performance is still crap if you dont have a i5 or i7 ...Erasus said:The PC patch made the fps a bit higher for me, but the stuttering is the same. gg treyarch
performance is still crap if you dont have a i5 or i7 ...Erasus said:The PC patch made the fps a bit higher for me, but the stuttering is the same. gg treyarch
chapel said:I love the G11. I have been seriously disappointed with the M16, which was my favorite weapon in MW1/2, because of how many shots it seems to take to kill. I feel like I am at a disadvantage using it against SMGs or other ARs. The G11 though, it just rocks. Rarely does it take 3 shots, and sometimes I get an awesome one shot headshot due to great aim. Only downside is lack of good attachments, I haven't tried the variable scope, but the low powered scope sucks and I got annoyed of using it, so I am using iron sights.
Sure the M16 isn't too bad at distance, but it still takes at minimum 2 bursts up to 3 or more. I think you would love the G11 as a sniper replacement. It actually has a variable scope that allows close to long range sniping, and the G11 has little to no recoil so shots are pretty dead on. In fact, a dead on headshot will most likely kill with one burst because it is so accurate.Lonewolf_92 said:I've actually found the M16 with the ACOG sight makes a pretty decent sniper rifle replacement. I have a build with that setup as my primary and Ghost, Hardened, and Marathon as my perks, specifically for when I want to fill in as a sniper (mostly when I'm playing Domination on Cracked, taking potshots at the speedsters at B from the sniper spots near A or C and acting as sniper suppression support and protecting the nearby objective). I haven't unlocked the FN FAL yet, but if it's even half as good as my M16 I'll be impressed.
Whatever you're holding at the moment determines your speed. You can carry an arsenal in your pocket and it doesn't matter. So if you need to get somewhere fast, switch to your handguns.bobs99 ... said:Quick question, does your choice of secondary affect your movement speed? Having a launcher on my back when going for Ghost Pro really annoyed me, it felt like it slowed me down so much. I havent felt this with the Crossbow, but since its a bulky secondary I assume it must do something to your movement speed?
Maybe its just in my head? I swear I felt sluggish when trying to run and gun with a launcher on my back.
Skel said:Not for me, I honestly think it is preference. I really enjoyed it at first, but then all I was doing was using 1 gun.
For me the customization in CoD is much more meaningful and fun to me, since it isn't just aesthetic.
I don't want to turn this into a Reach v. CoD debate, but I just think you shouldn't state that like a fact, when it is a matter of preference.
AnEternalEnigma said:I'm really impressed with how Treyarch has supported this game (well, the console versions anyways). They've been doing stuff everyday it seems.
When Modern Warfare 2 launched, it felt like Infinity Ward really didn't give a shit about supporting it. They only ran back to it when stuff like the Javelin glitch and the Care Package glitches popped up. The only real thing they did was fixing the Akimbo 1887s, but I got the idea they only did that because people bitched so violently. Even then, it took much longer than it should have. They broke a lot of promises FourZeroTwo made to the community, such as banning all the 10th prestige glitchers and the tweaks to One Man Army that never happened.
aku:jiki said:I've always imagine this to be the case in previous games, though apparently it isn't. Has any previous CoD allowed you to run faster with a handgun up?
Lonewolf_92 said:I've actually found the M16 with the ACOG sight makes a pretty decent sniper rifle replacement. I have a build with that setup as my primary and Ghost, Hardened, and Marathon as my perks, specifically for when I want to fill in as a sniper (mostly when I'm playing Domination on Cracked, taking potshots at the speedsters at B from the sniper spots near A or C and acting as sniper suppression support and protecting the nearby objective). I haven't unlocked the FN FAL yet, but if it's even half as good as my M16 I'll be impressed.
AnEternalEnigma said:I'm really impressed with how Treyarch has supported this game (well, the console versions anyways). They've been doing stuff everyday it seems.
What? Are we playing a different game? The PS3 version still has the same problems it had when it launched. The frame rate, the lag, host migration doesn't work, the person with the fastest internet connection doesn't get to be host, joining a game as a party is still broken, you still get kicked out mid-game.AnEternalEnigma said:I'm really impressed with how Treyarch has supported this game (well, the console versions anyways). They've been doing stuff everyday it seems.
snap0212 said:To be honest, there are a lot of reasons why you shouldnt buy this game at all. It sold so many copies that it doesnt make the slightest difference if you buy it or not, but there are enough reasons to not pick it up ever.Solid_Rain said:Wow at some of the comments regarding the ps3 version of the game, if true I won't be buying this game for a while - at least until I have a little money to burn. But I wanted to ask people's opinions on whether or not they think the problems can be fixed with patches or did Treyarch seriously mess up the port because I seem to remember WaW running pretty good.
Treyarch doesnt care about the PS3-Platform at all. It sounded like marketing-bullshit when Microsoft announced that the best way to play Call of Duty was doing so on the Xbox 360, but it turned out to be the truth. The frame rate sucks and it feels like 2007 all over again where the PS3 version of a game usually was the inferior one. The frame rate is horrible at times and I dont understand how this could get through QA. Treyarch is not some small developer that has no idea how to work with the PS3, theyve showed that everything is possible when theyve released World at War, which wasnt broken, had a steady frame rate and still runs perfectly fine on the PS3. They clearly know how to do it, but decided to release a broken game instead. Treyarch have not commented on the frame rate issues, yet. Reviewers havent talked about it either. IGN, for example, told you that the PS3 version is basically the same as the 360 version. Theres no pressure on Treyarch for fixing it, because the people talking about it are the vocal minority that can just be ignored. And thats what theyre currently doing.
If you take a look at the features youll also find the possibility to connect a second controller to play online (split screen) with a friend. While this feature is fully supported on the Xbox 360 they went the easy route on the PS3. You cannot play with separate profiles, even though its been proven to be possible on the PS3. Another thing is the option to boot up the Multiplayer-Menu instead of the Main Menu. This function is also not available on the PS3 and theres no reason why this short-cut isnt included. If this were a small developer with very limited resources Id understand why youd have differences between the platforms, but thats not the case with Treyarch. Theyve done great work with World at War and have shown us that theyre capable of releasing a great PS3-port of their game. Id really love to know why Black Ops is such a mess.
Then you also have to take a look at the things that are wrong with both console versions of this game. The netcode seems to be way worse than the one theyve used in Modern Warfare 2 (even World at War was better). A lot of people experience a great amount of lag, people with slow connections get chosen to be the host of a game, the host migration doesnt work, the hit detection is completely broken, and joining a game as a party is almost impossible.
There really are also many reasons why you shouldnt pick up this game just now. Once that stuff is fixed Id recommend you to pick it up, because its in my opinion one of the most balanced online shooters ever made. The game is built around so many great ideas, but it seems like theyve not put much thought into the execution of those great ideas.
I thought we went over this before. No one gives a shit about you laying on the ground there. Die like a man.Johnlenham said:Yeah people just run past, dickbags :lol
snap0212 said:What? Are we playing a different game? The PS3 version still has the same problems it had when it launched. The frame rate, the lag, host migration doesn't work, the person with the fastest internet connection doesn't get to be host, joining a game as a party is still broken, you still get kicked out mid-game.
They release Patches, but those don't really improve anything. I'll quote what I've posed a couple of pages back. The current situation is still the same as it was when I posted:
Are you really trying to tell me that you're playing on the PS3 without frame rate problems? :lolaristotle said:It seems we are playing different games because I've had none of the issues you have and I'm on the PS3.
Sorry, but then you're just making things up. At least the PS3-version, the one I play and know, is still far from perfect and the patch didn't improve that much.aristotle said:It seems we are playing different games because I've had none of the issues you have and I'm on the PS3.
snap0212 said:Are you really trying to tell me that you're playing on the PS3 without frame rate problems? :lol
Patrick Bateman said:Sorry, but then you're just making things up. At least the PS3-version, the one I play and know, is still far from perfect and the patch didn't improve that much.
snap0212 said:What? Are we playing a different game? The PS3 version still has the same problems it had when it launched. The frame rate, the lag, host migration doesn't work, the person with the fastest internet connection doesn't get to be host, joining a game as a party is still broken, you still get kicked out mid-game.
They release Patches, but those don't really improve anything. I'll quote what I've posed a couple of pages back. The current situation is still the same as it was when I posted:
Highest DPS in the game, but yeah, it's recoil is quite bad.Dilly said:Is it me or is the stoner a terrible LMG?
Dilly said:Is it me or is the stoner a terrible LMG?
PetriP-TNT said:I tried searching this and read the pages from 18th nov but didn't find anything, has this erm... issue been discussed
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=276676
I sort of got that feeling from MW2 but that seems to take it to a whole new level
Dexa said:performance is still crap if you dont have a i5 or i7 ...
same for me, the recoil is very manageable on PCStoney Mason said:It's pretty wicked from my experiences.
I've been picked up plenty of times, so it's really just you.I thought we went over this before. No one gives a shit about you laying on the ground there. Die like a man.
Skel said:I think one of the best things about this game when compared to others is there are so many effective guns so you can change it up a bit.
I have had tons of success with:
Galil
AUG
Commando (when I pick one up, not unlocked yet)
MP5
AK74u
Skorpion
I am probably forgetting some, but I really like that about this game.
Skel said:I think one of the best things about this game when compared to others is there are so many effective guns so you can change it up a bit.
I have had tons of success with:
Galil
AUG
Commando (when I pick one up, not unlocked yet)
MP5
AK74u
Skorpion
I am probably forgetting some, but I really like that about this game.
I've been picked up plenty of times, so it's really just you.
aristotle said:It seems we are playing different games because I've had none of the issues you have and I'm on the PS3.
SmokeMaxX said:Is the G11 like a G6?
I think this is plausible, but like you say i doubt it got very far beyond the discussion stage. I think the way it was handled was appropriateNajaf said:Spoiler filled thoughts:
I am pretty sure the assassination of JFK was originally in the game. Did anyone notice that there was no 'sniper' mission, as has been present in every call of duty game? It is of course implied that Mason killed JFK as we all know.
When Mason yells at Dragovich "You tried to make me kill my president!" Dragovich replies "Tried?"
I bet that originally, the game was not to end just on those shots of JFK in Dallas, but they were to be followed by a flashback. (Remember, JFK was killed in 1963, before the events of the game's conclusion) This would fit the time that Hudson says Mason was unaccounted for. The flashback following those images of Dallas would have been Mason working his way up to the Texas School Book Depository and then concluding with shot(s) to kill JFK. I would bet this was at least on the drawing board at Treyarch but discarded for obvious reasons. Thoughts?
Why would it be inappropriate? They could easily make it a skippable mission, but there was already some game a while back that had you replicating that event (it was an indie title I believe). If they could get away with the airport level, then they could definitely get away with that.GitarooMan said:I think this is plausible, but like you say i doubt it got very far beyond the discussion stage. I think the way it was handled was appropriateI thought the "Tried?" line by Dragovich was a cool moment. Actually having you perform the assassination would be inappropriate IMO, but honestly little shocks me at this point
kamspy said:Bullshit. My Phenon II 955 gets me a solid 60 fps with v sync in single player with all setting balls out.
Solid 90fps in MP with everything but AA. AA might even work, I just usually don't run AA or Vsync in MP games.
Is there a good forum for Blops PC discussion? It's mostly console here, the Steam and Official forums are a mess full of QQ "mah dual core and 8800 should run everything!" crap. They don't take into account that all the engine tweaks from W@W to Blops were done by Treyarch. They didn't have access to the MW2 code base until very late into development so the graphical tweaks were done by them. Since they're not IW, the implementation was far less optimized.
J-Rzez said:You have a magic PS3 then, which has extra Krazy Ken dust sprinkled on it then, because this game is a fuck-shop. Frame rate, hit detection, lag, broken features, all of these are the worst I've seen in a CoD this gen. It's borderline unplayable, which is a damn shame since when the stars and moon align, and the gaming gods accept your slaughtered calf blood and grant you that 20 seconds of "everything working like it should", the game is superior to MW1 and 2 combined and is fun.
I agree that those patches didn't do jack squat either. I tried it out thinking ok now to have fun, yet here all I get is more stuttering and dc's than ever. My best friend told me the 360 version isn't a gem neither, but compared to what he said, Treyarch and Activision really took everyone's money with a gun and a ski-mask on the PS3, which is a shame.
Did any media outlets get on these problems, because I believe there no way possible the game was running great before launch considering how piss poor it did at launch up until now.
J-Rzez said:You have a magic PS3 then, which has extra Krazy Ken dust sprinkled on it then, because this game is a fuck-shop. Frame rate, hit detection, lag, broken features, all of these are the worst I've seen in a CoD this gen. It's borderline unplayable, which is a damn shame since when the stars and moon align, and the gaming gods accept your slaughtered calf blood and grant you that 20 seconds of "everything working like it should", the game is superior to MW1 and 2 combined and is fun.
I agree that those patches didn't do jack squat either. I tried it out thinking ok now to have fun, yet here all I get is more stuttering and dc's than ever. My best friend told me the 360 version isn't a gem neither, but compared to what he said, Treyarch and Activision really took everyone's money with a gun and a ski-mask on the PS3, which is a shame.
Did any media outlets get on these problems, because I believe there no way possible the game was running great before launch considering how piss poor it did at launch up until now.
Yeah, I picked one up before, and it's so fly it's like a G6.
Stallion Free said:Why would it be inappropriate? They could easily make it a skippable mission, but there was already some game a while back that had you replicating that event (it was an indie title I believe). If they could get away with the airport level, then they could definitely get away with that.
no angel said:Wow, it took me bloody ages to link my youtube account to my black ops profile, I'm sure it can't have been that hard for everyone else.
Anyway, tested it with a clip of a flukey direct impact grenade kill, I definately need to improve my editing skills!
http://www.youtube.com/user/urbanpandauk?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/gNE1PU1J1dM