Why the Hatred for Black Ops?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

jaoblia:
Its the 3rd time they've released it, save for a new campaign its the same mechanics, levels, and modes. Also the sheer amount of gibbering insane 10 year olds online threatening to lay your mother thrice.

Well, you're wrong there.

Black Ops was a true sequel, for better or worse, and drastically split the fan base because of how different it was.

MetallicaRulez0:

1.) By far the worst maps in CoD history.

Well, it honestly depends on what game type you were playing.

Search and Destroy and Demolition? They did not play well. But the way the game was made and the way the maps handled made Domination the best gametype out of all of these games. It's honestly what kept me playing for so long.

Lugbzurg:
Honestly, I had more fun with the Main Menu than the actual game itself. The very second I started the game up, I knew this was going to be a hopelessly-unbalanced, dumbed-down, clunky, inexcusably-buggy, game. And it was. And, you've got to be a pretty poor designer to make fighting nazi zombies in a (haunted?) house incredibly boring. How so? It's consitered bad if you can actually see what you're shooting. And that dead-ops arcade was just horrible. I'll stick with Geometry Wars, thank you very much. You know, the tremendously-superior game that Dead Ops shamelessly ripped off?

Wha-What..?

Dead Ops ripped off Geometry Wars? It is now an empirical fact that you have not played one of those games if you legitimately think that is true. Geometry Wars?

The only thing remotely similar about the two games is that they're birds eye view, and you shoot things in the game, not to mention that it was only put in the game for shits and giggles.

How so? It's consitered bad if you can actually see what you're shooting

So... By your fucking flawless logic, seeing what you're shooting at is now a crime against gaming? So the mark of a good shooter is having purely invisible enemies?

God damn Genius.

Lugbzurg:
Honestly, I had more fun with the Main Menu than the actual game itself. The very second I started the game up, I knew this was going to be a hopelessly-unbalanced, dumbed-down, clunky, inexcusably-buggy, game. And it was. And, you've got to be a pretty poor designer to make fighting nazi zombies in a (haunted?) house incredibly boring. How so? It's consitered bad if you can actually see what you're shooting. And that dead-ops arcade was just horrible. I'll stick with Geometry Wars, thank you very much. You know, the tremendously-superior game that Dead Ops shamelessly ripped off?

Hazy992:

imahobbit4062:
I noticed some of the weapons didn't fit the time period either. The final mission might take place in 1968.

They don't? Which one's? I'm not saying you're wrong I just thought they were all from that period.

They don't seem to do research on what they're making. Others have noticed. For example, Modern Warfare 3 has some rather outdated guns (these guys are supposed to be on the cutting edge) and the World Trade Center is still there. It can't be "Modern" if it's over a decade out of date. Of course, what else can you expect from the guy that believes Spyro made his debut in Skylanders?

MW3 takes place in 2016. They could have simply added it there saying it was rebuilt.

dogstile:

imahobbit4062:

MPerce:
I don't hate it, it's just.....well, the exact same COD since this Modern Warfare ball got rolling. The franchise has become the Madden of "hardcore" gaming: take the game before it, make the tiniest of tweaks, re-release it. You would have to have played MW2 a crapload to notice the changes they made for MW3; my younger brother is one of those people, and the only thing he's noticed is that "the grenades and noob tube aren't as overpowered."

At least Halo has the decency to throw some big wrench into the multiplayer each time to sorta spice things up (dual-wielding in Halo 2, Forge in Halo 3, and armor abilities in Reach).

I still had a great time with Black Ops, same as I have with every COD game, so I'm not gonna hate on the people who love the games. They're just not my thing.

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.

In fact, most of the complains about Blops is that they actually had the balls to try to throw snipers off their quickscoping game a little bit, alongside with trying out a new leveling system with the contracts and wagering. It was all fairly good additions.

People just didn't like it because it fucked with the quickscoping.

Yet the online is full of Quickscopers now?
They need to fucking removie aim assist from Snipers already, it's the only thing that can get rid of quickscoping.

imahobbit4062:

dogstile:

People just didn't like it because it fucked with the quickscoping.

Yet the online is full of Quickscopers now?
They need to fucking removie aim assist from Snipers already, it's the only thing that can get rid of quickscoping.

They didn't want it to be impossible, they wanted it to be harder.

I think the part that confuses me most about the whole deal is the double standard. Sports game fans are okay with a new edition being little more than slightly adjusted names and play styles. The twitchy little bastards who populate FPS servers, however, will cry foul if you aren't including 100% new content in the yearly update.

Personally, I thought Black Ops multiplayer has a good bit to differentiate it from MW2 (Contracts, extra flexibility in weapons modification, make-yer-own playercard elements), even if the core concept of "shoot enough people to call in airstrikes" is still the same.

Monoochrom:
I don't think you know what a hypocrite is.

I gave you a simple explanation of what you were misinterpreting and you answered with gibberish, I don't have all day to explain shit to you in such a way that a 5 year old would pick up on it.

You can't help yourself but be jerk, can you?

I didn't misinterpret anything. I explained that's what you believe and I don't believe it, it's that simple. I believe you can be objective. The problem is you think what you are saying is fact when I call bullshit. So no matter what you say, telling me COD is greater because it's more popular is as factual as saying it's better because it has colourful box art.

THE FUCKING END

miketehmage:
BlackOps then was the last chance I gave the series. I hated the campaign. Flashbacks IMO are for talentless writers. The twist at the end sucked IMO.

While resisting the urge to proselytize the campaign, I could actually stand to hear a breakdown of what didn't work for you beyond just "it sucked", if you're up to it.

imahobbit4062:

Lugbzurg:
Honestly, I had more fun with the Main Menu than the actual game itself. The very second I started the game up, I knew this was going to be a hopelessly-unbalanced, dumbed-down, clunky, inexcusably-buggy, game. And it was. And, you've got to be a pretty poor designer to make fighting nazi zombies in a (haunted?) house incredibly boring. How so? It's consitered bad if you can actually see what you're shooting. And that dead-ops arcade was just horrible. I'll stick with Geometry Wars, thank you very much. You know, the tremendously-superior game that Dead Ops shamelessly ripped off?

Hazy992:
They don't? Which one's? I'm not saying you're wrong I just thought they were all from that period.

They don't seem to do research on what they're making. Others have noticed. For example, Modern Warfare 3 has some rather outdated guns (these guys are supposed to be on the cutting edge) and the World Trade Center is still there. It can't be "Modern" if it's over a decade out of date. Of course, what else can you expect from the guy that believes Spyro made his debut in Skylanders?

MW3 takes place in 2016. They could have simply added it there saying it was rebuilt.

It's actually that CoD takes place in an alternate history. For the most part a lot of the pieces are the same, but one of the big break points is that the September 11 attacks never occurred in the setting, apparently.

Angry Juju:

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.

But it's not a good formula, and why pay $60 every 6 months (more if you pay for DLC) to play Call of Duty when you can play any other generic war fps game for free?

More like every 10-11 months and because other generic FPS games don't stack up to how much enjoyment I get out of CoD. Tribes is no where near as much fun.

Before anyone starts biting my head off, I like the series and thats that. I wish it wasnt released as frequently, but I will go on and buy each one because they are worth it and the core of the game is the same which is it what gets me to continue to play.

JoesshittyOs:

Lugbzurg:
Honestly, I had more fun with the Main Menu than the actual game itself. The very second I started the game up, I knew this was going to be a hopelessly-unbalanced, dumbed-down, clunky, inexcusably-buggy, game. And it was. And, you've got to be a pretty poor designer to make fighting nazi zombies in a (haunted?) house incredibly boring. How so? It's consitered bad if you can actually see what you're shooting. And that dead-ops arcade was just horrible. I'll stick with Geometry Wars, thank you very much. You know, the tremendously-superior game that Dead Ops shamelessly ripped off?

Wha-What..?

Dead Ops ripped off Geometry Wars? It is now an empirical fact that you have not played one of those games if you legitimately think that is true. Geometry Wars?

The only thing remotely similar about the two games is that they're birds eye view, and you shoot things in the game, not to mention that it was only put in the game for shits and giggles.

How so? It's consitered bad if you can actually see what you're shooting

So... By your fucking flawless logic, seeing what you're shooting at is now a crime against gaming? So the mark of a good shooter is having purely invisible enemies?

God damn Genius.

Congrats. You did not get the point.

You're supposed to shoot through windows and can hardly see anything. If you can see them, they're likely inside the house, which is exactly what you don't want. So... Facepalm to you.

Lugbzurg:
Congrats. You did not get the point.

You're supposed to shoot through windows and can hardly see anything. If you can see them, they're likely inside the house, which is exactly what you don't want. So... Facepalm to you.

Also, I did play Dead Ops, and Black Ops in general. It was a downgraded version of Geometry Wars. Only real upside was that it had more complicated levels.

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.

eh this thread is so old im probably stepping into necro territory...

but why do people haze on the call of duty template but love the bioware and bethesda templates?

also why do people even consider it a bad thing to keep the same core gameplay throughout a series, if pokemon suddenly went fuck it were making a RTS game i imagine allot of escapist's would lose their shit over it but are happy to play and love the same turn based combat/gym/catch em all gameplay

double standards for the loose

xshadowscreamx:
i dont hate black ops..but i do hate the name to the sequel black ops 2..i hope its not really called that

What's wrong with numbering it? It's traditional and works. What you want them to call it Black Ops: Resurrection, Revelation? Because most subtitles are stupid like that.

Balimaar:

The single player campaign sucked. You had to play through it a second time to 'get it'. You shouldnt have to do that...

You had to watch Fight Club twice to 'get it', and yet that's one of the most-beloved movies featuring a huuuge plot twist ever made. While I will not touch the rest of your post (a lot of which I agree with), this is not the reason the campaign was bad. If it was bad, it was bad because of the cheesy, ridiculous action movie fare (some I enjoyed, some not so much), not because of that plot twist (which I saw coming the first time, anyway).

Lugbzurg:

Lugbzurg:
Congrats. You did not get the point.

You're supposed to shoot through windows and can hardly see anything. If you can see them, they're likely inside the house, which is exactly what you don't want. So... Facepalm to you.

Also, I did play Dead Ops, and Black Ops in general. It was a downgraded version of Geometry Wars. Only real upside was that it had more complicated levels.

And that is still flawed logic. Just because it shares the same viewpoint does not mean it's the same as another game.

Nomanslander:

xshadowscreamx:
i dont hate black ops..but i do hate the name to the sequel black ops 2..i hope its not really called that

What's wrong with numbering it? It's traditional and works. What you want them to call it Black Ops: Resurrection, Revelation? Because most subtitles are stupid like that.

how about not using the words black ops at all...i have got 2 warning notices for not writing big enough comments in the forums..i dont want write a whole paragraph all the time

The correct answer is because the people complaining are acting like spoiled little shits. They see something that other people enjoy and are pissed off because other people are not allowed to like something that they dont. Plus you know they are no longer the only people that publishers consider when deciding what games to make.

jaoblia:
Its the 3rd time they've released it, save for a new campaign its the same mechanics, levels, and modes. Also the sheer amount of gibbering insane 10 year olds online threatening to lay your mother thrice.

Well if that was the case then why is there not so much hate for the entire RTS genre? It does the exact same thing except the entire genre does it.

Didn't know there was hatred for Black Ops.

You know, besides the usual "WAAAH! GREY BROWN MILITARY SHOOTER WAAAH!" that gets posted by the same seven people a hundred times a day.

All this bullshit probably originating from the same generation that bought each "new" Pokemon game that came out over the years. How many have we hadnow?

People like what they're familiar with. CoD brings a fast-paced and easy-to-pick-up shooter to the masses, and that's why it's popular. So many people would like to blame CoD for the "fall of gaming" and "bringing down the industry", but I'd argue that if it wasn't for the popularity of these sequel-based franchises, console gaming wouldn't have brought in the interest from so many different devs that it has now.

I could call all Apple users complete sheep for buying Apple products yearly, right?
I could call all Android users cheapasses that can't afford Apple products, right?
I could call all PC gamers pirates, right?

Wrong. All of those are generalizations made by people who think those who do not agree with them are idiots, cheapskates, or criminals.

So for fuck's sake, world, please stop generalizing about the games we play and the people who play them.

Shadowstar38:
The norm response you'll get here is "Its the same game" But Im one of the people that thinks Black Ops is really good.

1) The single player story was a little interesting for once.

2) The multiplayer is the best it ever was before, and has been even after Mw3 came out.

3) The weapons actually feel different from each other and not a copy paste job with stat changes.

The hate from Black Ops comes from the hate of COD as a whole, not that this one game was actually bad.

I'll have to agree with you on this. I've been playing MW3 and just about a month ago when back to black-ops. I shouldn't have put it in because it's so much better then MW3.

They are the first CoD to do the "dolphin dive" and get rid of juggernaut (which was pretty much over powered). They also let you pick the guns that you wanted. You didn't have to level up to 35 to get a decent gun and claymores, as long as you had the money you can by it when you wanted it. Also the wager matches were just play fun, they didn't affect anything on your player card.
Also you got the ballistic knife and the crossbow which were really fun to try.

Each CoD had something different about then, yet it is the same first person shooter. It's there brand of a fps so it's going to have that feel of playing the same. Saying all the CoD are the same is like saying all the Halo's are the same with there blue/purple textures.

imahobbit4062:

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

The theatre mode in Black-Ops is 100 times better then in MW3.

EcksTeaSea:

Angry Juju:

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.

But it's not a good formula, and why pay $60 every 6 months (more if you pay for DLC) to play Call of Duty when you can play any other generic war fps game for free?

More like every 10-11 months and because other generic FPS games don't stack up to how much enjoyment I get out of CoD. Tribes is no where near as much fun.

Before anyone starts biting my head off, I like the series and thats that. I wish it wasnt released as frequently, but I will go on and buy each one because they are worth it and the core of the game is the same which is it what gets me to continue to play.

But what's the point? You're not gaining anything out of paying another $60 over than the illusion that you're getting something worth your money.

Starke:
snip

It's been a while since I've played it but I'll try to explain. Also I'm not claiming that I am entirely correct. The experience is subjective.

I hated the flashbacks, yes they were used to drive the plot between several different missions but any scene with mason strapped to the chair annoyed me, and the conversations between missions bored me, and it felt like they were interrupting the flow of the game.

This part might be invalid as, like I said, I haven't played for a while but, I can't actually remember any point to the plot twist other than it was a plot twist. Instead of having the man be a part of his imagination, why not just keep him alive? I don't see it as being hugely clever either, there wasn't really any opportunity for the player to see what was coming, other than arguably in the hole in Vietnam (I think?).

I also disliked the crossbow.

I can't put my finger on it but I just really didn't enjoy the campaign. And, in typical CoD fashion, the campaign lasted maybe 3 hours. So for your money you get a subpar campaign and the same multiplayer with a different skin. I don't consider that to be a fair deal. But many people do.

How I see everyone who bitches about CoD:

image

dagens24:

jaoblia:
Its the 3rd time they've released it, save for a new campaign its the same mechanics, levels, and modes. Also the sheer amount of gibbering insane 10 year olds online threatening to lay your mother thrice.

Is that a Clone High reference I just read?

Shared love of Clone High is Raisin'Us Higher my good man.

imahobbit4062:
Yet the online is full of Quickscopers now?
They need to fucking removie aim assist from Snipers already, it's the only thing that can get rid of quickscoping.

yes. yes it is. absolutely non stop filled with quickscopers who bitch whenever someone snipes them in the PROPER fashion - you know actually look IN the scope?

what they need to do is (yes aim assist should go) get rid of how the crosshairs get smaller as you start looking into the scope. you shouldnt have pin point accuracy until you are actually looking into your scope.

but for that to fully work CoD devs really need to make bigger maps. even if its the illusion of having a huge amount of space that maps like MW2s Afghan created.

miketehmage:

Starke:
snip

It's been a while since I've played it but I'll try to explain. Also I'm not claiming that I am entirely correct. The experience is subjective.

I hated the flashbacks, yes they were used to drive the plot between several different missions but any scene with mason strapped to the chair annoyed me, and the conversations between missions bored me, and it felt like they were interrupting the flow of the game.

This part might be invalid as, like I said, I haven't played for a while but, I can't actually remember any point to the plot twist other than it was a plot twist. Instead of having the man be a part of his imagination, why not just keep him alive? I don't see it as being hugely clever either, there wasn't really any opportunity for the player to see what was coming, other than arguably in the hole in Vietnam (I think?).

I also disliked the crossbow.

I can't put my finger on it but I just really didn't enjoy the campaign. And, in typical CoD fashion, the campaign lasted maybe 3 hours. So for your money you get a subpar campaign and the same multiplayer with a different skin. I don't consider that to be a fair deal. But many people do.

Yeah, okay, thanks.

I guess the problem I'm seeing on the plot twist was kinda layered in the timeframe it's set in. Its built around elements of Cold War paranoia that look pretty ridiculous today. Evidently the game didn't do a good job of conveying that... and as I recall didn't really try to convey that at all.

It could just be all that time I spent in college dissecting Cold War politics paid off here, but I'm not sure.

Differing tastes aside, I'm just trying to parse out what about the game puts us at opposite ends of the spectrum on the campaign.

Hazy992:

Skywolf09:

Hazy992:
They don't? Which one's? I'm not saying you're wrong I just thought they were all from that period.

-snip-

Yeah I just looked up a couple of the guns you mentioned and wow, they're really off the mark there. I could understand one or two years, but 10-20? WTH?

It's a shame too because there were a lot of other much cooler weapons from that period they could have used, like the Carl Gustav M/45 ("Swedish K"), Remington 7188 (an experimental selective-fire shotgun based on the Remington Model 1100 semiautomatic shotgun), the Winchester Model 70 (used by Carlos Hathcock... 'nuff said), the XM21 (prototype to the M21 Sniper Weapons System in Call of Duty 4), the Nagant M1895 (a silenced revolver used during the Vietnam War, no joke), the Stechkin APS (a machine pistol that predates the CZ 75 by over twenty years), et cetera.

imahobbit4062:

Lugbzurg:

Lugbzurg:
Congrats. You did not get the point.

You're supposed to shoot through windows and can hardly see anything. If you can see them, they're likely inside the house, which is exactly what you don't want. So... Facepalm to you.

Also, I did play Dead Ops, and Black Ops in general. It was a downgraded version of Geometry Wars. Only real upside was that it had more complicated levels.

And that is still flawed logic. Just because it shares the same viewpoint does not mean it's the same as another game.

"The same viewpoint"? They're practically the same game! You wander around an open map, running in all directions as enemies charge at you mindlessly, all simple-like. Kinda like Asteroids, except the things you're shooting have actual AI. The mechanics are all exactly the same.

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.

The paradox can be summarized as: people don't know what they want.
They will complain about some game being formulaic, but they will almost never risk something new because its an unknown, and the comfort zone is already established. Seriously, if forum opinions were any indication of sales, Call of Duty would be in the bargain bin instead of breaking sales records every single year.

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

Welcome to Internet, where everybody has a megaphone and the conviction that their opinion is the only one valid, and we are all better people for knowing it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked