Call of Duty 7: Black Ops Trailer...

[NeMeSiS 11]

And why complain about an old engine thats getting improved? You're playing ArmA 2 on an engine that started development in 1999.

Because we complained about its engine limitations since CoD1, and will continue to do that just because we can. :p

[Flash Thunder 10]

Yep but sadly the game entertains so im going to be picking it up.

Cant say much about this game since it wont barely run.

[mosh 0]

Rented it for XBOX360, played it (posted about it further back), returned it on time, and glad I saved myself $55 ($60 - rental fee).

No need to post an in depth review... I didn't like it. I wouldn't recommend it. I won't buy it.

[SD_BOB 10]

Was kinda forced into buying it as most of my squad did and have to say after a day of playing im bored/pissed off with it already.

Small maps (when you get to know them), stupid bugs still present from previous games such as friendly tags not showing up. Crap spawn points, enemy and friendly spawning mixed in together. No team element what so ever, even if you play a mode oriented to teams you cant do anything because it very rare that you'll actually be on the same team as your friends. The change team option (for me at least) is always greyed out so no chance of getting on the same side.

Some fun to be had on playin CTF but again the fact you cant organise yourself into a team with your friends makes it shit.

Most expensive game i've ever bought for the PC (bar DCS A-10C but you know your buying quality there), just regret being sucked into getting it now.

[bangtail 0]

Was kinda forced into buying it as most of my squad did and have to say after a day of playing im bored/pissed off with it already.

Small maps (when you get to know them), stupid bugs still present from previous games such as friendly tags not showing up. Crap spawn points, enemy and friendly spawning mixed in together. No team element what so ever, even if you play a mode oriented to teams you cant do anything because it very rare that you'll actually be on the same team as your friends. The change team option (for me at least) is always greyed out so no chance of getting on the same side.

Some fun to be had on playin CTF but again the fact you cant organise yourself into a team with your friends makes it shit.

Most expensive game i've ever bought for the PC (bar DCS A-10C but you know your buying quality there), just regret being sucked into getting it now.

DCS A-10C = Value for money, just learning the startup sequence is worth $60.00. It's so satisfying to get that done and then rolling to the end of the runway :D

CoD: Black Ops = No value for money, stupid story, same tired gameplay, same graphics, 3 hour campaign (AGAIN), repetitve and uninspired MP etc etc etc. The only redeeming feature is the always hilarious 'Zombie mode'.

If it was $29.99 I still wouldn't buy it, it's all marketing and little else. I'll give credit where credit is due, the marketing is excellent and I have no doubt that this game will make that prick Kotick even richer but a good game, it simply isn't.

Edited November 15, 2010 by BangTail

[st_dux 26]

DCS A-10C = Value for money, just learning the startup sequence is worth $60.00. It's so satisfying to get that done and then rolling to the end of the runway

Really? Learning a tedious technical procedure is worth $60?

I don't fully understand why simulation fans feel the need to hate on mainstream FPS games. Their gameplay may be fairly bland and unoriginal, but it is undeniable that games like the latest CoD have exceptional production value.

[ben_s 11]

Simmers just don't find the run'n'gun mainstream games any fun, so as they bash it. What, you don't think the mainstream gamers don't bash the sims?

[bangtail 0]

Really? Learning a tedious technical procedure is worth $60?

I don't fully understand why simulation fans feel the need to hate on mainstream FPS games. Their gameplay may be fairly bland and unoriginal, but it is undeniable that games like the latest CoD have exceptional production value.

On the contrary, I love a quality FPS.

If by production value you mean hiring A-list actors such as Ed Harris and Gary Oldman which is no doubt a large part of the reason the game is so ridiculously expensive, then I can point you in the direction of games like Vietcong that have exceptional voice acting from completely unkonwn actors. Vietcong is not only 7 years old but still about 1000x more immersive and engaging than CoD:BO. I just played it through again recently and if you want to see an FPS done right, I strongly suggest you check it out (if you haven't already).

A 3 hour campaign and the same tedious MP does not a good game make and that's got nothing to do with it being an FPS, and RTS or a Flight sim.

Sims like BS and A-10 are not for everyone, I totally agree, but what they are is quality with massive replayability potential and an almost endless learning curve.

Give me a good mainstream game and I'll have nothing but good things to say about it. Take Metro 2033 for example, that was a good mainstream game.

Give me the same repackaged dross that is the CoD series and I'm afraid I'm going to tell it like it is. When Treyarch or IW come out with something that is really good (like the older CoDs were or even MW1), I'll be right here singing their praises (in fact I have already in this thread).

A 3 hour campaign and boring uninspired MP aren't going to cut it for $60.00 I'm afraid, but if you're happy with that, then what else is there to say. I'm sure you'll be equally happy with some of Kotick's other fantastic ideas, like charging for cutscenes :rolleyes:

Edited November 15, 2010 by BangTail

[GoOB 0]

The only good part about this game was the scene at the end of the credits where we see a few famous world leaders discussing something only to be rudely interrupted by zombies.

[bangtail 0]

The only good part about this game was the scene at the end of the credits where we see a few famous world leaders discussing something only to be rudely interrupted by zombies.

Yep, the Zombie component is good, I won't deny that. Some of the things Kennedy, Nixon et al say are truly side splitting.

[Zipper5 74]

I wrote a little article on how I'm perceiving the situation with Black Ops on my new website. It's pretty disappointing that after 6 days (and counting) the game's still taking up 100% of my CPU. Brings back memories of the last patch released for FPDR. It's a real shame, too, because I'm loving it on the PS3. Some of the humor, like the Zombie mode as you mentioned, BangTail, is hilarious. :D

[ben_s 11]

I find it funny that the only possible way this could have happened is if treyarch didn't test their game on a PC at all. and only ported it and didn't even launch it.

[Heatseeker 0]

On the contrary, I love a quality FPS.

If by production value you mean hiring A-list actors such as Ed Harris and Gary Oldman which is no doubt a large part of the reason the game is so ridiculously expensive, then I can point you in the direction of games like Vietcong that have exceptional voice acting from completely unkonwn actors. Vietcong is not only 7 years old but still about 1000x more immersive and engaging than CoD:BO. I just played it through again recently and if you want to see an FPS done right, I strongly suggest you check it out (if you haven't already).

I tried recently, the sp is still broken on d3d11 :mad: .

Vietcong supported 64 players.. it had its problems but its been 7 years..

Its a shame everyone falls for these stupid COD games, its like they are saying: "No, dont bother making new and better games, give us the same 10 year old crap twice a year and its all good!"

I swear the only reason system requirements go up these days is for intel/amd/nvidia to sell new hardware..

[ben_s 11]

Well, Black Ops so far has had quite a few differences. Nothing to warrent a $60 or £40 price tag though. As Its (again) a CoD game thats not quite finished.

I don't mind a run of the mill FPS so long as its made right (like CoD4), But these newer editions just aren't. Maybe they will patch it up to reach decent standards, but I wouldn't count on it.....

[bangtail 0]

I tried recently, the sp is still broken on d3d11 :mad: .

Vietcong supported 64 players.. it had its problems but its been 7 years..

http://www.vietcong-customs.com/download.php?action=popup&kat_id=1&fileid=1792

This tool got it working for me (fixing the SP crash in mission 2, among other things).

And sure, VC had some issues with pathfinding and the like but it is still an excellent game. I've played it and the expansion many times over and I thouroughly enjoy it every single time.

In contrast, the only recent CoD game I replayed was MW1 and even that was nowhere near as good as it was the first time. Still, MW1 is way better than WaW or BO, that's for certain.

Edited November 16, 2010 by BangTail

[mic1402 10]

i just had a idea, maybe they should make the next treyarch made cod be called Call of Duty: nazi zombies and only have zombie mode and normal multiplayer.

[bangtail 0]

i just had a idea, maybe they should make the next treyarch made cod be called Call of Duty: nazi zombies and only have zombie mode and normal multiplayer.

Sign me up - If they sold that for $20.00, I'd happily buy it (with more maps of course).

[EricM 0]

I don't know if you've seen that video...

It's not even a rail shooter... you don't even have to shoot. It's just a movie where you can look around.

[Flash Thunder 10]

I don't know if you've seen that video...

It's not even a rail shooter... you don't even have to shoot. It's just a movie where you can look around.

LOL at that videos comments!

[Zipper5 74]

Yeah, I saw that a little while ago. Wrote an article on it. It's pretty scary to think that they actually designed it as no more than a movie with some first person shooter aspects...

[ben_s 11]

I don't know if you've seen that video...

It's not even a rail shooter... you don't even have to shoot. It's just a movie where you can look around.

Well, at least that video proves its not all 1 man army anymore. The squad actually is there for a reason. In the older CoD games if you didn't do it all yourself you lost.

[max power 21]

At least with no oxygen we don't have to worry about starving to death :p

[nodunit 397]

I don't know if you've seen that video...

It's not even a rail shooter... you don't even have to shoot. It's just a movie where you can look around.

Aww you beat me to it.

Well, at least that video proves its not all 1 man army anymore. The squad actually is there for a reason. In the older CoD games if you didn't do it all yourself you lost.

I'm not sure that is actually a point in it's favor..even if it's just you then it's still the player being challenged which, is ultimately worth more than infant difficulty of not there being no threat.

AI is fine and all but they shouldn't have to do ALL the work nor should they be invincible, I've shot my team mates many times recent COD games just to see if any of the 'important' guys die, of course not, just like Bad Company.

And health regen is such a sad joke. I'm not talking about the kind of health regen where you wander around to find a med pack or some armor, I'm talking about the magic "hide in a corner and wait a few seconds, there all better" or bad companies syringe that you can use any time and have infinite numbers of, this removes most of the challenge for the player and while at first you might pitch a bitch fit, call the game sucky or something else, once you get past that obstacle you will actually feel a sense of accomplishment.

Here is a quick and easy list to follow that would present the player with an actual challenge.

1. Remove auto heal, I know this comes in handy sometimes and most console players don't like dieing but auto heal just makes it too easy and far less challenging.

2. Remove infinite healing items carried by the players, healing is fine but 1 item should cost 1 heal, if you give the player a chance to heal whenever anything gets sticky the challenge is gone. When it comes to tactics, with this most players will go so far as "I run at enemy, shoot, then hide."

3. Make AI in the middle of importance, they shouldnt' have to do all the work but they shouldn't be so thick they need you to do everything either.

4. AI voice. Part of a challenge is predicting where your enemy is and how they will strike, if you hear the enemy shouting insults you already know where he is.

every time I hear "I'm going to kill you!" or "He's not here!" I actually hear "Hey listen to me I'm giving away my position to make this easier for you"

5. Slow motion sequences. I realise they think clearing a room of enemies is difficult but this is just holding the players hand, what should be a challenging portion of the level is now slowed down to a "Take your time sweety they won't hurt you" At the very least it should last for a shorter time but at best, not be present at all.

6. Infinite ammo. Having a gun loaded at all times detracts most feelings, you never feel helpless and unable to defend yourself, at all times you are free to charge in guns blazing and this imo really cheats the player out of what could be a great experience.

7. Add a few missions to really test the players mind. When a gun at all times the feeling of danger is significantly less, toss in a mission where the player has to rely on hands only, sneaking carefully around and avoiding engagements rather than the generic "RAWR THERE IS ENEMY KEEEEEL".

If you really want to have fun, give the player a gun with no amo and send them on a hunt for it, but when they find it there are only two magazines, and they have to escape a guarded place.

Fear and adrenaline are what can drive a great experience, the feeling of helplessness may sound horrid at first but later, once you have achieved that goal you may look back on that and think "You know..that was actually kind of fun.."

8. Remove the inability to shoot at and kill friendlies. I'm sure tons of people would say this would just be 'annoying' but when you think about, the freedom to go around and shoot anyone or anything removes the challenge of WATCH WHAT YOU SHOOT! If you run into a room full of people you aren't supposed to shoot nowdays you basicly can't, the game won't let you..in other words the supposed dangerous and nerve racking moment is boiled back down to open fire and kill everything you can.

9. This isn't so much a make the the game easier but A. Add replay value and B. give a reward actually worth something. A big reason people think games are too easy nowadays is due to the achivements, IE CONGRATS YOU BEAT THE LEVEL YOU ARE AWESOME HAVE AN AWARD!"

An achievement should be something you actually work for, older games did give you achievements but you had to work for them..Goldeneye and Perfect Dark N64 are the first two that come to mind on this, you could unlock a number of things from invisibility to slow motion, big heads, invincibiliy, all weapons, dual weapons and so on BUT to do this you actually had to work for them by unlocking them in levels or missions under X difficulty and completing all objectives within X time limit, the better the reward the higher the difficulty but in the end left you with a great sense of accomplishment.

10. Give AI free roam. Even if they don't use cover at all times an AI that will chase you is far more threatening than one that will use cover all day but only stay in a small box.

Between auto heal, enemies shouting away their positions, restricted to one area, infinite ammo, invincible squadmates, friendly fire disabled, no or very few and very short breaks between run and gun action, and insulting easy achivements..how can say that the players hand is not being held?

Edited November 25, 2010 by NodUnit

[JdB 151]

Well, at least that video proves its not all 1 man army anymore.

$50 buys you about 5-8 DVDs (if you shop around and keep discounts in mind). Let's say that each one of those quality movies has a runtime of about 2 hours. That's between 10-16 hours of cinema, without the need to buy an expensive new PC every 1-2 years. That's also longer than the CoD SP lasts, and also far longer than the CoD MP's re-playability value. Same cinematic experience (actually most movies are more realistic, and that is saying a lot), better acting, far more bang for your buck.

Of course the story does change a bit if you're going for Blue Ray :p

@ Zipper5: Stop mentioning your new website in every other post :p

[Zipper5 74]

@ Zipper5: Stop mentioning your new website in every other post :p

Lol, I'm hardly advertising, just contributing to the discussion. ;)

I highly regret buying BlOps now, considering Treyarch and/or Activision care even less about the PC community. Even after going from 3.00GHz to 3.60GHz in a CPU overclock, gaining ~20 FPS in Arma 2, the game still runs terribly. Last time I ever buy a COD game before researching the reactions to it.