I love listening to Jeff on the podcasts and quick looks and stuff. He's great. But I wouldn't even BEGIN to listen to his or Giantbomb's opinions on Vita games. From the first time I saw him using it at that live launch video they did, everyone on Giantbomb seemed COMPLETELY disinterested in the handheld, and I haven't seen any actual interest from them since then.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Call of Duty: Black Ops: Declassified |OT| Ad-Hoc Summary: It Is Not Terrible!
- Thread starter Kazerei
- Start date
Doctor Decimate
Member
i was laughing when so many people were insisting that Liberation is better than III in another thread, but this? come on, guys. if we're gonna talk conspiracies, look no further...
but, hey, as long as we're citing user reviews, i guess this is better than Black Ops 2. right? ...right?
BomberMouse
Member
Doctor Decimate
Member
the only Vita-exclusive games they've given a good score are Lumines and Super Stardust. Sound Shapes, Rayman Origins, and Mortal Kombat on the Vita were all given five stars. i think everything else has been given 3
it's not unrealistic at all. need for speed most wanted carries your speed points between platforms. wipeout hd players can play against wipeout 2048 players. playstation all-stars battle royale players can play against each other on both platforms. i'm not sure how much more integrated the vita and ps3 versions of all-stars will be, but it could be awesome.
gaf's hype for this game when it was originally announced was not unfounded.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
It's not unrealistic until you factor Activision into the equation, unfortunately.
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
Assassins Creed III: Liberation - 3/5
Sound Shapes - 5/5
Mortal Kombat - 5/5
Gravity Rush - 3/5
Rayman - 5/5
Katamari - 3/5
Escape Plan - 3/5
Lumines - 4/5
Wipeout - 3/5
Uncharted - 3/5
Super Star Dust - 4/5
All good scores, especially going by how giant bomb scores games.
Doctor Decimate
Member
it kind of was, because everyone forgot that handheld-exclusive spin-offs have been around for YEARS. and they've tended to be shit.
Doctor Decimate
Member
oh, you're going THAT far back. nevermind.
Thanks for replies guys.....well totally shocked is it really that bad. Going to see nephew in a few days so I was gonna grab this. Would have grabbed it at launch but wanted to make sure patch issues were sorted. Guess im at the crossroads.
Maybe its ragnarok time. Forty bucks and im sold so might grab it anyway. Will sleep on it.
Maybe its ragnarok time. Forty bucks and im sold so might grab it anyway. Will sleep on it.
was it really that far back? i seem to remember the game's title being announced in june or july of this year. i'm not sure though! we had received no details for it aside from the name when the blops declassified title was announced, which confirmed it wasn't a port of the mainline game. i thought the hype began to plummet during the summer too.
edited for better clarification
Doctor Decimate
Member
because it absolutely reeks of the need to justify their purchases
btkadams said:
well, i thought you were referring to when the game was announced as Black Ops Declassified, not when they said "we're making Call of Duty for the Vita"
Count me in the AC3 is hot garbage squad.
The curse of Vita is the game price...if this game was on iOS for even $9.99 it would have gotten much better reviews.
Sony really needs to bring down the prices to $25-35. The $50 tag just doesn't justify the purchase specially for the lack of content. I bet it would have gotten better reviews if it was say $25.
Also for some reason, Vita is judged with much higher expectations than iOS/android and its reflected in some of the reviews I have seen lately for the same games on both.
Sony really needs to bring down the prices to $25-35. The $50 tag just doesn't justify the purchase specially for the lack of content. I bet it would have gotten better reviews if it was say $25.
Also for some reason, Vita is judged with much higher expectations than iOS/android and its reflected in some of the reviews I have seen lately for the same games on both.
test_account
XP-39C²
Or people simply have a different opinion
Reviews are and always will be personal opinions. There is one thing to write about facts and objective things in a review, but what matters when it comes to games is how much enjoyment one get out of it. That part is completely subjective.
Activision published the game, not Sony. But yeah, the price is most likely affecting the review scores. The connecting issues in multiplayer isnt really helping either.
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
Can't go wrong with Ragnarok Odyssey. That game is so good. Best Vita game, imo.
Doctor Decimate
Member
did you read the reviews? and why SHOULDN'T full retail games be held to a higher standard than $1 phone games? i shouldn't even have to point out that price is not the only difference between the two
You're making a judgment on people based on their opinion, opinions which are perfectly valid.
AC3 and Liberation are both problematic games. They share some problems, and they both also have their own problems and qualities. It's not surprising in the least to see someone prefer one over the other.
maverick40
Junior Member
Oh fuck!!
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
Well, Resistance did have a fully funtional campaign, plus multiplayer and was $10 less.
kobashi100
Banned
well i find sites like pocketgamer are biased towards smartphone games no doubt compared to Vita or 3DS.
Some of there reviews for iOS/Android are way OTT.
If it plays half decent they hand out 9/10 no problem.
The DS games are the best handheld versions of Call of Duty!
chickdigger802
Banned
Really a shame that they couldn't get tryarch to make a port for vita.
They could somehow make near feature complete wii ports ( those also cost $50) vita should be able to do something similar right?
They could somehow make near feature complete wii ports ( those also cost $50) vita should be able to do something similar right?
What other game has got 3 from GI? they usually rate everything 7-10 with occasional 6 0_0 wow at that summary box.
True. But GI gave R:BS a 7 (which I thought it probably a 6/10 or so personally), and this a 3. Just seems like they were more rough on it than they had to be.
That's what's really frustrating. The Wii version of CoD was great and full-featured, and the Vita is WAY more powerful than the Wii, and we get THIS. It's just annoying. And the Wii games were $50, too.
chickdigger802
Banned
Reviews are what they are. If a game is ok it's 6-7. If it offends you, it's 4 or lower.
I think it's possible that Sony encouraged them to have a unique game, so CoD fans would want to buy both.
You realise that Sony's entire marketing campaign for the Vita is based on the premise that you should expect console-quality on the go, right? It's absolutely silly to expect reviews to hold games to a lower standard than the standard set by the platform holder. If Sony had come on stage a year ago and said "We'll have Call of Duty on Vita, but it'll be kind of shit and you shouldn't bother with it", it'd be a different story.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
It seems in this case most places are scoring it on what it's not, rather than what it is. Which, when you think about the fact that a 'full' CoD game was released on the other consoles on the exact same day, kind of makes sense.
It's hard not to get over the fact that Activision really were content to just make something completely bare bones and horribly buggy and sell it for a high price when they could have done so much more (and seemingly knew it) - they deserve to be called out for it. Not sending out the review copies says a lot, too... cash in before the bad press catches on. I wonder how much input Sony had in this game?
I think in a week we'll see the real user impressions once the dust has settled. (Not to suggest the impressions here aren't genuine - I just know for me, the reality sets in after a week or two)
It's hard not to get over the fact that Activision really were content to just make something completely bare bones and horribly buggy and sell it for a high price when they could have done so much more (and seemingly knew it) - they deserve to be called out for it. Not sending out the review copies says a lot, too... cash in before the bad press catches on. I wonder how much input Sony had in this game?
I think in a week we'll see the real user impressions once the dust has settled. (Not to suggest the impressions here aren't genuine - I just know for me, the reality sets in after a week or two
)AndrewDean84xX
Banned
What sucks about the "console quality on the go" tagline is that it doesn't hold true for every Vita game. If I read theat slogan and played Need For Speed Most Wanted or Mortal Kombat, I would be inclined to agree. I don't think I would agree with the slogan looking at CoD Declassified.
chickdigger802
Banned
Based off impressions here.
If you rather play games during lunch break, fucking hate consoles, or have your spouse taking over your tv.
This is fine
If you rather play games during lunch break, fucking hate consoles, or have your spouse taking over your tv.
This is fine
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Don't they use that slogan IN the Declassified ad? Pretty dodgy.
Based off impressions here.
If you rather play games during lunch break, fucking hate consoles, or have your spouse taking over your tv.
This is fine
My partner constantly steals the TV. Hence my interest in a Wii U
Man, I can't remember seeing a game get savaged this badly. Guess that happens when no effort/money is thrown at it.Iacobellis
Junior Member
I always had and still have NAT Type 2 on every device in my home, including my Vita. Resistance works fine, it's definitely something with this game.
chickdigger802
Banned
how long has the stream been going? Did they beat the game yet?
AgentOtaku
Member
Holy fuck at the press for this lol
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
We all called it lol.
It looks like I'm constantly defending the game (I don't even have it), but that review is utter trash. How about mentioning how the graphics are (is the game sharp, how's the aliasing, texture quality, use of color etc.), how's the sound and sound effects (or if there are any, whatever), what are the options since a lot of people were asking if the sensitivity can be changed. Nothing, absolutely nothing is mentioned about those things. For shame, gaming journalism, if such a thing ever existed.
chickdigger802
Banned
Some reviews mentioned those. (visuals ain't hot, sound is quiet)
I thought everyone hated the stupid point breakdown thing from ign about presentation and shit
