Black ops 2 Some kind of Future war game.

[johnbox]

Spoiler below!

Ok, I don't really like Call of Duty much either, but I'll have to slap you for some of your thoughts. I don't entirely disagree with your post though, so if anything I don't quote means I probably agree to some extent, or have nothing to say on the matter.

This game, and all parts after MW1 are totally shit.

This is mostly personal opinion, so I can let you go with that, but I personally thought Black Ops was actually fresh, and interesting enough for me. Plus, the plot was intriguing for COD standards (Perhaps even normal video game standards), so that's definitively a plus. So, Black Ops at least, in my book is definitely not shit.

You don't need skill on this game. It's just a "who can lay down faster"-gameplay.

Oh yes, you need some degree of skill. I know this just from playing COD's free weekends. Running in with horrible aim will not get you anywhere. It doesn't matter how fast you lie down.

1. 75% of the player are 10 year-old children, which scream into the voice-channel, and celebrate their 0,75K/D.
2. 5% of the player are hacker, which is really annoying if you do a serious game
3. And
   point number 3 causes, that even if you just get a few bigger
   killstreaks, you're a hacker. Because those 10 year-old just can't lose.

Even thought this may very well be the case, you DO NOT take in consideration a game's community when objectively judging a game. It's not as if the developers invited 10 year olds, and hackers to play the game by giving them exclusive discounts. Games, whether good or bad, will attract all sorts of audiences, and this does not at all reflect how good a game is.

Most of the players are older, and don't hack or flame.

Same problem I mentioned before.

A dead is a tactical problem, and not just stop playing for 0,5 seconds.

I don't see any problem with this aspect as it's very commonly tossed around. It's either this (Short respawns), or long respawns. Depending on the game, they can use whatever suits the game. I can't see how you think this attributes to the gameplay significantly.

ok, sorry. Some things got missunderstood. The things you've mentioned were not meant to the game, it's more the community... The community of those games is just totally different, the game is ok, and it's not the games fault that they have this community, but whatever, it makes the multiplayer awful.

@thedarkside, you're right, the Battlefield-SP isn't the best anymore. But you still have some al characters, which have their own attributes, are funny/depressive, whatever. CoD looks more like, this is a guy, follow him.
The graphics in BF3 are up to date, and nearly the best looking engine, besides the CryEngine 3. Bfbc2 is older, i know, but it still has a better graphic than MW3, and is NOT ported from ps3/xbox, (not completely sure, but definitly) same for BF3. But ok, i never really played BF3, simply because my GPU is too slow, so I don't care about graphics.

And also, I never really play SP in shooter... it's not very enjoyable. And the MP, is in my opinion much better in BF. Not just because of the game, the games are totally different. BF is more like a simulation, and CoD an Arcade-shooter, it's because of the damn community.
Sorry if I was a bit rude about the game in my post above.

[Kreekakon]

And the MP, is in my opinion muhc better in BF.

Oh yes! I don't even play Battlefield, and I can tell its multiplayer is one of the best out there when it comes to shooters, definitely better than COD.

Sorry if I was a bit rude about the game in my post above.

Haha, no problem

[the dark side]

@Johnbox, Each to there own. and dont worry about rudeness, we all get rude if we are passionate about something, and well, we are all passionate about gaming in our own ways, you wait till you see me on a rant! i make crosshaw look "Stable"!

true, i will give Battlefeild that, it does still have some charachter, not as much as i like from a game (too many Hideo Kojima products and RPG's at fault there), but, certainly more than a coardboard cut out "marine" who is only differentiate from another because he has a moustache, or is african american, etc.

as for me, I'm not fussed on graphics, dont get me wrong, I love great graphics that are optimised for PC, but, i dont need them, if the gameplay is right, ill put up with bad graphics, after all, i still play a lot of old DOS games. to me, graphics is a case of "can i see what i am doing? yes? then they are good enough". sure, having awesome graphics is awesome, but its the cherry on the cake.

Personally, id love to play a game that say, had Cryengine 3 (i will admit, its the best out there, and probably will be well into the next gen as even Crytek says "the current PC's mean we can only scratch CE3's surface") for graphics but had gameplay more in the mould of say, the first Half Life. but, until the games idustry either wakes up to the fact the modern shooter is going to make it collapse, or it actually does collapse from over exposure to the genre, thats a long way off.

each to there own, i never play MP, as 1, too many trolls, (i literally do have a nervous breakdown, i cant cope with them) and 2, i grew up with shooters that were pretty much biased totally towards SP such as Wolfenstein 3d, DOOM, Duke Nukem 3d, Rise of The Triad, BLOOD, etc. games that although they did have MP, it was often an afterthaught, rather than the whole reason for the games existance, as it is with modern shooters, wich has sadly lead to SP being no more than a Tutorial.

i quess im just too died in the wool. i find modern shooters either unplayable due to the dynamic scaling, or Far too easy (if they dont have it) due to all the hand holding (wich i find patronising in the extreme! i like to read the manual, i dont need telling what Return does...every...single...time...) and the Regen Health, and thus, Extremely Boring, i am afraid i prefer straight up classic and pseudo modern shooters. ah well, each to there own.

[johnbox]

Yeah, as I already said, I also don't care about graphics, mainly because my GPU is too bad, so I play nearly every game on very low, just to get a bit more fps. CS 1.6 looks almost worse than Duke3D, but it's a skilled multiplayer-game. And I also enjoyed playing Duke3D, Doom, but especially Quake on LANs, so, yeah, I agree to, if I can see something, it's good.

I changed to MP, mainly because the SP got even worse. And it's still like that, not a single one of those AAA-shooter has a good SP, so I stay with my MP, and Amnesia :3

[the dark side]

agreed, i would probably change to MP if i could cope, the SP these days is abysmal, i want to throw the keyboard out the window somedays, no wonder the AAA sausage mincing machine is starting to fail. id say the last year for really good Sp was 2004. long time ago. SSIII has a good SP, nice throwback to Duke 3d, but then, thats Indie rather than AAA.

and of course, frictional has some of the best Horror SP ive seen since Resi on the PS1...

the sad thing is, many games from the past, Half Life 2, NOLF II, Ge64, PD 64, Duke, Doom, Quake 1, 2 and 4, RTCW, etc, have proven you can Focuss on the SP, giving an awesome campaign, and yet still have an iconic, skilled, Multiplayer. it just shows how lazy the game publishers have become really by forcing the devs to focuss purely on Multiplayer to get the casual sales. you can do both with effort.

ouch, you must have a pretty old Computer if Counterstrike Struggles, i mean, GLDSRC has its origins in Quake 1 engine after all... dont worry, i kept an old p4 XP machine LONG into the win 7 quad core era, only changing to this Dual OS quad core beast when the old gal died from terminal Data Cascade Failure Issues and got the Dreaded "Incurable Blue Sceen Death". and well, ill admit it, my laptop is an old win 98 model, with ORIGINAL DOS.. wich is good for my old DOS games, seeing as DOSBOX isnt all that reliable.

the problem i see is the publishers saw that they could make an ultra quick buck from the casual side of the console crowd, not really needing to make any effort with a game, just make a big MP, some overpriced Map and Skin DLC, and just copy Cod 4 for the SP, albiet more "go america go" than that game was, and have gotten so used to the quick buck, they are incapabale of reverting back to SP and old school mechanics despite the fact the modern shooter is on the verge of collapse and if they dont change back, its gonna be 1983 all over again...

[darkely]

Why all the hate for the Call of Duty games again?

I don't get it... the gameplay (for me anyway) is always smooth and I never have any hic-ups nor glitches. The graphics are not that bad at all and I love some of the missions. Single player is my favorite part of the game.

I play TF2 on a daily basis and it is a lot of fun but there are a sh*t load of glitches too. The game will sometimes randomly crash or the gun will sometimes continue firing after you stop hitting the button. I would play TF2 multiplayer of COD multiplayer any day.

My point: Call of Duty has a lot great traits and pretty much everyone on this bloody forum refuses to look at the good and trys to cut the game down. Shame on all you.

[the dark side]

i can only say were my own hate comes from

1. it is pretty unplayable for me thanks to the mandatory dynamic scaling.

2. even if it wasnt for that, i know from some similar games that dont have scaling, that i would find it very boring because it has no challenge, just hide behind a rock and let the Ai do all the killing, it even shows you were to go and what buttons to press, i find that VERY patronising.

3. there is very little actual gameplay, just walk, cover, pop and shoot, and do QTE. thats it. no variety, no challenge.

4. the animations are totally incorrect, it has no realism what so ever despite the fact it is supossed to be realistic. (example: if you try and rack an AK overhanded, as animated in COD, you will rip your hand open on the safety catch!, you rack (pull the bolt) Underhanded!)

5. it is OFFENSIVLY over American, it is very poorly written with cliched, needlessly sweary scripting, is based around anti soviet fears that are over 20 years out of date, the plotlines are weak and disjointed, and as there is no emotional impotus or strong charachters, the storyline is even weaker, its just an excuse for killing foreign soldiers.

6. the graphics are terrible, constant texture clip, no anti aliasing, slow frame rate, etc. all because it was developed for a console that should have been put out to pasture 5 years ago!

7. it is SHORT! i am sorry, 2 hours is NOT a campaign, its a LEVEL!.

8. it is KILLING the games industry! (wich totally negates any positives it may have!)

what more reasons do i need, it is badly made, it is offensivly underwritten, it is incorrectly animated, it is Short, it is BORING, it is patronising, and it is KILLING the games industry. its influence on the genre has lead to the plaquye of modern shooters, and now they are thankfully loosing popularity, the publishers are now too lazy and inept to make Proper Shooters, meaning a games crash is unavoidable.

even if it does have some pretty spectacular set peices, its core gameplay is DEAD WRONG. and to me, if your core gameplay is wrong, youre entire game is wrong,.

in call of dutys defence, i will say, i think it is in the wrong media, due to its massive setpeices, and action focus over any semblance of coherant plot or good story, and total lack of interactivity, the very things that make them SUCK as videogames, are what makes a BRILLIANT ACTION MOVIE. as game, call of duty sucks, as a Movie, it would probably be absolutly Brilliant!

its in the wrong media! as a game, it will KILL the industry again, (like Shovelware killed it in the 80s, the modern shooter is todays shovelware) but as a movie, it would be pretty flipping cool.

[Kreekakon]

I don't get it... the gameplay (for me anyway) is always smooth and I never have any hic-ups nor glitches. The graphics are not that bad at all and I love some of the missions. Single player is my favorite part of the game.

My main problem with the series is the settings, plotline, and overall lore (If you can call it that?). Sometimes it's decent, most of the time it's bland, and offers no motivation for me to carry out my missions. That's my main issue with Call of Duty. The gameplay core elements I think are mostly okay, but the overall experience usually lacks variety.

EDIT

5. it is OFFENSIVLY over american, it is very poorly written with cliched, needlessly sweary script, is based around anti soviet fears that are over 20 years out of date, the plotlines are weak and disjointed, and as there is no emotional impotus or strong charachters, the storyline is even weaker, its just an excuse for killing foreign soldiers.

Come on dark side, if you remember we already covered this in the last thread.

[darkely]

Well I will say that Call of Duty is basically a multiplayer game but they add on a campaigin for whatever reason...

Why don't they just release COD as a multiplayer only game?

[the dark side]

@ Darkely i dont know. i really dont. better than just pooping out another badly made tutorial level like normal. then they can start making PROPER shooters for SP again.

@Kreekaron, i know we did. sorry. i still stand by my guns, the scripts are weak and cliched. the plotline is often poor. black ops, yes, had a strong Plot, but its lack of charachter meant it still had a weak story. remember, i follow the "Hideo Kojima" school of writing,. yes, COD 4 is rather more "go britain go!" than "go america go!" but it really is the odd one out, the others, Especially the ones from treyarch, couldnt be more go america go if they had Sly Stallone singing the US national anthem while saluting the stars and stripes on the menu screen!