hardcore mode, they're suddenly hardcore. Hardcore games are when the game doesn't actually try and help you along the way, but it demands all of your ability because it's basically trying to kill you. In COD HC mode, the only difference is the limitation of the HUD and the reduction of player health but everything that makes the game casual and easy is still left in. In a hardcore game, you play, get absolutely, painfully buttfucked, but you enjoy it. You don't get assisted in any way, you don't get aim-assist as an option, you don't get a three-second respawn, you don't get an easily exploitable balance setup, you don't get points at the end of the game for doing fuck-all. Problem is, easy games sell.



They're hardcore gamers because the play games.  A lot of them.  And they excel at them.  So just because someone like COD they're suddenly not a Hardcore Gamer?  Because I've never heard anyone boasting about their hardcore gamer status simply because they play Hardcore Mode in the game.  It sounds more like you're trying to grab at straws to talk down about a game, most likely because it's popular and popular things are bad, aren't they?



> This is because the casual gamer market is made up of a collosal number of people. These kind of gamers are more easily impressed by graphics and action. Easy gratification without having to really think about what they are doing. Take Call Of Duty as a major staple mark. The "hardcore games" are really the games that require a lot of tactical and forward thinking and all of which are very unforgiving.



The hardcore isn't exactly a small number of people either.  This arbitrary distinction that the hardcore is some small, l33t minority being kept down by The Man and their casual games is ridiculous.  We've all played casual games and enjoyed them.  Anyone who says differently is a liar, and a bad one at that.  And to assume that casual games don't require you to think is another ridiculous assertion.

It also appears to me that you are making a distinction between "Hardcore games" as good and "casual games" as bad.  I've played a lot of decent, good games that weren't Starcraft where I get beaten by some Korean guy who puts in 10 million key commands a minute.  I've also played bad games where the difficulty curve was so high that it's near unplayable and the time investment needed to hone yourself into playing the game isn't worth the payout to watch some shitty cutscene that I can see online now, a main culprit here being Ninja Gaiden.



> Gaming has become very mainstream in the last few years. Back when we were younger when gaming was a much more reclusive hobby for a more select audience, there was no such thing as checkpoints, most games had to be completed in 1 sitting start to finish. Furthermore alot of them had "Lives" meaning it was frequently possible to "Game Over" and need to start again from scratch. This meant that casual gamers were nearly non existant, because they might have a blast on a game for an hour or 2 but had no intention of putting in the time to actually finish and beat the game.



And how is this necessarily good?

Gaming, arguably, started off in the arcades where games were difficult for the sole purpose of eating your quarters like an Ethopian kid would doughnuts.  It stood to reason that a "lives" system was necessary because that's what gamers were used to seeing.  And even then, some games that had "lives" made the feature completely unnecessary, like Mario.

Having a finite set of lives made gaming more challenging, but many of those games also introduced passwords because developers realized that they weren't exactly making money off of kids getting frustrated by dieing at the final boss only to get sent back to the very beginning of a game two or three hours from where they began.  Also, imagine an RPG now without a save system.  You have to get through Mass Effect 2 of Fallout 3 in one sitting, otherwise you'll never beat the game.  That's pretty fucked up.

In short, no need for a history lesson, buddy, I know where gaming came from.



> The problem with this is almost every major game developer has started focus on pleasing this crowd rather than making a truly immersive experience. Story, balance, teamwork, strategy has all gone by the wayside. Its damned near impossible to find even a bloody local coop game nowadays, becasue sadly this online Kill Death ratio mentaility sells.



Fallout 3 was pretty immersive, and it departed from an old Fallout design that probably would have turned off gamers due to its top-down, RTS-esque perspective.

Same with Red Dead Redemption, which was accessible to a large number of people and immersed the player in John Marston's world.

Local coop?  Split screen isn't as fun as having a full screen to yourself and still playing with your friends.  2D fighters work just as well online now as they do offline.  Goldeneye 64 was fun back in the day, but we've moved on and we're not kids anymore.  We don't have sleepovers where all our friends come over and we take turns playing four-player deathmatches.  This era is more one of convenience that's attracted the same Quake/Counter-Strike audience that's been around for years and bled into this modern era of online gaming.

You harken back to "the good ol' days", but as your grandparents found out, things change whether you like it or not.  At this point the only thing worth clinging onto from "good ol' days" are dedicated servers and mod support.



> Finding a game now that has any real depth, where the player has to really analyse the situation and think about what he is doing to overcome his obstacles is few and far between. I'll go with examples of the games I enjoy: Take Killing Floor, this game started as a mod for hardcore gamers, and was taken on by TWI, hardcore gamers themselves who made Red Orchestra, another game for hardcore gamers. Why should developers make so many games to please casual players who already have choice up the arse? It's very hard to find a game for the "hardcore" nowadays.



StarCraft, Civ V, Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect franchise, Fallout New Vegas, Metal Gear Solid franchise, Splinter Cell, Amnesia, etc.

There have been plenty of games today that have appealed to the hardcore audience.  I don't know why you seem to think it's "so hard" aside from maybe these games aren't your cup of tea.  That doesn't make them games that have any less appeal to the hardcore.  I don't see a significant dumbing down of games.  Has there been some?  Sure, but it also just might be possible that we've become smarter and are able to figure things out better than when we were five years old, playing Monkey Island and not knowing what the hell a chicken pulley could be used for.



> Really, the COD series has some kind of magnet in it which attracts complete dumbasses - dumbasses who are willing to pay Â£50 for just a few alterations, explosions and the same fucking game modes from other parts of the series and the only thing they get out of it is the chance for them to wank it at their K/D ratio and brag about their 1337ness when if they'd play a "hardcore" game, they'd try it for a few minutes then look online for hacks.



I didn't realize Wager matches were the same old game modes.  And I don't see how anything you just described doesn't also affect pretty much any hardcore game that's come out in the last 15 years or so.  These games haven't been completely overhauled.  Many of them simply build on what's worked in the past with some small additions, much in the way this current COD game did.  Maybe it's just because you're older and are actually paying for your games now, but that's how games advance, it's practically the definition of a game sequel.  By your logic, you can't tell me that MW2 and Black Ops are essentially the same game without also saying the same about Mario 1 and Mario 3, Street Fighter 2 and 3, and so on and so forth.  

Online hacks are really no different than what Gameshark was back in the day.  Though it kills the competitiveness of the game, that's on the developer to try and fix their code.  But there will always be hackers and moders who will try to break the game, that's simply a fact of life PC gamers, and to some extent console gamers have to deal with.



> God, COD makes me annoyed. It's ruined PC gaming totally. First game was good though, but even then it was a Medal Of Honour wannabe but it had decent, balanced multiplayer which got buttfucked by the introduction of COD4.



COD didn't ruin PC gaming, it's the ungodly amount of money you have to spend on a rig to make games run at their full potential.  If I want a basic Gaming laptop I'd have to drop $800 as opposed to $300 for a PS3.  I'd rather have my games running on an SD TV for $500 less than a laptop that's going to become outdated by the time the next Crysis game comes out.


----------



## KazukiFerret (Jan 11, 2011)

Game sucked nut, stupid reskin of MW2.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 11, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> If I want a basic Gaming laptop I'd have to drop $800 as opposed to $300 for a PS3.


 
Everything else you've said aside, this is only true if you don't already own a computer. Are you buying the computer only to play games? Then maybe $800 is a little steep. Are you buying the computer to play games, surf the internet, talk online, e-mail, music, movies, work, etc etc etc? Then you're already spending like $600-700 for something that isn't a glorified paperweight that is going to self-destruct in a year. Adding a decent video card to a machine like that can run anywhere between $150 to $300 (higher if you're particularly insane) - Well within the range of buying a console. PC gaming is very affordable.

Anyway, CoD used to be somewhat cool. 1 and 2 were great. 3 sucked (Treyarch blows). 4 was OK. That's when ActiBlizzard took notice and started running it into the ground with shitty release after shitty release. They treat their employees like crap, their customers even worse, and yet people lap it up and beg for more (much like WoW-addicts do). ActiBlizzard has found the same key strategy that franchises like Madden, NHL, NBA and Yu-Gi-Oh have been following for some time - Release decent game, remake with minor tweaks year after year. ActiBlizzard fully intends to run CoD into the ground until it's no longer viable as a franchise and they move on to another franchise to ruin. See also: Guitar Hero. The intelligent people understand what's going on and rightfully call the "new" releases little more than rehashes of the previous game(s), using the same engine, same geometry, same general gameplay, without anything truly compelling that makes the new versions a must have. Mindless drones, however, see minor gameplay tweaks and new player models as new game-worthy. Let me tell you: Back in my day (I should NOT be having to say that at my age), that shit would have barely flew as an expansion pack, much less another $60 purchase.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 11, 2011)

Honestly the thing that pisses me off the most about the newer CoD games is that they took a formula that I liked (semi realistic with still arcadey gameplay) and made it stupid over the top shit. I loved CoD2 and MW1 because of they fit that formula. Then MW2 comes along and now multiplayer has nukes and dual wielding SMGs/shotguns, and fucking _heartbeat sensors_, among other stupid crap, to appeal to 13 year olds.


----------



## eatitfreakbags (Jan 11, 2011)

This thread = rant?
I think Black Ops is good BECAUSE it hasn't changed the main formula for multiplayer (shoot people, people shoot you, go up rank, unlock more stuff to shoot people with) and it is good because it is the perfect game to play with friends, good for venting anger, etc.  The campaign of course is not the most insane thing I have ever played but they are at least getting a compelling story into it this time around.  Zombies is probably my favourite part about the game (again the best thing to play with friends) as the difficulty level always increases.  But seriously people, there is no point in ranting about how you want a game to change because its a persons opinion on whether they like the game or not. By the way if you havent checked out bioshock yet, you need to. 
and
GAMES NEED MORE ZOMBIES!!!


----------



## Willow (Jan 11, 2011)

eatitfreakbags said:


> it is good because it is the perfect game to play with friends, good for venting anger, etc.


I'm pretty sure many games are good for doing any number of these things. 



> But seriously people, there is no point in ranting about how you want a game to change because its a persons opinion on whether they like the game or not.


No one's asking for the game to change, but almost everyone so far has just said it's just a reskin of MW2. Which I would think most people don't shell out $60 so they can play the same game over again in a slightly different setting. 



> By the way if you havent checked out bioshock yet, you need to.


I can agree with this.


----------



## eatitfreakbags (Jan 11, 2011)

hah good thing i skipped MW2
heard from friends that with all of the new equipment and quickscoping and tactical nukes it was basically a joke
so i waited for the next game with zombies
and jeez that was a quick reply


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 11, 2011)

Runefox said:


> Everything else you've said aside, this is only true if you don't already own a computer. Are you buying the computer only to play games? Then maybe $800 is a little steep. Are you buying the computer to play games, surf the internet, talk online, e-mail, music, movies, work, etc etc etc? Then you're already spending like $600-700 for something that isn't a glorified paperweight that is going to self-destruct in a year. Adding a decent video card to a machine like that can run anywhere between $150 to $300 (higher if you're particularly insane) - Well within the range of buying a console. PC gaming is very affordable.


 
My computers I buy are for work reasons.  I don't game on my PCs since all available memory is pretty much going towards render files and autosave vaults.  It's more of a necessity rather than for entertainment purposes.  Adding gaming onto that computer probably wouldn't be a good idea, nor do I want to sit in my computer chair by the time I'm done editing something.  Comfy couch, HDTV, PS3 makes more sense to me gaming-wise.  Shit, I've even stopped using Netflicks on my computer and just watch on the console.


----------



## Riley (Jan 11, 2011)

CoD games have just been getting worse since 4, which was average at best.

Unreal Tournament 2004: Game of the year, every year.  Why yes, I am a tad bit biased.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 11, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> There's so much more in the package that you clearly aren't getting.  Zombie maps, the arcade shooter, a decent and challenging single-player.  Activision had every right to charge people 60 bucks for it.  Though it may be true that the more things change, the more they can stay the same, there's enough new features in this game that I, as a gamer, would qualify as being worth the price of admission.  You make it seem like we gamers are just getting new team deathmatch maps at 60 bucks and that's it, which is extremely unfair and ignorant of you.
> 
> _*Zombie maps. Single player mode. You serious? The zombie mode is just another throwback from the recent games and it's just a poorly done waveshooter that has very little longevity and what's worse, you're gonna be willing to pay for a bunch of maps for BO including one zombie map. I'd rather stick to my Killing Floor with its depth, free updates, mapping/modding community and its extremely low price. Also the "challenging" single player... If Riley was here he'd probably have something to say about it. :V The single player mode is so good, it plays itself!*_
> 
> ...


 
Cheez. ;o

Also, I have to agree with RuneFox, KazukiFerret and H&K on all points. But eatitfreakbags, however. >:[

Edit: Ninja'd. Not a suprise when I look at how much I wrote.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 11, 2011)

I'll stick to my Bioshock, Left 4 Dead, and Halo, 8D


----------



## Riley (Jan 11, 2011)

Gibby said:


> _*If Riley was here he'd probably have something to say about it. :V *_



Why yes, I do!

Actually, it's a little more than just "hurr single player is dumb now."

Bot AI.  What happened to it?  In CoD, the only enemy AI is "pop up from behind something, shoot player."  That's a rail shooter where you get to move, is all.  Now Codblops is toting its "All New Multiplayer Bot AI!!!!zomg"  Oh good, consoles have finally caught up to computer games.  Let's take a look, far back into the 90s.  1997, or thereabouts, when the Reaper bot for Quake 1 appeared.  It allowed players an offline opponent to practice against, and played like a low-skill human opponent.  1998, Unreal comes out, and Epic Games makes up for small its small enemy presence with groundbreaking AI that presents a real challenge to the player - forcing them to make in-combat tactics changes as the enemy they're shooting at is actively dodging and evading them.  1999, Unreal Tournament comes out with bots that can be adjusted in skill level to mimic anything from the fresh meat newbie to the most ruthless of star players.  2004 - The Unreal Engine 2 has improved its AI to the point that bots set at the highest setting in Unreal Tournament 2004 will challenge even the most skilled of human players.  2007 - The Unreal Engine 3 comes out, and its AI has been reduced to drooling monkeys that a Novice bot in UT99 could wipe the floor with.  Bots disappear from games, and everyone suddenly thinks that enemies throwing more grenades at you makes them harder.

This whole obsession with CoD being beaten on Veteran difficulty is pathetic, because the challenge is only present because of the fact that the enemies throw more grenades than normal and endlessly respawn.  They've gone from evolving into actual threats that you can play offline with into the groaning, harmless zombies from House of the Dead (literally, in Treyarch's case).  The only difference now is that you can't shoot offscreen to reload.


----------



## The DK (Jan 11, 2011)

Ive never raegd and threw the controller with any game ever as i did with black ops and i not the type of person to do those things.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 11, 2011)

Gibby said:


> Zombie maps. Single player mode. You serious? The zombie mode is just another throwback from the recent games and it's just a poorly done waveshooter that has very little longevity and what's worse, you're gonna be willing to pay for a bunch of maps for BO including one zombie map. I'd rather stick to my Killing Floor with its depth, free updates, mapping/modding community and its extremely low price. Also the "challenging" single player... If Riley was here he'd probably have something to say about it. :V The single player mode is so good, it plays itself!



Who said I was buying the DLC?  I didn't buy any for MW2, and I'm not planning on buying the Black Ops pack any time soon.  "Little longevity" in that mode?  Well, at least it's thrown in with other game modes, unlike L4D which you mention below that's pretty much a glorified wave shooter with as many levels as WAW had for zombies with the same longevity issues.

I'm currently still trying to beat the campaign on Veteran when I get the chance to play.  I'm not seeing how I can cruise through these levels, though I challenge anyone here to go through "Executive Order" without firing on Veteran.  Please, prove me wrong.  



> Well it's good to hear that the balance has been brought closer in the new game, but I still fail to see this as anything that warrants another full-price game. There are plenty of developers around that would just give this thing out for free.



It gives the game a completely different feel.  There were major overhauls to the perk system in Black Ops that would have made MW2's multiplayer a completely different game than when it was released.  Also, what developer today can you legitimately say would patch the game to that kind of extent where it would completely get rid of features because of balance issues, post-release?  The most they did was fix the 1887s, but gun re-balancing seems a bit easier than tearing down the perk system and rebuilding while the game is already out.



> COD lacks forward thinking compared to the more "deep" games, as you may call them. COD seems limited to "I'm gonna put a claymore on that door 'cos a guy is gonna come through there," or "I'm gonna take a sniper rifle cos we're on a big map," or "I'm gonna check those windows for campers," stuff like that. It's all about basic response to the immediate environment if anything.



What is "forward thinking" by your definition?  If it's anticipating player actions and acting to implement counter measures, then placing a mine in a strategic location seems like forward thinking.  As does having a teammate assigned to take down air support.  As does assigning a player as a sniper to watch a headquarters/flag/etc.  In fact, isn't general problem solving making responses to the immediate environment?  Wouldn't that fall under the category of pretty much every major hardcore game that's come out?  "I'm going to jump on these ledges to see if they lead anywhere." "I'm going to check these boxes for ammo." "I'm going to sneak around these guys instead of fighting them head on because I don't have enough health or ammo."  Short of a game of chess or complex RTS, I fail to see your point here.



> I played a 7-hour trial for Starcraft, I didn't like it too much. Nor have I been near Ninja Gaiden. A learning curve is a good thing to have in a game because it feels a lot more rewarding when you take the knowledge you have and use it to smash the opposition/objective to a pulp. You didn't even need twitch reactions at all. What game was it that made you feel the learning curve was so high and unplayable? Was it some sort of grand strategy game like Empire: Total War? I agree with you that games that rely on cutscenes like that are bad, because well, I'd much rather try for myself. Long tutorials can be a pain in the ass for some, but... are you "hardcore" enough to keep going, facing a long struggle to finally emerge victorious and be rewarded or would you rather turn the game off and hop in an arena with a gun for instant gratification?



I was almost sure you were about to say "Are you a bad enough dude to keep going, blahblahblah".

You're putting gaming up on a pedestal there.  Gaming has never been as epic an experience as you're describing.  What "reward" am I getting here?  Achievements?  The end credits?  I've played games that have pulled at my emotions, but I'm not about to sit here and say that I fought valiantly and nobly to achieve some great level of being.  It's a game.  I can imagine someone saying the same thing you mentioned above about Farmville, the most casual of all games.

What game was near unplayable?  Didn't I just say Ninja Gaiden?  But now that you mention it, games that come with an instruction manual longer than the warranty pamphlet you get from TVs/consoles/PCs aren't worth the time.  There's nothing rewarding there, since I'd still have the nagging thought in the back of my head that I'm reading all of this literature instead of having fun, which is what I bought the game for in the first place.



> No comment on this one, I'm not a big RPG fan. I would say that the "old" RPG fans woulda been happy to see the old perspective just because of their admiration of the "charm" it brought the game, making it different from the other games in the market.
> 
> No comment again, I've never played it.



So two of the bigger games geared toward the hardcore you haven't played, yet you complain that there aren't enough hardcore games?  I think you need to revise your argument to, "there aren't any games I want to play" because it doesn't seem to be an issue about how hardcore a game is, it's about your preference in genre.



> Think a little differently, consoles are initially more of a party thing, why do they bother trying to make them more like PCs by being online-only?



Because that's what console gamers have demanded and Sony and Microsoft have delivered.  Nintendo's still lagging behind with their shit service.  This recent generation isn't about the party thing as it relates to the hardcore demographic.  Robust online access on consoles with online multiplayer options is how things are looking.  I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't see in the next five years you get some version of WoW for consoles if they can figure out how to map hot keys.



> And worthwhile well-made games.



I downloaded Wolfenstein 3D over PSN a while ago.  I played it and remembered that it's fucking ridiculous to play a shooter where you're running around in circles trying to find a key.  The challenge that came in those games weren't from the enemies, it was the fact that ALL THE ROOMS LOOKED EXACTLY THE SAME WITH VIRTUALLY NO LANDMARKS TO DISTINGUISH WHERE YOU'VE BEEN AND WHERE YOU HAVEN'T.



> The problem is, the number of games like that are getting lower every year by the looks of it.



But we've already established you wouldn't know because you don't play them.



> In my eyes, they pretty much are, aside from the small alterations in features which came about as the series went on, but you're comparing retail console games to arcade cabinet games, really? That's not smart. Users buy the console games while users just put in a coupla coins for the arcade games every time. The price stays the same but in the arcade's case, it's like what, 25 cents? Then that turns into a recycled console game for 60 dollars? Pah.



Mario 1 and 3 were cabinet games?  If you don't like that example, then apply what I said to Diablo II and the upcoming Diablo III,  StarCraft and StarCraft II, CIV IV to CIV V.



> That wasn't the argument I was getting at, I was referring more to the idea that there's idiots out there who get their e-peens cut off when they realise that the game they're playing doesn't work like COD at all and they refuse to adapt.



Then that's their problem.  I don't understand why you're getting so bent out of shape over it.  It's like me getting upset over multi-fragging a bunch of noobs who charge a Domination flag in the middle of a map.  Easy kills are easy kills, and I'll take em whether it's a l33t h4rdc0r3 gamer or the greenest n00b.



> What I dislike however, are the slightly demented people who insist on paying full price just for a few changes which other developers (hardcore developers, lets say) would've given for free.



Again, I challenge you to name a developer who would completely revamp their game post-release for no charge.  Developers live in a business world.  They are in the business of making money, and if gaming has changed at all since we were kids, it's become more commercial.  We aren't living in an age where guys are making the next great FPS in their dad's garage, the most you see out of those guys are things like Limbo or other Indie games, good in their own right, but still not exactly giving out their product for free.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 11, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Again, I challenge you to name a developer who would completely revamp their game post-release for no charge.


 Valve?

TF2?

Tripwire added lots of addons to killing floor for free too.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 11, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Valve?
> 
> TF2?


 
Updates to character classes and completely removing features seems like two different things doesn't it?  The only way I could think of comparing the two would be removing the medic's medigun and other healing tools in favor of a morphine shot that he has to be right next to a player to give it to him, or otherwise completely removing how one of those classes have operated since release.

And the free nature of those updates only exists on PC.  Orange Box buyers on consoles, to my knowledge, still pay.

Besides, I'm not exactly too impressed with Valve as of late.  Gabe Newell coming out and saying Portal 2's definitive version is going to be on a console?  And the PS3 of all consoles?  The same one he ripped just three years ago?  Money seems to be having some effect on Newell's opinions, and lord knows I don't know anyone who doesn't joke about Valve's support to the community being some way of apologizing for never planning on releasing Half-Life 2: Episode 3.


----------



## Cute_Wolfy (Jan 11, 2011)

cod mw2 60 $
/facepaw
for ppl who spent that much money on the same game with a few addons and reskins....


----------



## Mentova (Jan 11, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Updates to character classes and completely removing features seems like two different things doesn't it?  The only way I could think of comparing the two would be removing the medic's medigun and other healing tools in favor of a morphine shot that he has to be right next to a player to give it to him, or otherwise completely removing how one of those classes have operated since release.
> 
> And the free nature of those updates only exists on PC.  Orange Box buyers on consoles, to my knowledge, still pay.
> 
> Besides, I'm not exactly too impressed with Valve as of late.  Gabe Newell coming out and saying Portal 2's definitive version is going to be on a console?  And the PS3 of all consoles?  The same one he ripped just three years ago?  Money seems to be having some effect on Newell's opinions, and lord knows I don't know anyone who doesn't joke about Valve's support to the community being some way of apologizing for never planning on releasing Half-Life 2: Episode 3.



You can't say that TF2's release version is the same as the current version though. The game has had many changes through it's lifetime and is pretty different. Some classes can completely change their playstyle based on some of the new weapons, like the engineer's mini-turrets when using the arm thing. Not to mention they pretty much turned it into a hat collecting simulator.



Cute_Wolfy said:


> cod mw2 60 $
> */facepalm*
> for ppl who spent that much money on the same game with a few addons and reskins....



Fixed.


----------



## Cute_Wolfy (Jan 12, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> You can't say that TF2's release version is the same as the current version though. The game has had many changes through it's lifetime and is pretty different. Some classes can completely change their playstyle based on some of the new weapons, like the engineer's mini-turrets when using the arm thing. Not to mention they pretty much turned it into a hat collecting simulator.
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed.


How dare you!! i am a dog in a body of a human and stuff


----------



## ShadowPawz (Jan 12, 2011)

All I have to say is:

Stop all the arguing and play the games you want on the platforms you want.


----------



## Cute_Wolfy (Jan 12, 2011)

ShadowPawz said:


> All I have to say is:
> 
> Stop all the arguing and play the games you want on the platforms you want.


 AND thus leaving greedy companies continue to rape gameplay in order to attract more dumb masses
YAY games are now like drugs


----------



## ShadowPawz (Jan 12, 2011)

Cute_Wolfy said:


> AND thus leaving greedy companies continue to rape gameplay in order to attract more dumb masses
> YAY games are now like drugs


 
If games are like drugs then just dont use them. I dont see how argueing is gonna make anything better.


----------



## Willow (Jan 12, 2011)

ShadowPawz said:


> All I have to say is:
> 
> Stop all the arguing and play the games you want on the platforms you want.


 The only thing I got from this post was "WAAAHHH STOP BASHING THE GAEM QQ"


----------



## Vibgyor (Jan 12, 2011)

black ops is so generic, it's fucking terrible


----------



## ShadowPawz (Jan 12, 2011)

Willow said:


> The only thing I got from this post was "WAAAHHH STOP BASHING THE GAEM QQ"


 
I dont even like Black Ops, im not protecting it, im just sayin that argueing back and forth "HURR THIS GAME IS A RESKIN," isnt makeing anything better nor will it ever.


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 12, 2011)

Cute_Wolfy said:


> AND thus leaving greedy companies continue to rape gameplay in order to attract more dumb masses
> YAY games are now like drugs


 
OH NOEZ! Suddenly gaming is accessible to EVERYONE! Our super exclusive club is ruined! D:

Seriously, get over it, and get over your shitty "hardcore gamer" attitude.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 12, 2011)

ShadowPawz said:


> All I have to say is:
> 
> Stop all the arguing and play the games you want on the platforms you want.



At the moment, they are debating.
Debating the game is fine as long as this thread does not devolve into "SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH YOU POSERFAGGOT". 

Folks, keep it clean. :3


----------



## Willow (Jan 12, 2011)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> Seriously, get over it, and get over your shitty "hardcore gamer" attitude.


 I fail to see the "hardcore gamer" attitude in this situation.


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 12, 2011)

Willow said:


> I fail to see the "hardcore gamer" attitude in this situation.


 It's the typical whinging on about the casual market and how games are being dulled down for them, etc, etc. Not so much the people who are "hardcore" in terms of their dedication to gaming, but the whiny elitists who are far more annoying than the casual gaming market as a whole.


----------



## Willow (Jan 12, 2011)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> It's the typical whinging on about the casual market and how games are being dulled down for them, etc, etc. Not so much the people who are "hardcore" in terms of their dedication to gaming, but the whiny elitists who are far more annoying than the casual gaming market as a whole.


 I don't think it really has so much to do with the casual gaming market as it does with developers don't really try to do anything new with the game and just rehash a previous installment because they know people will buy it regardless. Squeenix kinda has this problem too.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 12, 2011)

What can I say of Black ops.

I've only played the multiplayer, and I'm not impressed, it seems like the game was rushed. Way too glitchy online.
I liked Modern Warfare and it too had problems, I say Modern Warfare two was half assed, Black Ops being half as good as it.


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 12, 2011)

Willow said:


> I don't think it really has so much to do with the casual gaming market as it does with developers don't really try to do anything new with the game and just rehash a previous installment because they know people will buy it regardless. Squeenix kinda has this problem too.


 
I see what you're getting at, and I do agree. While I do hold the same sentiments for the CoD franchise, it's gotten to a point for me where I really don't care. If it's fun, then I'll play. That's beside my point. Right now the industry is hurting. Maybe not like the housing or American automobile manufacturers have been lately, but hurting nonetheless, and in such a time it is a HUGE risk to put out an all-or-nothing game, if said game could possibly bring you great fortune, or devastate enough to close for good. So the best move is to go with what has been good, and at least break even. Sure, it's a shitty as all hell move, and games do end being watered-down versions of themselves, but in the end, business is business.


----------



## Cute_Wolfy (Jan 12, 2011)

Accessible you say??? i call it destroyed.
Because the masses who have the power to move the market are so freaking dumb and get tricked by marketing so easily they cant do shit.
Play for fun??? thats how 90% of humans play games but fun is only the way to get money
The main purpose of companies is to make money, how you do that by making the games fun
And what is fun???
Its making pathetic people who suck feel better and how you do that, by asking them for money to give the a game that plays by itself but the player is the one that believes that they achieved something and won somebody even if it required no skill at all. They even ruin online skill based pvp by giving pathetic people a way of killing others(thus feeling better).  preferably giving them that option after some amount time so they can keep paying them in order to get that option and feel better by winning unfair fights...

For the masses games are like drugs(for the masses... some ppl might approach it from a design, competition, or just story)
Both do physical and sometimes mental damage
Both waste time
Both require MONEY
Both make you feel better even though you do not deserve it
(but i guess pathetic people prefer to feel happy by paying money instead of something free...)

Plus if there werent so many dumb people in earth mw2 wouldnt sell, but it sold copies... thats the main reason i bash idiots who support greedy companies and say them keep going we are gonna pay you moar


----------



## KazukiFerret (Jan 13, 2011)

Call of Dookie: Black Cocks...

Hmm, no the game was not challenging. Setting it to a higher difficulty just made the enemies more durable and they just threw more grenades to annoy the piss out of me. The AI is still about as clever as a brick or more pointedly the stupid overdone renaming of the game that constitutes the first paragraph in this post. I loled and facepalmed at seeing such ridiculous things in the game such as dot sights, 'ACOG' scopes and about 2/3s of the weapons available. The story was laughable at best, shit at worst as it shoveled enough conspiracy theorist bullshit down your ears to make you want to shoot a Congresswoman or something, aha, too soon? 

Anyway, yeah. It was modern warfare 2 re skinned with weapons from the 1970's thrown in, set in the 1960's with a somehow worse story line. I never gave a fuck about the multiplayer because I have no desire to subject myself to such critical levels of retardation, racism and homophobia as are found in the XBox live lobby, nor do I want to run around in circles shooting the same fucking retards over and over again as they whine at me for either being a hacker or apparently liking it up the ass from some big black guy named Bubba; how they divine such information from me killing them in a video game is anyone's guess. The game is at least playable but aside from that it was just a lot of failure and stupidity.


----------



## Darkhavenz0r (Jan 13, 2011)

This thread might have been cool to read if a certain select few people had not decided to voice their opinions as if they were facts and then proceeded to basically talk down to the one person who thought different.



> COD didn't ruin PC gaming, it's the ungodly amount of money you have to spend on a rig to make games run at their full potential


Good one. Sitting on a 7-year-old PC right now that cost about 500$ new back in the day that runs Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops at playable framerates (~30FPS). What do you have to say for the people who bought the original Xbox or PS2 for around $150-200 in circa 2000-2001, and then four years later shelled out ~$300-400 at the launch of the 360, or $800 for a PS3? And what about the people who had to end up buying multiple 360s or sending their originals in for repair for additional hundreds of dollars because Microsoft shafted them? And all of this, for comparatively weak hardware with games flowing out the gates that barely run on consoles that PC hardware from 5+ years ago just eats up?



> If I want a basic _Gaming laptop_


There's your problem right there.



> as opposed to $300 for a PS3



I revisit my earlier point.



> I'd rather have my games running on an SD TV for $500 less than a laptop that's going to become outdated by the time the next Crysis game comes out.



Ok, have fun on your 480i TV while I play on my 1200p monitor I've had for a few years now. While you're at it, you can have fun with your "gaming laptop" (haha).


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 13, 2011)

Darkhavenz0r said:


> There's your problem right there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In all honesty, there is nothing wrong with having a gaming Laptops, and some of the best gaming latops out on the market think it is a tower but can run games such as BlackOps on 30 FPS or other troublesome games like Dragon Age.


 And before you say "Lol gaming laptops", understand this: I own a High powered iron Warhorse tower.


----------



## Darkhavenz0r (Jan 13, 2011)

If you are any kind of connoisseur of PC hardware, then you should certainly be aware that "gaming laptop" for the most part is an oxymoron, *if ever* an oxymoron has existed.

At any rate it appeared to me in your original post on the subject that you were trying to purposely inflate the price of PC hardware relative to similarly-performing console hardware to fictional proportions. Like I said, I'm sitting on a 500$ rig from 2004-2005 that plays Modern Warfare 2 pretty fairly - certainly playable. Is it top of the line for 2011? God no, but neither is an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3. 

In this generation of software, it would seem like graphically games are beginning to plateau, so you'd probably just as easily be able to buy the parts to build yourself a $300-400 rig that will last you for many more years than the 360 and PS3 will. And when all the little kids are getting their Xbox 720s for Christmas in 2015, you'll be laughing at them - you had better hardware in 2011. You can play all their games on a comparatively ancient machine. But the dumb kids went ahead and spent 500$ on the new console anyway, just like they spent 400$ for a launch 360 (or 800$ for the Playstation 3) and then shelled out another $200-400 or so for each successive 360 or PS3 after their hardware failed on them time and time and time again.


----------



## KazukiFerret (Jan 13, 2011)

Darkhavenz0r said:


> If you are any kind of connoisseur of PC hardware, then you should certainly be aware that "gaming laptop" for the most part is an oxymoron, *if ever* an oxymoron has existed.
> 
> At any rate it appeared to me in your original post on the subject that you were trying to purposely inflate the price of PC hardware relative to similarly-performing console hardware to fictional proportions. Like I said, I'm sitting on a 500$ rig from 2004-2005 that plays Modern Warfare 2 pretty fairly - certainly playable. Is it top of the line for 2011? God no, but neither is an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3.
> 
> In this generation of software, it would seem like graphically games are beginning to plateau, so you'd probably just as easily be able to buy the parts to build yourself a $300-400 rig that will last you for many more years than the 360 and PS3 will. And when all the little kids are getting their Xbox 720s for Christmas in 2015, you'll be laughing at them - you had better hardware in 2011. You can play all their games on a comparatively ancient machine. But the dumb kids went ahead and spent 500$ on the new console anyway, just like they spent 400$ for a launch 360 (or 800$ for the Playstation 3) and then shelled out another $200-400 or so for each successive 360 or PS3 after their hardware failed on them time and time and time again.


 
With as big of a Console fantard as I am I have to admit my PC has significant advantages over my PS3, Wii, XBox 360 (all of which were bought used, aside from the PS3 which was a Christmas gift because sometimes my family is awesome) and my older generation systems. However the cheapest current gen used system I bought, being my Wii, was $120 after tax. I recently bought a new graphics card and harddrive for my PC (the latter of which was because it had died and the former being that my on board graphics card was just kind of shit) for $150 after tax and now my PC can handle any of the current games available on high to medium settings without a problem, a trend that is likely to continue for at least a few more years. A much, much more sound investment on my part.

And yes, a game laptop is an exercise in failure.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 14, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> You can't say that TF2's release version is the same as the current version though. The game has had many changes through it's lifetime and is pretty different. Some classes can completely change their playstyle based on some of the new weapons, like the engineer's mini-turrets when using the arm thing. Not to mention they pretty much turned it into a hat collecting simulator.


 
>implying hat collecting simulator is an improvement.

In any case, some of those improvements makes me wonder why they weren't IN the game when it was originally released.  What you mentioned before the the engineer's mini-turrets, how was this such a revolutionary game design change that couldn't have been implemented when the game came out?  As much as we'd like to think that this is Valve giving back to the community, there's also the nagging doubt of them holding back features to rush the game out and then add a bunch of "new" features they couldn't get the bugs out of.  That's of course not exclusive to Valve, I have the same complaint with most DLC, if not all of it.  And as I said, as a console gamer, I'm pretty sure these updates aren't free.

As far as Black Ops and MW2 is concerned, we're still overlooking the fact that each game is the brainchild of two different developers working on the same franchise using similar but different engines.  IW and Treyarch aren't exactly in the business to make add-on content for each other's games.  It's kind of like telling the guys at EA Montreal (Army of Two) that they should be making content for BioWare because they both use the Unreal Engine and work for EA.



			
				Darkhavenz0r said:
			
		

> Good one. Sitting on a 7-year-old PC right now that cost about 500$ new back in the day that runs Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops at playable framerates (~30FPS). What do you have to say for the people who bought the original Xbox or PS2 for around $150-200 in circa 2000-2001, and then four years later shelled out ~$300-400 at the launch of the 360, or $800 for a PS3? And what about the people who had to end up buying multiple 360s or sending their originals in for repair for additional hundreds of dollars because Microsoft shafted them? And all of this, for comparatively weak hardware with games flowing out the gates that barely run on consoles that PC hardware from 5+ years ago just eats up?



Hey, great for you buddy.  And exactly how friendly is that to a potential install base instead of a oldfags like us who might have those 7-year-old PCs lying around?

As I've already mentioned, my desktops I use for work purposes, not for gaming.  Even if I wanted to I'd rather not risk its performance on a PC version of Black Ops, nor do I have the patience to deal with changing out graphics cards.  I don't build rigs, I shoot and edit video for a living and as a hobby.  I'm not versed in how to get the most out of an almost decade old tower, nor do I care to research it, as I bet a large majority of the general public is.  I also don't have the room to throw down another tower specifically for gaming, so if I wanted to game on a PC, a laptop would make the most sense to me as a consumer.  

I'm also sure the average family doesn't care to do that either, so what's dad going to get his kid for Christmas?  A new 360/PS3 or a refurbished desktop with a new graphics card he installed himself/gaming laptop/desktop?  If that same person did go for a gaming PC, they'd probably buy the laptop if price was an issue, and if it wasn't he'd spend well over a grand for a tower, not including monitor.  

My family has two PS3s, a main family one that was from launch day and one of the new slims that I bought as a personal machine that I travel with since I travel around a lot.  Both have never had any issues, so maintenance has not been something I've had to worry about, unlike my PC which has had to be serviced several times and needed new graphics and video cards to deal with the kinds of editing I'm doing now.  As far as I'm concerned, how other people bought anything Microsoft and expected it to not have problems is their problem.  And I've never once had to sacrifice my games' performance to suit the limitations of the machine I'm running them on.

tl:dr, a gaming PC is not convenient to me by cost or maintenance standards.


----------



## Riley (Jan 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> As much as we'd like to think that this is Valve giving back to the community, there's also the nagging doubt of them holding back features to rush the game out and then add a bunch of "new" features they couldn't get the bugs out of.



TF2 was in development for 10 years.  I'm pretty sure that's not the case at all.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 14, 2011)

Riley said:


> TF2 was in development for 10 years.  I'm pretty sure that's not the case at all.


 
Which confuses the hell out of me considering that the game might as well still be considered "in development" with these "new" features.  With the amount of content they're releasing post-release, doesn't that strike anyone as odd in the slightest or is it just me?  If we call this game still "in dev" then why should a console gamer be forced to pay to patch their incomplete product?


----------



## iiiFoxy (Jan 14, 2011)

Multiplayer is meh

Zombies is Nyah!


----------



## Darkhavenz0r (Jan 14, 2011)

@Term_the_Schmuck:

How do laptops make more sense to you as a consumer when they cost more and offer comparatively weak hardware? And space/mobility wouldn't be an issue anyway if we're comparing against consoles, which aren't exactly mobile devices.

You're talking about spending $1400+ on a purported "gaming laptop" that might have an hour of battery life tops (speaking from personal experience with high-end Alienware laptops) while in full action, so any benefit of significant mobility is totally out the door from the start. And if you cut down on pricing a little, you're pretty much invariably going to be talking integrated graphics chip on-board, which anyone will tell you is garbage compared to the full daughterboard equivalents. Hell, even the proprietary interfaces that Alienware laptops use for graphics cards generally don't provide you with the same level of performance as the full-size versions. And god help you if you have to get one of those things replaced.

So where does this put us? You can spend 1500$ for a watered-down up-priced laptop that you can't really take anywhere with you, thus destroying the benefit of it being a laptop, or you can damn near build *three towers with better performance* with that same money.

ALSO:

So how about that map pack coming out February 1


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 14, 2011)

Korex said:


> OMG ever since it came out i got hooked with it~
> 
> Multiplayer is awesomez....


Do you type like that because you have a serious brain defect or something?



iiiFoxy said:


> Multiplayer is meh
> 
> *Zombies* is *Nyah*!


 Get the fuck out.

Oh, and let me recommend an infinitely superior FPS.

[yt]9_TCQPcUk2Y[/yt]
/thread


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 14, 2011)

Darkhavenz0r said:


> @Term_the_Schmuck:
> 
> How do laptops make more sense to you as a consumer when they cost more and offer comparatively weak hardware? And space/mobility wouldn't be an issue anyway if we're comparing against consoles, which aren't exactly mobile devices.



Clearly you missed my tl:dr, because regardless of what I decided to get as a gaming PC, I wouldn't anyway because I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOM AND I LACK THE EXPERTISE TO BUILD MY OWN RIG.  The cost as you pointed out if I for some reason still wanted a PC for gaming and didn't build my own rig is outrageous.



> ALSO:
> 
> So how about that map pack coming out February 1


 
What about it?  I have PS3 so it's not coming out on my system for some time.  Still not planning on getting it.  I've never purchased DLC content up to this point since I've owned my PS3.  I only played the add-on content in Fallout 3 because my buddy let me borrow his GOTY edition that had the add-on content already on the disk.

I'm decidedly anti-DLC in pretty much all forms.  Black Ops is no exception.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 14, 2011)

iiiFoxy said:


> Zombies is *meh*!


 
If you think COD's Zombies is "Nyah" play killing floor. It's a million times better than that piece of crap tacked-on zombie mode. Plus the game has been in development since 2005, getting to retail in 2009 and it's still improving to this day. It's also got a longer life than COD, too. I myself have nearly 600 hours clocked of KF playing (and I only play it on some evenings) and I know people with over 1,800 hours! Also, the game cost $20/Â£15 on release and it's cheaper now. Best part is, the developers care about the community and realise that they're not so fucking stupid as to pay full price for a very slightly different game every year.


----------



## Riley (Jan 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Which confuses the hell out of me considering that the game might as well still be considered "in development" with these "new" features.  With the amount of content they're releasing post-release, doesn't that strike anyone as odd in the slightest or is it just me?  If we call this game still "in dev" then why should a console gamer be forced to pay to patch their incomplete product?


 
TF2 was a complete game when it launched 3 years ago.  Everything since then has been an addition, the developer's way of saying "Here, go ahead and enjoy our product some more."  Was Starcraft incomplete when Brood War was released?  How about WoW, and any of its 3 expansions?

Sometimes, an addition to a game is just that: an addition.  They come up with new stuff to put in it that they hadn't thought of before.  Best of all, Valve did it all for free.  Your complaint with it not being free on console doesn't hold any truth - it doesn't _exist_ on console, _because Microsoft won't let Valve release free updates._


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 14, 2011)

Riley said:


> it doesn't _exist_ on console, _because Microsoft won't let Valve release free updates._


 
It's funny how the bigger the company gets, the bigger dicks they are.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 14, 2011)

Riley said:


> TF2 was a complete game when it launched 3 years ago.  Everything since then has been an addition, the developer's way of saying "Here, go ahead and enjoy our product some more."  Was Starcraft incomplete when Brood War was released?  How about WoW, and any of its 3 expansions?



I'd argue expansions such as those completely change the face of the game and what it's capable of doing.  Blizzard apparently thought the same, hence why they attach a price tag of essentially a new game to those expansions.  We're talking two different breeds here when considering an MMORPG like WOW.  Brood War on the other hand I'm not so sure about, considering the Brood War expansion came out a few months after release.  That doesn't scream to me, "Thanks for enjoying the game, here's more," it says "We're still working on this, but let's release what we have now, finish this and sell it to make even more money."



> Sometimes, an addition to a game is just that: an addition.  They come up with new stuff to put in it that they hadn't thought of before.  Best of all, Valve did it all for free.  Your complaint with it not being free on console doesn't hold any truth - it doesn't _exist_ on console, _because Microsoft won't let Valve release free updates._


 
And Valve didn't exactly seem all that upset about it, considering they're still receiving money from it.  I find it hard to believe in this day and age of the video game business that a company would say no to money, even if they were "forced" to put a price tag on their DLC.  There's very little nobility in the fact that they're still cashing the checks.


----------



## Riley (Jan 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'd argue expansions such as those completely change the face of the game and what it's capable of doing.  Blizzard apparently thought the same, hence why they attach a price tag of essentially a new game to those expansions.  We're talking two different breeds here when considering an MMORPG like WOW.  Brood War on the other hand I'm not so sure about, considering the Brood War expansion came out a few months after release.  That doesn't scream to me, "Thanks for enjoying the game, here's more," it says "We're still working on this, but let's release what we have now, finish this and sell it to make even more money."
> 
> 
> 
> And Valve didn't exactly seem all that upset about it, considering they're still receiving money from it.  I find it hard to believe in this day and age of the video game business that a company would say no to money, even if they were "forced" to put a price tag on their DLC.  There's very little nobility in the fact that they're still cashing the checks.


 
You seem to have misunderstood - Valve has not released _any_ of the content updates on either console, solely because they refuse to allow Microsoft (or Sony, I guess) put a price tag on something they believe should be free.  Nobody's paying a cent for it on consoles, because it's not available.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 14, 2011)

Riley said:


> You seem to have misunderstood - Valve has not released _any_ of the content updates on either console, solely because they refuse to allow Microsoft (or Sony, I guess) put a price tag on something they believe should be free.  Nobody's paying a cent for it on consoles, because it's not available.


 
Apparently from what I've seen there hasn't been any statement regarding them -not- going to release content.  Given the fact that they've already released content for L4D and its sequel and charged for it on consoles and it remaining free on PCs, I really don't see them saying "oh, we're not going to release it because it should be free."  They already have a record of charging for DLC free on PCs.

But as I mentioned before, since you can't expect to see Half-Life 2 Episode III anytime soon, this may also just be pure laziness/unwillingness to go back and work on it rather than their beliefs.


----------



## Kaizy (Jan 15, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> Do you type like that because you have a serious brain defect or something?
> 
> 
> Get the fuck out.
> ...


 
Oh god I LOVE Turok <3
So much fun ;w;



Ive been playing Black Ops quite a bit since I got it for Christmas
First CoD game Ive ever played, and Im enjoying myself
The custom loadouts are fun to make, the multiplayer isnt half bad (though I suck so bad at it), but by far, my favorite is Zombies


----------

