[Game] Call of Duty: Black Ops II

[LightsabeR]

Originally Posted by Murphy

Yeah, but CoD1 introduced iron sights to the main-stream, CoD2 lead to every modern shooter featuring health regeneration like Halo 2 and CoD4:MW1 is arguably THE most influential game of today's shooter market.

A couple of zany game-modes with zombies, purchasable weapons and controllable vehicles may be nice additions to the series (though hardly original...) but they're irrelevant for the genre. CoD4 IS the genre.

From Homefront over Medal of Honor to Far Cry 3, everyone is copying CoD4. And that's just outright clones. If we're also counting all the original franchises that let elements of IW's CoDs bleed into their newest entries we would have a list of pretty much every recent shooter.
Including Killing Floor and Red Orchestra 2.

Not that I think that's a good thing...

Very true.

Tho I gotta say, I think the reason for CoD4's success lies in the fact that it had mod support and dedicated servers. That combined with solid game mechanics resulted in a game that had both a good competitive scene and lots of interesting things for more casual players as well (mods, custom maps, etc). Both MW2 and 3 lack those features and as a result are in my mind rather horrible games.

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

I'm not acting out. I'm just stating my honest opinion and when it doesn't fit into the classy elitist mindset those people are acting out. All I do is be open-minded and give hints that some people may be taking stuff too serious.

No.

[Murphy]

I'd say the switch the a theater of war that was still fresh and had a "just like on the news" appeal helped immensely too.

[hanky]

Well Call of Duty wasn't very original in the first place, so copying a copy...well. Anyway, this game looks pretty damn awful. I havn't bought a COD since 2. I think once they FINALLY move to a new engine, or lets hope with all that money the would create there own engine...I'll probably buy that game then, just to give them a "hey finally you dipsh!ts updated your engine"

I may not be to big of a graphics whore, but I like progression in technology. And when I see a gaming studio make SOO much money off the same ol engine since 1999, it tells other companys "hey we don't need to come out with new technology" and it slows down new and cool things.

Games studio's need to push the envolope each time. Why I like BF3 so much, really getting tired of the gameplay. But I like the fact that they went out and created a new game engine. Same with Crysis. I like to see new stuff coming out. Also, not sure why people support COD because there leading the way with how sucessfull robbing your customers is. Which is horrible! DLC map pack right after releasing. If I wasn't eager to play the game, I'd boycott the hell out of it.

[Heisenberg]

Originally Posted by LightsabeR

Very true.

Tho I gotta say, I think the reason for CoD4's success lies in the fact that it had mod support and dedicated servers. That combined with solid game mechanics resulted in a game that had both a good competitive scene and lots of interesting things for more casual players as well (mods, custom maps, etc). Both MW2 and 3 lack those features and as a result are in my mind rather horrible games.

Lolno. Mod support? Almost nobody played cod4 mods. There was one proper mod(Star wars mod I think or galactic warfare) which was good but hardly anyone played. THe only other thing was that hardcore mod for the competetive scene. Dedicated servers were still a must-have at the time, so it has nothing to do with the games' success. MW2 was even more successful on PC even without them.

MW2 and MW3 are exactly the same except for some more perks/killstreak rewards.

[LightsabeR]

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

Lolno. Mod support? Almost nobody played cod4 mods. There was one proper mod(Star wars mod I think or galactic warfare) which was good but hardly anyone played. THe only other thing was that hardcore mod for the competetive scene.

The whole comp scene used Promod and there were plenty of public servers running Promod as well. I hardly even played the vanilla version, since it had imbalanced weapons and I've never been a fan of kill streak rewards or silly perks like Last Stand and Martyrdom.

Another popular mod was Extreme mod. Saw lots of servers running that. I played it very rarely, since some of my friends were playing it. A thing to note is that MW2 stole quite a few ideas from Extreme mod, but never gave them any credit. Just look at the feature list.

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

Dedicated servers were still a must-have at the time, so it has nothing to do with the games' success.

So they're not a must-have now? Just because MW2 and 3 don't have them, doesn't mean they're not needed. Both of these games absolutely suck due to their peer 2 peer nature.

And how does it not have anything to do with the games' success? If CoD4 would not have had dedicated servers on the PC, it would have been a lot less successful. Are you seriously going to argue that?

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

MW2 was even more successful on PC even without them.

Does not mean it was a good game or prove that not having dedicated servers is a good idea. It sold well because of the brand name and the huge hype machine that is Activision.

I've not heard a single FPS gamer that knows what they're talking about say that MW2 was a good game.

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

MW2 and MW3 are exactly the same except for some more perks/killstreak rewards.

This I more or less agree with. I think they added some game modes and weapons as well tho, but that's really meaningless if the core of your game (not having dedicated servers as a default) is horrible.

[Heisenberg]

Originally Posted by LightsabeR

So they're not a must-have now? Just because MW2 and 3 don't have them, doesn't mean they're not needed. Both of these games absolutely suck due to their peer 2 peer nature.

And how does it not have anything to do with the games' success? If CoD4 would not have had dedicated servers on the PC, it would have been a lot less successful. Are you seriously going to argue that?

My point was that at the time, pretty much every mp game had dedicated servers, it was taken for granted so saying it would've sucked if it hadn't had ded servers is like saying it would've sucked if there hadn't been any guns.

And sure nowadays it's a must-have feature, but not in the eyes of various devs anymore.

Does not mean it was a good game or prove that not having dedicated servers is a good idea. It sold well because of the brand name and the huge hype machine that is Activision.

I've not heard a single FPS gamer that knows what they're talking about say that MW2 was a good game.

Sorry but didn't you just say that MW1 had solid game mechanics? Then how does MW2, despite stuff like nade launcher spam etc, suddenly suck horribly(besides the absence of ded. servers)? Statistics prove you wrong as the game still has thousands of players. (Which doesn't mean that it's a good game, but proves that appearantly not all gamers care about ded. servers / still loved the game).

[LightsabeR]

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

Sorry but didn't you just say that MW1 had solid game mechanics? Then how does MW2, despite stuff like nade launcher spam etc, suddenly suck horribly(besides the absence of ded. servers)?

The absence of dedicated servers and mod support is precisely the reason that it does suck.

I did buy MW2 for cheap. Played for about 30 hours I think. I remember I was playing and there were a couple of player on the opposing team who were actually doing fairly well against me and presented a challenge. Then the host dropped and I was made host. Suddenly I was completely dominating those very same players. The 0 ping advantage the host has is just ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

Statistics prove you wrong as the game still has thousands of players. (Which doesn't mean that it's a good game, but proves that appearantly not all gamers care about ded. servers / still loved the game).

But imagine if MW2 had had dedicated servers and mod support. Imagine the amount of variety and longevity it would have added to the game. I'm sure the amount of people playing the game now would be much higher.

Thing is, Activision doesn't want their games to have longevity. They only need to last for a year until a new CoD game comes out. Their goal is for people to get bored of the games within a year. I find this to be absolutely appalling.

[Heisenberg]

Well they do want it to live for exactly one year, that's why they release the mappacks until the next CoD is out, so yeah you're right

[smokeythebear]

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

I'm not acting out. I'm just stating my honest opinion and when it doesn't fit into the classy elitist mindset those people are acting out. All I do is be open-minded and give hints that some people may be taking stuff too serious.

But you are pretty much being meta elitist in all your comments.

[Luckz]

Originally Posted by LightsabeR

But imagine if MW2 had had dedicated servers and mod support. Imagine the amount of variety and longevity it would have added to the game. I'm sure the amount of people playing the game now would be much higher.

I guess the thing where people are (and have been) playing MW2 on dedicated servers didn't register on your radar.

[LightsabeR]

Originally Posted by Luckz

I guess the thing where people are (and have been) playing MW2 on dedicated servers didn't register on your radar.

Yeah, after people hacked the game.

How is that an argument in favor of the game or the developer? Forcing people to hack your game just so that they can play the way PC FPS games are supposed to be played is absolutely retarded.

And it has no decent PC comp scene, which is more or less how I measure the quality of an FPS game.

[Bluedonut1]

I just saw the info that Game Trailers, and other sources has put out. I'm liking what I'm hearing. Double everything in Zombies, a dynamic campaign, sandbox-styled RTS (or not) missions, more than one female character, and an origin story for the villain. The only thing I'm concerned about (in the campaign) is how the AI will react in the Strike Force missions and how much change the story will have when you succeed or fail the Strike Force missions.

[Razvanss]

What a pile of sh*t!

[luciferintears]

cool but im not buying.

ill rent it for my bro's xbox. the gameplay that CoD offers is not my thing, but i can understand why ppl would like it

[tixhal]

Originally Posted by Razvanss

What a pile of sh*t!

lol, indeed.
i was dumb enough to be lured into buying mw2, since then i swore i'll never buy another cod-title.
i still have good memories of cod1, uo, mw and waw though... fun times with lots of raging, especially with the later titles.
the whole futuristic warfare crap doesn't interest me in the slightest as it mostly leads to imbalanced gimmicks that hurt gameplay.

[The Masta]

But they mocapped a horse, how can it be bad?

[[Mad_Murdock]]

Originally Posted by The Masta

But they mocapped a horse, how can it be bad?

They mocapped a horse? Well that truly is original and not something that should have been done a decade ago.

Just trolling there, but seriously that's pretty cool.

[Pectus]

Just when I thought I was done purchasing CoD games.. they come up with this. Might even buy this one.

[Flogger23m]

Originally Posted by The Masta

But they mocapped a horse, how can it be bad?

Maybe they should make CoD: Horse Warfare.

[GeneralGinger]

Originally Posted by Flogger23m

Maybe they should make CoD: Horse Warfare.

I would play this.