Yea that's what really kills me. I don't understand how hypocritical people can be on such a large scale.
[Game] Call of Duty: Black Ops
- Thread starter DraKon2k
- Start date
/rant
I'm pretty sick of the spy/spec ops/espionage storylines. BC2's storyline was a heaping pile of fecal matter, steaming away on my hard drive. They hit every single freaking cliche they could along the way to the end, when the pathing and AI broke down, it exposed the trigger-based snore fest even more. "I need you group of ragtag, disobedient soldiers to undertake a dangerous mission for the safety of the world." Christ, like I haven't played that unlikely scenario at least 10 times over now.
What I want is a FPS with a storyline that actually takes place on the front lines. Where levels are actual battlefields and not corridors. Vietnam games are freaking TERRIBLE at this. Seriously, with as much tech as we have, just give us a large area full of tress and bushes, and let US figure out how we're going to deal with it. Make the storyline of each level the actual progress of the battle, and NOT your progress from point A to B. Make each level have an ending that relative to what you did. Maybe you blew up their ordinance stockpile and killed 50% of them. Maybe you gun them all down with air support. Maybe you fight inch by inch with the rest of the grunts. Or maybe you go in Rambo style, alone, from the flank.
/rant off
Anyways, Treyarch has confirmed zombies for Black Ops, IIRC, which means they've already sold probably 1 million units.
I'm pretty sick of the spy/spec ops/espionage storylines. BC2's storyline was a heaping pile of fecal matter, steaming away on my hard drive. They hit every single freaking cliche they could along the way to the end, when the pathing and AI broke down, it exposed the trigger-based snore fest even more. "I need you group of ragtag, disobedient soldiers to undertake a dangerous mission for the safety of the world." Christ, like I haven't played that unlikely scenario at least 10 times over now.
What I want is a FPS with a storyline that actually takes place on the front lines. Where levels are actual battlefields and not corridors. Vietnam games are freaking TERRIBLE at this. Seriously, with as much tech as we have, just give us a large area full of tress and bushes, and let US figure out how we're going to deal with it. Make the storyline of each level the actual progress of the battle, and NOT your progress from point A to B. Make each level have an ending that relative to what you did. Maybe you blew up their ordinance stockpile and killed 50% of them. Maybe you gun them all down with air support. Maybe you fight inch by inch with the rest of the grunts. Or maybe you go in Rambo style, alone, from the flank.
/rant off
Anyways, Treyarch has confirmed zombies for Black Ops, IIRC, which means they've already sold probably 1 million units.
Last edited:
Well I doubt it would be that easy to have such a giant, yet believable jungle. Vietcong 1 still had the best jungles ever imo and with it the best atmosphere as well. BF Vietnam didn't have any real jungles but still had a vietnam feeling to it.
This however so far doesn't remind me of the cold war at all from what I've seen. Why are they using Steyr AUGs, Spas12s, M4s(doesn't look at all like a Car-15 to me), etc. But it's not just that, everything else I've seen so far doesn't feel 60s-80s.
I have to agree that there is a lack of real 'war-shooters'. If you take earlier CoDs for example they might have been kinda repetetive sometimes due to the infinite enemy spawn, but they still felt like war games imo(and I for one never had a problem with the scripts & level design). Maybe MoH will be able to offer such an experience, but then again 1/2 of the game will be about some Tier1 specops unit as well.
I had to laugh at one comment over at GTTV saying 'They might just as well call it Call of Duty: Slightly less Modern Warfare'
This however so far doesn't remind me of the cold war at all from what I've seen. Why are they using Steyr AUGs, Spas12s, M4s(doesn't look at all like a Car-15 to me), etc. But it's not just that, everything else I've seen so far doesn't feel 60s-80s.
I have to agree that there is a lack of real 'war-shooters'. If you take earlier CoDs for example they might have been kinda repetetive sometimes due to the infinite enemy spawn, but they still felt like war games imo(and I for one never had a problem with the scripts & level design). Maybe MoH will be able to offer such an experience, but then again 1/2 of the game will be about some Tier1 specops unit as well.
I had to laugh at one comment over at GTTV saying 'They might just as well call it Call of Duty: Slightly less Modern Warfare'
Last edited:
Vietcong was actually the game I had in mind. (Although I've played Purple Haze and practically every Vietnam game short of BF: Vietnam.)
I expected Vietcong, being 2004 and all, to have gotten away from the corridor problem. It didn't. I played about 50% of the game and it was the same freaking thing every time. Jungle road surrounded by high cliffs. Vietcong tunnels that stretch on for mile after boring mile. Running along side the river. The obligatory base attack and fight in the trenches.
Vietcong wasn't any better than any of the others I've played, just slightly sharper graphics.
As for how easy it would be to have a giant, believable jungle.......Bethesda proved you can create a full realistic landscape, completely with flora, quite easily. It could probably even be procedurally generated. The problem is that devs still think that camouflaging the boundaries of game play is valid. It's not. MW2 ect.. have buildings and other settings so they can get away with boundaries like that. Vietnam? It's the ubiquitous rock wall/impenetrable wall of trees.
I mean, even Starwars Battlefront did a better job of an open battlefield than the vast majority of shooters out there. Actually, that's pretty much exactly what I want. A SW Battlefields structure with a modern warfare, WW2 setting. Basically a MP structure designed for a single player. I could play that stuff all day.
I expected Vietcong, being 2004 and all, to have gotten away from the corridor problem. It didn't. I played about 50% of the game and it was the same freaking thing every time. Jungle road surrounded by high cliffs. Vietcong tunnels that stretch on for mile after boring mile. Running along side the river. The obligatory base attack and fight in the trenches.
Vietcong wasn't any better than any of the others I've played, just slightly sharper graphics.
As for how easy it would be to have a giant, believable jungle.......Bethesda proved you can create a full realistic landscape, completely with flora, quite easily. It could probably even be procedurally generated. The problem is that devs still think that camouflaging the boundaries of game play is valid. It's not. MW2 ect.. have buildings and other settings so they can get away with boundaries like that. Vietnam? It's the ubiquitous rock wall/impenetrable wall of trees.
I mean, even Starwars Battlefront did a better job of an open battlefield than the vast majority of shooters out there. Actually, that's pretty much exactly what I want. A SW Battlefields structure with a modern warfare, WW2 setting. Basically a MP structure designed for a single player. I could play that stuff all day.
Did you play Joint Operations? They had pretty believable jungles and very big maps if I remember correctly.
These interviews are always an awkward experience for me. I kind of feel sorry for Major John Plaster. I doubt his training and experiences were anything like a Hollywood Jerry Bruckheimer / Michael Bay inspired popcorn shooter. And as for "talking to Soviet spetsnaz", gamers are probably going to end up killing hundreds of them with ease, so I feel sorry for them too.
I'm really curious what Black Ops MP will be like. Here's what I hope:
-No or less nubtubing
-No one man army, aka spamming
-No incredibly rediculous controllable kill streaks. (AC130, choppergunner or Nuke for that matter)
-No rediculous secondary weapons, make shotties primaries again etc.
-Dedicated servers
-No commando stabbing ppl from half way across the map
-Dedicated servers
-Dedicated servers
oh and ofcourse dedicated servers.
-No or less nubtubing
-No one man army, aka spamming
-No incredibly rediculous controllable kill streaks. (AC130, choppergunner or Nuke for that matter)
-No rediculous secondary weapons, make shotties primaries again etc.
-Dedicated servers
-No commando stabbing ppl from half way across the map
-Dedicated servers
-Dedicated servers
oh and ofcourse dedicated servers.
I think whether I'll buy this game or not will depend on a) if I can get it imported cheap enough -> not more than 36
Well I'd rather buy this than Medal of Honor. I really liked Treyarchs World at War so I don't have as much prejudice as I usually have against Activision games.
LMAO, Activisions new Publishing CEO says he wants to get some reputation back which was destroyed by the companies arrogance in some cases. Then his first statement is that 'Call of Duty is going to be the new Star Wars'. 
His name is Hirshberg btw, maybe he's an old jewish friend of Kotick from the weapons industry(where you'd imagine someone like Kotick)?
His name is Hirshberg btw, maybe he's an old jewish friend of Kotick from the weapons industry(where you'd imagine someone like Kotick)?
what is it again, that makes you point out game designers' jewish heritages from time to time?
i still don't get it. what are you going for?
i still don't get it. what are you going for?
