Call of Duty: Black Ops site live, game releases Nov 9th

Emerson said:
Oh for Christmas sake, who the fuck knew there was so much hate for MW2? I swear GAF will find a way to hate anything popular. How about we set aside all the criticism of plotlines and minute fucking details and just play the game. When doing that, it is obvious that Grenades at War was a garbage game, and MW2 is fun as hell. Before just now I have literally never heard somebody say that a Treyarch CoD was better than an IW one.

What a shit opinion.

I'm not saying Trey is better than IW. I'm saying that MW2 was unbalanced, the SP was touted to be spectacular but was the furthest from it due to plot and set pieces, and it's net coding was horrific. It was a wild departure from MW1, and not in a good way.
 
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.
 
Net_Wrecker said:
I highly doubt anyone is comparing the two for singleplayer campaign modes anyway.
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.
 
firehawk12 said:
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.
If you can kill civilians in a train station, I'm sure there will be no problem slaughtering hundreds of women and children. It got free publicity in the press so I expect the same with this.
 
Neuromancer said:
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.

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.
 
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.
 
corkscrewblow said:
It's a Treyarch game so... pass.

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.
 
TheFLYINGManga_Ka said:
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.

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.
 
Totobeni 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.

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.
 
Hope the game is just infiltration missions. Those were by far the best parts about other COD games, especially MW2.
 
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.
 
Meh, I'm cautiously optimistic. But damn do we really need a new Call of Duty every year? Whatever happened to Medal of Honor games?
 
Plasma said:
Pretty sure that is the marketing team speaking :P

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 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.

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 :P), 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 :D

*Edit: Oh, and Activision? MULTIPLAYER BETA THIS TIME THANKS
 
Yenrot said:
If you can kill civilians in a train station, I'm sure there will be no problem slaughtering hundreds of women and children. It got free publicity in the press so I expect the same with this.

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.
 
corkscrewblow said:
It's a Treyarch game so... pass.

Gray Matter studio was incorporated into Treyarch, and those dudes made great FPS games [Kingpin and my favourite Redneck Rampage].

Never forget.
 
Treyarch has improved with each version of COD they make. I can only see them improving the formula from here out. Charlie zombies, 4 player co-op, vehicles in mulitplayer. WAW was fun and I'm sure Black-Ops will be too.

COD3's multiplayer was great for a console game in 2006. I don't understand that game's backlash.

This is Gaf, haters gonna hate.
 
LQX said:
360, PS3, and PC of course.

That's what I was thinking. Was hoping for a Wii version since I enjoy IR aiming, but will go with the PC version if the Wii version doesn't happen. Now, back to waiting for the trailer. :)
 
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.
 
Eh, World at War was fun for me, but after MW2, I really just don't give a shit about the series anymore. World at War basically used CoD4 as a template for everything it did, so if this one does the same with MW2, I can already assume I won't like it.
 
firehawk12 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.
My Lai (sp?) would be a step too far.
 
Lagspike_exe said:
I'm gonna hit the Halo thread when 343 make their first game. Should be awesome.

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 whole fixing part.

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
 
Pai Pai Master said:
Yeah, way better than Call of Duty: Army.

Yeah, clearly they wanted something that was really descriptive but also deeply evocative, unlike their initial idea for the title "Call of Duty: People with Guns."
 
If this is just anything like the S.A.S. stuff from MW1 and the Chernobyl mission then I'll be happy. MW2 is pish.
 
VAIL said:
Wii will get a port of MW2 around the same time, isn't that how it works?
Nope..because the Wii version of World at War was released along with the rest of the versions...developed internally too.
 
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.
 
NightBlade88 said:
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.

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.
 
It's already up for preorder on Amazon.
$60 PC version.

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-alias=videogames&hidden-keywords=B003JVF728|B003JVKHEQ|B003JVCA9Q
 
Totobeni 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.
CoD3 is the worst game in the series for both sp and mp. WaW is just a copy of CoD4 but with a different setting. Treyarch blows.
 
Top Bottom