Call of Duty: Black Ops site live, game releases Nov 9th
- Thread starter Bumblebeetuna
- Start date
TheFLYINGManga_Ka
Member
MW2 came out last November, so I guess we'll expect Call of Duty 8 or maybe even Modern Warfare 3 next November.
Yeah, Activision, I know how this goes.
Yeah, Activision, I know how this goes.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Assuming this is a Cold War era game about SpecOps dudes, a game about MACVSOG could be interesting... I dunno, the problem with Vietnam games is that they either completely ignore the politics or they go too far and camp up the politics.
Maybe, maybe, you can gloss over WW2 and killing "Japs" but how do you deal with all the stuff that happened in Vietnam?
I hope Treyarch can do something interesting, because if the game just boils down to shooting mindless AI bots with yellow skin and black pajamas, I think they should have just made another WW2 game instead.
Maybe, maybe, you can gloss over WW2 and killing "Japs" but how do you deal with all the stuff that happened in Vietnam?
I hope Treyarch can do something interesting, because if the game just boils down to shooting mindless AI bots with yellow skin and black pajamas, I think they should have just made another WW2 game instead.
Neuromancer
Member
Oh I am. I don't care much for online competitive multiplayer, so for me WaW's co-op campaign blew IW's SP out of the water. CoD2 was good though, I'll still give IW credit for that game.Net_Wrecker said:
Net_Wrecker
Member
Neuromancer said:
I should've said most people. MOST people aren't comparing the CoD games for campaign, especially since they are usually less than 7 hour experiences on the normal difficulty.
Neuromancer
Member
Fair enough.Net_Wrecker said:
Eh. I do like the Call of Duty games, I've played ever single one this gen.
BUT I think I'm done. Modern Warfare 2 was fun and everything but at this point I'm just burnt out on the series, 5 entries was enough for me. Unless it's something radically different (it won't be) I'll probably just rent it for Campaign and co-op.
I didn't like COD3 but World at War was almost as good as Modern Warfares, I think Treyarch is capable of handling the series from here on out.
BUT I think I'm done. Modern Warfare 2 was fun and everything but at this point I'm just burnt out on the series, 5 entries was enough for me. Unless it's something radically different (it won't be) I'll probably just rent it for Campaign and co-op.
I didn't like COD3 but World at War was almost as good as Modern Warfares, I think Treyarch is capable of handling the series from here on out.
corkscrewblow said:
I really don't get the hate on Treyarch , I understand the hate for Activision and Robert Kotick but Treyarch are just good people doing their work and they are good at it too.
anyway WaW was ( IMHO ) a better game than MW2 so I am very interested in this game , also going black/spec ops might add something new to CoD dated formula.
Fox Mulder
Member
TheFLYINGManga_Ka said:
that's how the cycle has worked for some time now..
The only difference now is the addition of a new CoD action game next year by Sledgehammer Games, and maybe the closing of IW.
Fox Mulder
Member
Totobeni said:
some of it was fueled by IW's comments, and Treyarch also inherited a fair amount of misplaced Activision hate.
I personally felt the single player campaigns in CoD3 and WaW sucked, although the zombie stuff was fun in WaW. I did enjoy the job Treyarch did on the Bond game that came out weeks before the more higher profile WaW. That single player campaign also sucked, but the online was unbalanced gun fun.
The thing I hate most about the MW series is that war is nowhere even CLOSE to how is portrayed in the game. Granted, no shooter will ever give justice to real war but IW took it WAY WAY too far. Two people taking down an entire base by themselves in a base where they aren't at war at? And escape on snowmobiles? And Russia SOMEHOW masses the largest paratrooper invasion force and somehow have enough fuel to get from Russia all the way to Virginia without being noticed? All of the EU didn't notice? The fuck? From what was portrayed in Wolverines there were HUNDREDS of Helicopters and cargo planes....really IW? Fucking REALLY? ACS module or not, your gonna notice an invasion force arriving BY AIR! Fuck this makes me rage just thinking about it.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
Hope the game is just infiltration missions. Those were by far the best parts about other COD games, especially MW2.
Hypereides
Member
I dont get the hate on CoD:WaW... it was the best WWII FPS Ive played.
Being activision and all, Im going to buy Black Ops solely from the impression I got from WaW.
Being activision and all, Im going to buy Black Ops solely from the impression I got from WaW.
Plasma said:Pretty sure that is the marketing team speaking
No kidding, with a (barely) two-year development cycle, they'd have zero time to code a new engine from scratch.
I'm sure the engine will have slight improvements (WaW's engine was slightly prettier than CoD4's, and MW2's was slightly prettier than WaW's) due to the engine itself becomming shinier between every entry of the series, but a completely new engine? No way.
Hats will be eaten if it's a new engine.
Totobeni said:
I think the dislike for Treyarch stems from a few things.
~ First and foremost, the reason Treyarch are making CoD entries is solely for monetary gain for Activision. It wasn't because Treyarch approached the Activision higher ups and/or had a meet with the IW guys and discussed the idea of making a Call of Duty entry. Activision appointed Treyarch to make Call of Duty games whether IW liked it or not (which, as IW employees have implied in the past, they don't) so that they could keep milking the cash cow that the series became after Call of Duty 2.
Essentially every IW-made CoD entry represents the next step in the franchise, and the story IW wants to tell, while every Treyarch-made Call of Duty game represents a bigger check for Activision and Kotick.
~ Call of Duty 3 left a very bad taste in everyone's mouths (*edit, the single-player), and as a result, when it was revealed in 2008 that for World at War the series was going back to WWII despite the fact that CoD4 had just proven that a modern-day shooter was totally viable in today's market, many people (including myself) felt that it was a step backward for the series. Not to mention the whole "From the team that created that massive turd Call of Duty 3" thing.
I will say that of all the WWII shooters made post-Saving Private Ryan (the brood-mother that spawned a decade of Nazi-killing), World at War is definitely one of the best.
~ At the end of the day, to those of us that loved Call of Duty 4, World at War felt like a CoD4 total conversion mod (they even reused sound effects and a few enemy voice-overs from Call of Duty 2), and just re-emphasized that WaW felt like a stop-gap between the "real" Call of Duty games made by Infinity Ward. There was nothing new or exciting or innovative about World at War, basically it was Activision "playing it safe".
I'm looking forward to Black Ops, mostly because it'll be Treyarch's first non-WWII Call of Duty entry (unless of course you want to count CoD4 Reflex Edition
), so I'm really curious to see where they take this, since this particular point in the 20th century (COld War/Vietnam) is rarely covered by first-person-shooters.I honestly think Black Ops will really give people a better idea of what Treyarch is actually capable of. Obviously whether they're made of gold-plated diamonds or shit will be unknown until November 9th
*Edit: Oh, and Activision? MULTIPLAYER BETA THIS TIME THANKS
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Yenrot said:
Yeah, but I just don't trust Treyarch to do that in any kind of meaningful way. In W@W, the "big moment" was when you had the choice to shoot some German soldiers who had surrendered. It was such a banal moment because there's no difference between that and killing the hundreds of Germans you shot at previously.
Unless they have the balls to actually show the torching of a village or do some "Casualties of War" thing where you have to shoot US troops before they kill some civilians or whatever, I can't help but be disappointed.
There's a reason why Vietnam War movies are so iconic. I just don't think any game, let alone a game meant to be the equivalent of a Michael Bay film, can do anything remotely interesting in that era. If anything, I expect this to be a "Tropic Thunder" remake. Shit, they might as well get the cast back to do voices.
Ninja Moomin
Banned
so many hilarious threads of late...
flintstryker
Banned
minus the whole fixing part.Dresden said:
VeryGooster
Banned
My own relationship with this franchise baffles me. I thought the solo campaign of MW2 was a joke story-wise, I did the whole multiplayer thing for two months, maybe. The Spec Ops, though, is my favorite thing about the game. Every time I think I'm finished with Call of Duty, I think maybe it's Modern Warfare I'm done with. I'm actually curious about Black Ops despite any apathy I displayed after MW2's release and despite well knowing I'll probably play the multiplayer in a weekend and never return to it. I hated Call of Duty 3, but World at War was a good effort from Treyarch, especially with the cooperative campaign and the Nazi Zombies mode.
tl;dr version -- Black Ops is probably a $30 buy for me.
tl;dr version -- Black Ops is probably a $30 buy for me.
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
World at War was day 1 on the Wii, as well, so I guess this one will be as well.LQX said:
Lagspike_exe said:
They already did, it's called "Halo Wars"
Even more spoiler:
Yes, I know Ensamble did it, but Frankie (OXM editor/former Bungie employee, now 343 lead) helped with the story and Bungie also helped IIRC while 343 was forming. So basically it's a non-Bungie Halo title under MGS/343's lead
Oh snap, you're LTTP on trolling that thread, dude.
flynt said:
Minus the "think things through and see keeping under level 30's from having an accurate anti-air to reduce air-space spam is a bad idea" part.
Though in all the Treyarch hate, it's sometimes funny how I've seen many people; which first CoD game was Modern Warfare..talking about "how much Treyarch sucks"..
I can understand people that has been with the series since day 1, to be a little ..biased..
But the many times I've had conversations like...
"They should leave Treyarch out of CoD"..."Wait a sec, isn't this your first CoD game?" ..."how do you know that 'Treyarch sucks'"? .. "Well, That;'s what I heard.."
:lol
I can understand people that has been with the series since day 1, to be a little ..biased..
But the many times I've had conversations like...
"They should leave Treyarch out of CoD"..."Wait a sec, isn't this your first CoD game?" ..."how do you know that 'Treyarch sucks'"? .. "Well, That;'s what I heard.."
:lol
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Surgeon Rocket said:
Yeah, way better than Call of Duty: Army.
Hope this game isn't as ugly as their last one. Truly a disgusting looking game. Everything was so brown and dark...fucking enemies blended into the background...and that was before the cold blooded perk.
I first played the game on the Wii...and thought well its can't be Treyarch's fault...its a game on the Wii. Then I played it on 360....oh holy fuck it was just as ugly as the Wii one.
I first played the game on the Wii...and thought well its can't be Treyarch's fault...its a game on the Wii. Then I played it on 360....oh holy fuck it was just as ugly as the Wii one.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
NightBlade88 said:
They're popcorn arcade shooters dude. Anger directed at the lack of realism in the Call of Duty franchise is about as logical as being frustrated by the lack of realism in Mario Kart.