COD: Black Ops

[Balrog]

I'm shocked that we've gone this long without discussing the latest in this long line of greatest hits

After MW2, I was pleasantly surprised with how much better Black Ops is in comparison. Yes the single-player plot is silly, but in that campy way where you know they aren't taking things seriously (exploding crossbow bolts of d00m!), and it's not so stupid as to be completely offensive i.e. MW2. Unfortunately some of the levels are less well designed than previous games; Khe Sahn is especially egregious for annoying sections of "endless waves of enemies until you do exactly this and this in the correct order." It is very much a cinematic rail shooter, which can be good or bad depending on your mood.

Similarly multiplayer is easily ten times better simply for lacking any of the stuipd killstreaks and perks from the last game like Stopping Power and AC130. It ain't perfect, but you won't be throwing your controller through the TV out of frustration. Plus the level of customization is neat and actually follows what choices you make; if you pick the Flak Jacket perk, your character spawns wearing...a Flak Jacket! Amazing!

[Chardok]

I'm shocked that we've gone this long without discussing the latest in this long line of greatest hits

I'm not. Most of the gamers here are sophisticated enough to not be wowed by "ZOMGGENERICMILWANKSHOOTZOR#23490582349587209857" or, as STRAK put it "CoD 9: Explosion". MW was OKAY as a shooter, but it's gone just downhuill from there, so much so that playing a CoD game is like eating unflavored gelatin.

[Ghost Rider]

Aside from phenomal sales on the level to put Japan to shame? There is little to speak of on this board. Few FPS fans, and the single player is still a bit of a disappointment. You get through it, you go oooh aaaah, and then you either engage in multiplayer or you find something else to do.

[General Zod]

Aside from phenomal sales on the level to put Japan to shame? There is little to speak of on this board. Few FPS fans, and the single player is still a bit of a disappointment. You get through it, you go oooh aaaah, and then you either engage in multiplayer or you find something else to do.

I doubt that there's few fps fans as much as recent fps games don't generally tend to offer a whole lot that's new or even really terribly interesting. After the letdown that was MW2 I can safely say I'm just not interested in another CoD game regardless of the developer.

[Chardok]

To be fair - I would *maybe* rent blops simply to play the MP zombie mode because I hear the incidental dialogue of the characters are worth a chuckle.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The incidental dialogue is definitely worth a chuckle. I'm stuck on the early stages as JFK, and some of those lines are really quite amusing

My biggest complaint withit is that, like so many games these days, it's aimed at multiplayer, with the campaign almost being a justification for the new game. This is especially true of games the are either made for consoles and ported to Pc, or made for both

I only play multiplayer games with my mates when we chilling out blastin zombies. If they had made this game with a much better campaign I would have been a lot happy buying it

[Ghost Rider]

Aside from phenomal sales on the level to put Japan to shame? There is little to speak of on this board. Few FPS fans, and the single player is still a bit of a disappointment. You get through it, you go oooh aaaah, and then you either engage in multiplayer or you find something else to do.

I doubt that there's few fps fans as much as recent fps games don't generally tend to offer a whole lot that's new or even really terribly interesting. After the letdown that was MW2 I can safely say I'm just not interested in another CoD game regardless of the developer.

To be fair - I would *maybe* rent blops simply to play the MP zombie mode because I hear the incidental dialogue of the characters are worth a chuckle.

Both you, and Chars have the point of why most of the games aren't talked here. The tastes don't run towards it. Plus, like I said, the game is 4-5 maybe 6-7? hours at best and then multiplayer which you see how fucking dumb people can get and wonder who are the hacking bitches

[Chardok]

I think most of us have probably "grown up" beyond what thrill MP can offer. (except for maybe MP coop). Personally, I would never buy a game anymore on the merits of ZOMG JAWSOME COMPETITIVE MULTIPLAY0R unless it's bringing something cool and new to the table (ala AC:Broho's reverse Turing test).

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I'm pretty happy with Black Ops, for the most part. MP is a huge improvement over MW2, which was glorified, consolized trash. BO brings back some PC support and it feels a little like my dear old CoD1 again (though I still miss Pavlov and Hurtgen). Generic Cold War settings are excellent, though I'm mildly annoyed that all the silly optics replace the M16's carry handle instead of mounting of top of it for extra lolz.

Still some dumb shit in MP, but a lot of the kinks seem to have been worked out. Nade and nade launcher spamming seem to be quite minimized... I guess few people are willing to spend their points on the underslung grenade launcher upgrades. And speaking of points, I think it's a great system. I've seen a lot of shit slung at it, but I think it's a huge improvement over the constant grinding. I buy the guns I like, simple as that.

[Sea Skimmer]

Black Ops is garbage compared to Bad Company 2 which is a better game, cheaper and just handed out a free map pack. The single player is shitty as expected, the multiplayer is improved but it’s just not really offering any enjoyment or anything new I wouldn’t get out of playing the first Modern Warfare again anyway. MW2 was just crap. I do think they did a pretty good job on some of the urban multiplayer maps for Black Ops, but destroyable walls and trees triumph incremental graphics improvements for 60 dollars.

[Phantasee]

I played some Zombie co-op at my cousin's house last weekend. It's pretty decent time pass, for a casual player like myself. Plenty of time to shoot the breeze between bouts of shooting zombies. The dialogue is amusing for a while.

[Sea Skimmer]

The zombie mode would be way better if they allowed four players on one console, as I suspect the game developers probably wanted in the first place. But if they did that then Activision might have had to wait an extra week to make a two million percent profit while it endlessly bitches about piracy ruining its shit.

[Stark]

I'm pretty happy with Black Ops, for the most part. MP is a huge improvement over MW2, which was glorified, consolized trash.

Hilariously, the multiplayer is essentially exactly the same. You can still level to get killstreaks that get you killstreaks, its still easy to get dropped in hugely one-sided matches where all you can do is die, the weapon balance is horrid, 90% of people play TDM, etc. It's better than MW2, but that isn't hard.

Like Skimmer says, Bad Company 2 is so much better than Blops its not funny. I like the new Blops levelling in multi, although I wish they'd just forget about levels entirely and have you spend money.

Chards, good multi is awesome. 'Run in laps of the map shooting everyone at random' like Blops isn't representative of multi any more than idiots playing Counterstrike was.

This is especially true of games the are either made for consoles and ported to Pc, or made for both

ITT we learn that the focus of FPS on multi is all because of those damn dirty consoles!

[Eternal_Freedom]

Get my name right fuckhead

Is it so unreasonable to expect a first person shooter to have a decent balance between single and multiplayer?

[Stark]

No, if you're going to claim that console influence is the reason why single player is depreciated (and not, I dunno, massive piracy) you need actual evidence, not plaintive whining.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Most every FPs game I have played, that wasn't originally made for a console, had a good SP campaign, FEAR, FEAR 2, Doom and it's sequels, Wolfenstein (both of them), SW jedi knight and it's sequels.

Compare with the list of games that either came out first on console that had a higher focus on multiplayer and hence were'nt very good in SP; the later Halo games, MW, MW2, Blops, and so on

Now, hows about you actually answer my question:
Is it so unreasonable to expect a good balance between single and multiplayer? If not, WHY not?

[Chardok]

Chards, good multi is awesome. 'Run in laps of the map shooting everyone at random' like Blops isn't representative of multi any more than idiots playing Counterstrike was.

See how far the state of MP gaming has fallen? When I say MP, there is a certain default mindset that people have - EVEN MYSELF to such an extent that I must specify coop/comp. It's really sad because the core concept of MP gaming is an amazing and really fun thing - it's just been diluted by so much bullcrap killsims and military shootfests that almost no one is even deviating from the formula and anytime anyone does, the discussions centered around it devolve into CoD vs. BC wankery.

I would like one time, just ONE TIME when someone brings up a CoD Comp MP mode/game for someone to say "Well fuck you because Viva Pinata." But they'd just end up getting laughed at because LOLOLOL NO GUNZORZ ROFFLEMAO.

End result: People miss out on really innovative and fun stuff just because "ZOMG NOT ACTIVISIONSHOOTORFAIL" Also development on really innovative, new ideas is relegated to fucking iphone apps or just ignored altogether.

[Stark]

So you mean 'old games' and 'new games'? Even better, those games generally had shit multi. Its almost as if - slow me down if I'm going too fast - there's some kind of multiplayer focus in modern games!

Amusingly the Halo games are pretty SP-focused, and far better than filth like FEAR (which had shit SP *and* shit MP, like Doom3 etc).

Sorry you don't get to change the subject from your hilarious statement. You don't get to blame consoles because you don't like the way the market works.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I can blame who I wish. Now, answer the fucking question

[Chardok]

Most every FPs game I have played, that wasn't originally made for a console, had a good SP campaign, FEAR, FEAR 2, Doom and it's sequels, Wolfenstein (both of them), SW jedi knight and it's sequels.

Compare with the list of games that either came out first on console that had a higher focus on multiplayer and hence were'nt very good in SP; the later Halo games, MW, MW2, Blops, and so on

Far Cry 2 told me to tell you to fuck off.

[Stark]

Man, you're hilarious. Retarded and totally wrong, but funny. Let's blame consoles despite data points to the contrary because I don't want to accept that the gaming market has changed!!!!

It isn't even 2005 anymore. Halflife 2 had shit multi but people loved it (brandslaves, but still). These days, if a linear, story-based shooter comes out its immediately lambasted from all quarters for 'no multi' or 'no coop' or 'no replayability' or 'too linear'. If its a choice between making a good SP game with no multi that fails and a popular MP game with Michael Bay SP tacked on that makes millions per second, what are developers to do?

I'm as amazed as anyone that they're making Metro 2034, but it'll sell like cowshit again because the market just isn't there for 'story shooters'. Which is arguably good, because they made like eleven FEAR games and haven't stopped.

And don't worry Chards, Gears3 will be out eventually.

[Eternal_Freedom]

5 games, actually, and I'll concede the point about market trends

[Stark]

If you can learn to shut up before embarrassing yourself you'll go far.

Back to Blops, it'd be pretty easy to remove levels entirely and just give guns prices, but would this 'work'? Obviously it'd mean that there was no progression up the level-unlocked guns - which probably means the guns would be more balanced - and there'd be no 'rank' to 'matchmake' with (not that this ever, ever worked). I'd go crazy and let people buy shit for other people, but that's just me.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Just having prices would work I think. If you're a better palyer, you get more moeny and buy better guns. Seems reasonable enough.

Perhaps to balance it for teams and worse palyers you could have an option to buy guns for others, allowing the better players to help the not so brilliant ones. And leaving the guns lying around after you're dead helps, if you get a lucky kill on a player with a better gun, hey presto, you get his gun, which is probably a better reward than the points

Also, Stark, are you always a condescending prick? I've seen your posts in a bunch of threads and that seems to eb your default persona. This isn't a dig btw I'm genuinely curious

[Phantasee]

I never played it, so I don't know myself, but isn't that how Counterstrike worked? Just prices on guns?