imahobbit4062:
You are aware CoD made the same or similar changes?

MW2 introduced Dual Wielding
Black Ops introduced Theatre
All of them have had new or revamped perks.

True, but for me personally they didn't change up the core of the game enough to compel me to buy anything after MW2 (I've borrowed my brother's since then). I barely noticed these changes with the exception of altered killstreaks, whereas the Halo stuff I mentioned completely altered how you should approach a match.

Of course, I'm speaking from a slanted perspective. I've played Halo much more than COD, so I probably notice the nuanced changes between games more than the average person, much like how my brother can for COD games. And really, I shouldn't be comparing their gameplay in the first place since they're very different types of FPS's.

Both franchises are very guilty of not evolving much. I just happen to like the small changes Halo made more. :)

Sober Thal:

Nazulu:
There were a lot of changes in Black Ops like delayed fire to the sniper rifles and crappy map design that annoyed the fans a fair bit. That's what I mainly heard.

If your talking about COD in general, that's because a lot of people like me find it pathetic they keep releasing the same game with little changes over and over more than anyone else.

Sober Thal:
-'Why the Hatred for Black Ops?'-

Because the millions of people who enjoy the product, year after year, don't care enough to be bothered to complain like children about it.

Just because the vocal minority (internet forum kids) are loud and proud, doesn't mean there is any real hatred for any given thing.

It's all about minority community angst. They find a spot where their ideas sorta thrive, and it snowballs into people thinking that the loud voice actually holds some merit. We all (the rest of us real people) know it isn't true, but it's easier to let the vocal group feel better about themselves for the amount of effort they put in.

Yes, I just called people who don't agree with me 'not real people'.

That's the idea for the vocal minority. Otherwise they (we) wouldn't speak up. It' about us (them) feeling more important because of feelings. At the end of the day, numbers still speak louder than words tho... go figure.

CoD is 'King of Numbers'. Bow to it's superiority.

Then there are immature people like Sober Thal who generalise the ones who complain because they think high numbers equal fact when all it is just popular opinion.

Seriously, grow up. Just because you encounter a lot of jerks on one side, doesn't mean being a jerk back makes it right.

'You are' is not the same thing as 'your'.

Just wanted to let you know that.

Keep on keepin on, yo.

Numbers still equal facts, just so you know too. The fact that you may not want to accept that is okay, but it doesn't make hats. Savvy?

My maturity has been called into question because of what? You don't agree with me? I said something that sounds silly?

The really bad generalization is that CoD is a bad game. Just because of a few forum posters are butthurt, lolz be flowin.

It is a bad game. Lots of people like Transformers, too. Your numbers mean nothing.

I used "your" correctly, yes?

Locke_Cole:

GundamSentinel:

EcksTeaSea:
Because using the same formula over and over is a crime to gamers, even though the formula is good and millions of people enjoy the game.

See, that's the part that I don't get. It's a crime to gamers even though gamers enjoy it? I can't exactly put my finger on it, but there's a paradox in there somewhere.

Why won't people just enjoy the games they like and leave others to their own preferences?

Stagnation of any kind is bad. We as humans are very happy with where we are technologically...Does that mean we should stop progressing and stay where we are?

Stagnation of any kind is bad? No it isn't. I can think of hundreds of companies that have been living off of the same product range for dozens of years and have been very successful because of it. And as a consequence, many consumers have been able to get a product that lived up to wishes and expectations, even though they might not be your wishes and expectations. Forcefully trying to progress and implementing new technology, now that can be a bad thing, for both company and consumer. I say: don't blame the farmer for farming potatoes, just because you don't like potatoes.

Also, I don't see how Black-Ops being very iterative has anything to do with humanity's technological progression. If you're looking to Activision and Treyarch for technological progression, you're just looking in the wrong place. If I want a novel game, I'll go see what thatgamecompany has to offer, if I want a game with guaranteed and proven features, I'll go play Call of Duty.

The campaign is really over the top... even for CoD. It makes MW2 look like a military sim shooter by comparison. At the point I was using a hand-held guided missile launcher to take down a Saturn Rocket-sized Soviet missile (apparently loaded with some nerve gas), I kind of questioned what the fuck was going on. It covers a whole bunch of random conflicts from the 50's until the late 80's, makes very little sense, and is generally as predictable as a rabbit on crack.

The multiplayer is by far the most boring and dull of any of the series, and that is saying a lot. Of the ~5 hours I played, I didn't enjoy one minute of it, and as usual, I had to mute almost everyone ASAP. The guns sound and act crappy, there are tons of over-the-top weapons and kill-streaks, even worse than any other CoD before. I'm pretty sure they didn't have the aforementioned guided missile launchers in the 70's.

The only redeeming feature is the zombies, and even that was just ripped from World at War, and given a few new maps and items. However, it is the only part I really played any amount of. Although at the point where it took 100+ 7.62mm rounds to the head to kill one guy, I kind of got bored.

It's cliched but true.

The largest playerbase of fans spawns the largest base of haters.

It's a multiplayer focused shooter based on mostly twitch reactions with massive customizability and very smooth and some of the fastest paced game flow around with a campaign like a summer action movie. And it sells like hotcakes. Nothing more and nothing less.

Although personally Blops always seemed a step behind the Modern Warfare series in new content, but were a step ahead in eliminating the more annoying near-exploiting things in CoD like Quickscoping and dropshotting.

I hate mechanics that are accepted and incorporated where it seems like more abusing the game engine than playing the game normally.

I didn't hate it, but I was disappointed by a few things including:

a) Anachronistic weapons.
b) Weapons from Project Nova being unavailable in multiplayer.
b) Inclusion of Last Stand.
c) Lag in multiplayer.
d) Ghost as the dominant first tier perk.
e) 15(!) prestige levels.

There are probably others but those are the ones I remember most.

Locke_Cole:

GundamSentinel:

EcksTeaSea:
Because using the same formula over and over is a crime to gamers, even though the formula is good and millions of people enjoy the game.

See, that's the part that I don't get. It's a crime to gamers even though gamers enjoy it? I can't exactly put my finger on it, but there's a paradox in there somewhere.

Why won't people just enjoy the games they like and leave others to their own preferences?

Stagnation of any kind is bad. We as humans are very happy with where we are technologically...Does that mean we should stop progressing and stay where we are?

If you listen to some religious fanatics....then yes.

OT - The Black Ops MP got old very quickly, mainly because it was already old before the game released. I think there's more hate for MW2/3 than Black Ops though tbh.

From a PC gamer POV, i'm sick of not having dedicated servers for shooters. I'd rather play CSS than any CoD after CoD4 for that reason alone.

Trippy Turtle:
MW2 was the only amazing CoD and black ops was okay. As far as most CoD games are it was pretty damn good.

Oh wow.

GundamSentinel:
I can think of hundreds of companies that have been living off of the same product range for dozens of years and have been very successful because of it. And as a consequence, many consumers have been able to get a product that lived up to wishes and expectations, even though they might not be your wishes and expectations.

This bit bothers me. It seems like you're claiming their hatred of Black Ops is wrong simply because other people like it, as if you can invalidate an individual's opinion by pointing at numbers.

GundamSentinel:

Why won't people just enjoy the games they like and leave others to their own preferences?

And this seems like you're making assumptions. "Leave others to their own preferences" sounds like you think this thread is about hatred towards Black Ops players, when it's really about hatred towards the game.

Why not have discussions on this? Why should people just stay quiet in a forum meant to subjectively discuss games? I see this "Why won't people just enjoy the games they like" mentality a lot in replies to criticism and it always sounds incredibly naive to me. As if discussion is fine until someone disagrees and then suddenly 'Hey it's no big deal can't we all just get along?' As if you can dismiss their argument by retroactively claiming that they started the fight and you're just a victim of their unwarranted hate. As if we're all so shallow that looking and relating beyond just the raw game is an incomprehensible feat and shouldn't be attempted.

You can't deny that Call of Duty is insanely popular, and that popularity has huge amounts of influence on the industry. That influence, to me, is a negative because I don't find Call of Duty games enjoyable. You cannot simply ignore how much other titles have to change to closer fit something like the Call of Duty model, and I think it's legitimate to hate it for that reason. For someone like me who found Black Ops pretty dull in both singleplayer and multiplayer, I think it's totally legitimate to hate it for being a mediocre game whose popularity brings down the potential of so many others. And Black Ops was yet another absurdly popular Call of Duty game with extremely minor alterations at full price.

If you have no qualms about its affect on the industry and just enjoy it, then that's totally cool, but I do have issues with it, and I don't enjoy it.

I came here hoping for a discussion on secret military operations. Sadly it's the same conversation that the entire internet has every 5 fucking minutes.

I think Black Ops is a fine game. It has its problems but it is much more unique than the other CODs. I still play it today just because of Combat Training (Great way of warming up before playing online after not playing for a while or playing for the first time in the day. Wager Matches are fun but no one plays them anymore. :(

I understand why COD has such a bad reputation, but it still bothers me. On the internet it's always been cool to hate COD, whether the person in question has played the recent games or not.

imahobbit4062:
You are aware CoD made the same or similar changes?

MW2 introduced Dual Wielding
Black Ops introduced Theatre
All of them have had new or revamped perks.

Allow me to elaborate:

MW2:
-Unlockable Titles/Emblems
-Pro Perks
-New Attachments[/B
<B]-New Killstreaks, ability to choose killstreaks instead of being stuck with the same ones as everyone else
-New Guns

Black Ops:
-Theater
-Combat Training
-Wager Matches
-New Guns
-Some new Killstreaks
-COD Points
-New Zombies maps, guns, etc.
-Custom Emblems

MW3:
-Strike Packages
-KC and Team Defender
-Several Private Match Game Modes
-Survival Mode

Slayer_2:
The campaign is really over the top... even for CoD. It makes MW2 look like a military sim shooter by comparison. At the point I was using a hand-held guided missile launcher to take down a Saturn Rocket-sized Soviet missile (apparently loaded with some nerve gas), I kind of questioned what the fuck was going on. It covers a whole bunch of random conflicts from the 50's until the late 80's, makes very little sense, and is generally as predictable as a rabbit on crack.

The multiplayer is by far the most boring and dull of any of the series, and that is saying a lot. Of the ~5 hours I played, I didn't enjoy one minute of it, and as usual, I had to mute almost everyone ASAP. The guns sound and act crappy, there are tons of over-the-top weapons and kill-streaks, even worse than any other CoD before. I'm pretty sure they didn't have the aforementioned guided missile launchers in the 70's.

The only redeeming feature is the zombies, and even that was just ripped from World at War, and given a few new maps and items. However, it is the only part I really played any amount of. Although at the point where it took 100+ 7.62mm rounds to the head to kill one guy, I kind of got bored.

Black Ops only takes place in the 60's and 70's. It never branches into the 80's or 50's.

Hazzard:
First of all, I have never owned a CoD game, so I am looking at this from a "outsider that has played it occasionly but has never seen it as a world of brown-ness with an online with a worse player-base than Halo.
I know that a lot of people have refused to play CoD after black ops, or just hated the game and have never gotten an answer as to why.
So what was it that people hated so much about Black Ops?

As a COD player who never touches the multiplayer (write your own jokes), I actually rather enjoyed BlOps. The single player had a 1960s conspiracy theorist's manifesto quality that was rather interesting. There's a lot of rather interesting historical details to the story that actually roughly mesh with reality. That is to say, a lot of the operation names tossed around had some basis in reality, or in commonly held beliefs at the time.

In that respect it kind of reminded me of Dark Skies.

All that said, my understanding is that multiplayer was a bit of a mess, but again, I avoid that like the plague, which I guess makes me the "that guy who actually buys Playboy for the articles" of gaming.

imahobbit4062:
Black Ops only takes place in the 60's and 70's. It never branches into the 80's or 50's.

I thought it was 60s only, but some of the armament you get your hands on does originate from later, like the Styer, CZ75 and G11. (And utterly fails to explain why a CIA officer would be carrying a Czech handgun FROM THE FUTURE.)

For reference, Operation 40 was 1962 (at least in our world), and IIRC the final mission takes place in 1968, but I could be mistaken there.

Starke:

imahobbit4062:
Black Ops only takes place in the 60's and 70's. It never branches into the 80's or 50's.

I thought it was 60s only, but some of the armament you get your hands on does originate from later, like the Styer, CZ75 and G11. (And utterly fails to explain why a CIA officer would be carrying a Czech handgun FROM THE FUTURE.)

For reference, Operation 40 was 1962 (at least in our world), and IIRC the final mission takes place in 1968, but I could be mistaken there.

Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+TWFzb24gZ29lcyBvZmYgcmVzZXJ2YXRpb24gcm91Z2hseSBKYW51YXJ5IDMwLCB0aG91Z2ggSSd2ZSBubyBpZGVhIGV4YWN0bHkgaG93IG11Y2ggdGltZSBsYXBzZXMgYmVmb3JlIHRoZSBmaW5hbCBtaXNzaW9uLCBpdCB3b3VsZG4ndCBtYWtlIHNlbnNlIHRoYXQgaXQncyBtb3JlIHRoYW4gYSBjb3VwbGUgbW9udGhzLCBwcm9iYWJseSBhIGZldyB3ZWVrcy48L3A+

I noticed some of the weapons didn't fit the time period either. The final mission might take place in 1968. It's been awhile since I played it.

imahobbit4062:

Starke:

imahobbit4062:
Black Ops only takes place in the 60's and 70's. It never branches into the 80's or 50's.

I thought it was 60s only, but some of the armament you get your hands on does originate from later, like the Styer, CZ75 and G11. (And utterly fails to explain why a CIA officer would be carrying a Czech handgun FROM THE FUTURE.)

For reference, Operation 40 was 1962 (at least in our world), and IIRC the final mission takes place in 1968, but I could be mistaken there.

Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+TWFzb24gZ29lcyBvZmYgcmVzZXJ2YXRpb24gcm91Z2hseSBKYW51YXJ5IDMwLCB0aG91Z2ggSSd2ZSBubyBpZGVhIGV4YWN0bHkgaG93IG11Y2ggdGltZSBsYXBzZXMgYmVmb3JlIHRoZSBmaW5hbCBtaXNzaW9uLCBpdCB3b3VsZG4ndCBtYWtlIHNlbnNlIHRoYXQgaXQncyBtb3JlIHRoYW4gYSBjb3VwbGUgbW9udGhzLCBwcm9iYWJseSBhIGZldyB3ZWVrcy48L3A+

I noticed some of the weapons didn't fit the time period either. The final mission might take place in 1968. It's been awhile since I played it.

I did some neurotic checking, and it's almost interesting. The game runs April 17, 1961[1] - February 26, 1968. (Not counting the WWII flashback sequences.) The main menu, however, plays from a separate interrogation that occurs sometime after October 1978. And is completely unconnected with the rest of the game.

I lost interest, the campaign(i did finish) was meh and didn't really have any impact. the multiplayer was even less interesting. the ability to have everything but weapons ready for purchase at lvl 4 made things go slower, and the perk pro challenges were the most ridiculous ever, like forcing you to play capture the flag for marathon pro and stuff like that.

Sober Thal:

Kaulen Fuhs:

It is a bad game. Lots of people like Transformers, too. Your numbers mean nothing.

Numbers are more important that you want to realize.

Transformers (the Bay movies) were, and are, a success. Rightfully so too.

Just cause you don't like it, doesn't make it any less.

Have you ever studied meditation? Have you ever realized how many unique individuals exits in the world? After you do that, think about how pitiful a few tens of thousands (that is really fucking generous number) forum posters really represents.....

You would probably feel really bad when you learned how few people in the world know/care about what STEAM is. That coming from a tech repair business...

The point is : Millions of people love it. The tens of thousands that don't, aren't really a factor worth representing. Unless you work for the company that made it, the rest of us just kinda laugh at the minority view on this one.

It's not like CoD is the only game out there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eh?

Are you suggesting that feelings like love and hate towards something are only valid in a collective majority? Is how I feel about Black Ops wrong because a lot of other people feel differently? The OP asked why people hated Black Ops and you try and turn a subjective discussion into a frustrated rant on the triviality of minorities.

Such a hopeless disconnect from reality.

GundamSentinel:

EcksTeaSea:
Because using the same formula over and over is a crime to gamers, even though the formula is good and millions of people enjoy the game.

See, that's the part that I don't get. It's a crime to gamers even though gamers enjoy it? I can't exactly put my finger on it, but there's a paradox in there somewhere.

Why won't people just enjoy the games they like and leave others to their own preferences?

Because I said it was bad and if you don't think my opinion is correct then you are an idiot.

_{That was me being sarcastic believe or not.}

OT: I played it and it was kinda meh. Campaign was pants on head retarded and felt like it was written by some paranoid cold war conspiracy writer or something and the multiplayer just felt like it was just a complete rehash of the other games.

Towards the end, i HATED MW2 with a passion. So much so that i switched over to battlefield bad company 2. When black ops came out, i really quite liked it.

Still playing BF3 though.

Sober Thal:

Nazulu:
There were a lot of changes in Black Ops like delayed fire to the sniper rifles and crappy map design that annoyed the fans a fair bit. That's what I mainly heard.

If your talking about COD in general, that's because a lot of people like me find it pathetic they keep releasing the same game with little changes over and over more than anyone else.

Sober Thal:
-'Why the Hatred for Black Ops?'-

Because the millions of people who enjoy the product, year after year, don't care enough to be bothered to complain like children about it.

Just because the vocal minority (internet forum kids) are loud and proud, doesn't mean there is any real hatred for any given thing.

It's all about minority community angst. They find a spot where their ideas sorta thrive, and it snowballs into people thinking that the loud voice actually holds some merit. We all (the rest of us real people) know it isn't true, but it's easier to let the vocal group feel better about themselves for the amount of effort they put in.

Yes, I just called people who don't agree with me 'not real people'.

That's the idea for the vocal minority. Otherwise they (we) wouldn't speak up. It' about us (them) feeling more important because of feelings. At the end of the day, numbers still speak louder than words tho... go figure.

CoD is 'King of Numbers'. Bow to it's superiority.

Then there are immature people like Sober Thal who generalise the ones who complain because they think high numbers equal fact when all it is just popular opinion.

Seriously, grow up. Just because you encounter a lot of jerks on one side, doesn't mean being a jerk back makes it right.

'You are' is not the same thing as 'your'.

Just wanted to let you know that.

Keep on keepin on, yo.

Numbers still equal facts, just so you know too. The fact that you may not want to accept that is okay, but it doesn't make hats. Savvy?

My maturity has been called into question because of what? You don't agree with me? I said something that sounds silly?

The really bad generalization is that CoD is a bad game. Just because of a few forum posters are butthurt, lolz be flowin.

I can't tell if you're trolling me or not. Either way, stop it. Also, if you want talk about spelling and grammar, "Keep on keepin on, yo/doesn't make hats?" doesn't make any sense.

Numbers still equal facts of what? If your going to tell me quality then you are going to fail at it. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is beyond criticism.

And as for the generalisation of COD, I'm pretty sure it's mostly because they keep releasing the same game over and over And not because the quality of it is poor. As far I've seen though, it's pretty damn bland, but that's not what I'm complaining about.

I don't understand why, really. Black Ops has been the only Call of Duty game since MW1 that has at least tried to do things differently and take the multiplayer into a more sophisticated direction. It didn't succeed, but it did try. So of all the Call of Duty games since MW1 it's the least deserving of all the hate that's given to the series.

SuperNova221:
I don't understand why, really. Black Ops has been the only Call of Duty game since MW1 that has at least tried to do things differently and take the multiplayer into a more sophisticated direction. It didn't succeed, but it did try. So of all the Call of Duty games since MW1 it's the least deserving of all the hate that's given to the series.

Well that's the funny thing. Because it made few changes, a lot of fans who enjoyed the original COD mechanics were upset by it. So, it's probably perecieved as still another COD by many against franchise in the first place, while some of the fans from the previous games look down on Black Ops too. Hate from both sides.

Breadline:

GundamSentinel:
I can think of hundreds of companies that have been living off of the same product range for dozens of years and have been very successful because of it. And as a consequence, many consumers have been able to get a product that lived up to wishes and expectations, even though they might not be your wishes and expectations.

This bit bothers me. It seems like you're claiming their hatred of Black Ops is wrong simply because other people like it, as if you can invalidate an individual's opinion by pointing at numbers.

No, I mean something different. What I'm saying is that people hate it for the wrong reasons.

Is it a bad game? Maybe. I can understand why people would say so. And I can perfectly understand why people would dislike Black Ops as a consequence. It's brainless, the campaigns and multiplayer are uninspired, sure. And that's a valid opinion, no matter how many millions buy the game. As George Orwell wrote: sanity is not statistical. Me, I don't think they're great games either.

Is it iterative design with little improvement over the last installment? Yes, it is. But I don't think that is a bad thing in itself. Everyone knows by now it's wrong to look to Treyarch and Activision for innovation. It's just not what those companies do. They just crank out franchised shooters and make loads of money with it. Does that make them horrible companies? Maybe, but that's not what this is about.

Bad business practices aside, the practice of cranking out FPSs in itself is not something hateful to me. What a lot of people hate about it, is that they want improvement from a company that's not in the business of improvement. I ask: what do you want from Treyarch and Activision other than what they are doing now? Do you want them to make games like Journey? Well, they just don't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'd love them to start doing that (if they could do it well (HA!)), but it's just not their market.

What I do agree with you about, are the affects on the industry. Yes, the cause of many problems lies with the popularity of games and game franchises like Call of Duty. Sadly, that's capitalism: supply and demand. People want games like CoD, so the industry will provide, often cheapening games and the industry because of it.

But in the end, this is about hate for this particular game. You can hate a game because it is a bad game (God, how that cheapens the term 'hate'), but it's silly to hate a game because its developer isn't in the business of making the kind of games you like. Black Ops is a symptom, not the cause. But yes, as you've indicated, it is a symptom of bigger problems in the games industry, and that is where a lot of the 'hate' for Black Ops comes from.

Breadline:

GundamSentinel:

Why won't people just enjoy the games they like and leave others to their own preferences?

And this seems like you're making assumptions. "Leave others to their own preferences" sounds like you think this thread is about hatred towards Black Ops players, when it's really about hatred towards the game.

I know, but many people who have an opinion about Black Ops, or any other multiplayer-focused game for that matter, involve the players in their opinion. For example, they hate Black Ops because of teenage screaming kids. That is both silly, but also completely valid in some way:

I personally think it's not completely fair to judge a game itself by its player base (or even more so, judge a player by his games). If you don't want to play a game because of screaming kids, fine, that I can understand. That makes it a worse experience for you, but not necessarily a worse game.

Yet on the other hand, it does: those screaming kids (and anyone else who buys the game (including me, sorry about that)) are very much responsible for Treyarch and Activision (and EA for that matter) making these games. But you have explained that very well already.

And I agree, it's perfectly valid to discuss a game because of that. I'd just like to see people getting their reasoning straight. It's always purely subjective whether or not a game is good, I have yet to hear a valid argument that quality =/= popularity (although I do think so).

Because I'm sick of first person shooters.

Entirely.

At this point, the less I even hear about them the better.

Aerosteam 1908:
The campaign was the most far-fetched of them all and the multiplayer was like MW2's but worse.

I found it's multiplayer to be better for one reason, it had dedicated servers, so you could have custom server setups and admins who actually banned hackers.

MW2 multiplayer was unplayable for me, far too many hackers.

Black Ops can be easily considered the best/worst CoD after 4.

Some people did not like MW2 and focused on BlOps, others liked MW2 and didn't like BlOps and finally there were people who didn't like MW2 and put their hopes in Treyarch's devs - only to be utterly disappointed.

Basically, by playing BlOps you won't be getting a "sober" game. While not as "flashy" as MW2 is just as ludicrous. Huge letdown if you're a fan of CoD4.

Even if you enjoy the "brown Halo in the 60's" setting, it has flaws, some of which already mentioned here. Poor optimization on computers, the changes they did to sniping, etc.

Trippy Turtle:
MW2 was the only amazing CoD and black ops was okay. As far as most CoD games are it was pretty damn good.

I refuse to call it amazing because of two things:

- Plot is full of holes and is completely ludicrous compared to 4
- Multiplayer had a lot of issues (unbalance, spawns, lag, host advantage, etc etc etc)

If MW2 could be more like CoD4, it would have been much better.

It sounds like a Catch-22, but there are some things they could innovate, and others that should stay the same.

I didn't like the idea of continuing Modern Warfare.

Balimaar:
and battlefield is the epitome of innovation *rolls eyes* they are just as imaginative as cod makers. their formula has changed just as much as CoDs has.

Except that Battlefield blatantly tried to copy MW, so at least they innovated in some way.

BF 2142 changed the classes systems and introduced the Titans and Walkers. Innovation. The Bad Company spin-off added a campaign. Innovation.

Don't get me wrong, I hated the way BF has been treated. But there are things that work and shouldn't be changed.

The Tex Murphy games were always better at being interactive movies. *trollface*