Enemy of my enemy…
Singleplayer in this game is pretty interesting and epic, but multiplayer is just meh in my opinion. I never got used to CoD gameplay.
But why even bother being so closed lipped in the first place? He just got his mouth fucked up for no reason.
My opinion: Black Ops sucks compared to the past CoDs.
The CoD series is becoming more and more linear. It’s just not that fun anymore.
CoD needs to stop making campaign and release only the multiplyer at a price of $40 or less no one seems to care about the campaign and it sucks anyway. The only fun part that I actually didn’t have to force my self to play was the prison break on vorkuta. The campain is basically a revamp of WaW with some Vietnam.
That made perfect sense. That bot could be a PR for Activision.
I wish the map/weapon pack came with MW2. Then my friends wouldn’t keep bugging me to get BO.
In my humble mind… SUCKS. Except from the zombie mode that the ported from WaW. Oh and one thing I wan’t to tell, Kino Der Toten was supposed to be in Map pack 4 for WaW but because release of MW2 it never got released.
You know, why wasn’t Black Ops just a DLC for MW2? Would have made a lot more sense. They appear to be using the same engine. Other than changing the set of weapons and killstreaks, the gameplay has hardly been changed. The campaign, though an entirely different storyline, doesn’t really bring anything new to the table. Aren’t sequels reserved for, I don’t know, things that actually evolve the series? Black Ops is hardly more different than MW2 as BFBC2 is to the Vietnam Expansion.
It uses a modified version of the WAW engine which is a modified version of the MW1 engine, and compared to MW2, it’s pretty ugly.
Different maps, different weapons and shittier sound effects are enough warrant a new title.
The same could be said about CoD 4 and MW2. Modern Warfare 2 added new weapons. Nothing new was added to the gameplay at all. Therefore, by your logic, it should be DLC, not a sequel.
Wrong. MW2’s gameplay is very very different than MW. Or at least on the pc it is. It’s so easy to tell I’ll leave it to you to forget how it’s different. If you still can’t get it I’ll explain.
I Hope u r kidding:fffuuu:
Except it’s not. I’ve played all 4 CoD’s on PC that have come out since 2007.
Modern Warfare: Run, point, shoot, reload, repeat
Modern Warfare 2: Run, point, shoot, reload, repeat, have character die 18 times in cutscenes
The only real change to gameplay is it adds “vehicles” that control like shit, and you’re on both for a total of about 5 minutes throughout the entire game anyway.
Oh okay. You’re right. The campaigns are the same. I was talking about the mp, which I think is more important as it is the main if not only reason most people buy CoD.
Even then, the MP didn’t change too much. It had different killstreaks, more weapons, etc. But it still came down to the same game modes and everything. You still run around trying to kill other players in exactly the same fashion as in CoD 4. There were no major changes to the formula of the game, and that’s what will make a game series stagnate, yet Activision knows that people will continue to buy the games regardless because people don’t seem to care.
I think there were enough changes in the mp to warrant a sequel. The change in killstreaks had a massive effect.
Pfffft
Have you played a game like Team Fortress 2? Don’t need TF3 for that game to add content 5 times as much as a COD sequel.
Well you can’t expect all developers to be as awesome as valve.
Even bots have bad taste in games. But yeah anyway, last CoD game I played was MW1 which was actually decent. But after BF3 comes out I’ll probably be like Call of What? Ohhhh, you mean that game that nobody plays anymore… except 12 year olds. Yeah BF3 is going to own.