PDA

View Full Version : Bogus Guns In Call of Duty Black Ops


tacticalcity
12-29-2010, 1:04 PM
I was expecting to see a lot more ranting and raving about the fact that they included lots of guns that did not exist in the timeline in which the game takes place. The game would have been so much better if the designers did their research and included real vietnam era guns and variants of those guns instead of including weapons invented many, many years later.

jackandblood
12-29-2010, 2:58 PM
Reuse existing assets I guess. I mean flamethrower effects implemented in in COD WAW. low and behold, flamethrower as rifle attachment. Everyone stopped taking the franchise seriously after knife throwing and dual wielding. We all know its hollywood

stormy_clothing
12-29-2010, 3:05 PM
fictional elements to a fictional story - (insert ironic remarks here)

Scratch705
12-29-2010, 3:32 PM
cause it is a video game. sure we can complain but in the end, there is only a small group of people that for one, even notices these inaccuracies, and two, cares enough.

tacticalcity
12-29-2010, 3:32 PM
Translation, lazy mo-fos too busy chasing a dollar to do their jobs right.

UltraLNW
12-30-2010, 12:02 PM
I would much rather experience a game that puts me in a combat world of fiction and fun, than a game that puts me in a combat world of real danger, exhaustion, boredom, fatigue and frustration.

pyromensch
12-30-2010, 12:06 PM
fictional elements to a fictional story - (insert ironic remarks here)

it was fictional?! aww heck, i thought that kennedy, castro, nixon and mcnamara, all fought zombies together. oh well back to the real life game....Pac-man

Rhythm of Life
12-30-2010, 12:08 PM
If you want history read the encyclopedia, if you want entertainment play a game.

tacticalcity
12-30-2010, 1:07 PM
Translate that to movies. Would you rather watch war movies like GI JOE or BLACKHAWK DOWN? Which is a better movie and why? Research and attention to detail can and do make or break a film or game.

You guys are so completely full of it your eyes are brown. What is worse you know you're full of it. You would never have purchased this game on its own merit. Because it doesn't have any. You did so because of the games that came before it and the games that came before paid at least some attention to detail.

It is a complete and utter cop-out to say "it is just a game" or "it is just a movie". That attitude will result and has resulted in crappy games nobody wants to play and movies nobody wants to see. The only way we get good games and movies is by complaining when they cheat on the research and skimp on the realism. This is a billion dollar business, and if they want to keep making top selling games that set selling records every single time, they are going to have to do more to live upto the Call of Duty name next time around. This one may be a huge seller now, but I would bet good money if they repeat this kind of laziness on the next one it won't be as successful, because a lot of gamers are beyond disapointed in this game. They bought it because the pervious games were so great. Not because of anything this game had to offer on its own. That is going to kill the next games sales unless that game is a marked improvement.

wksun88
12-30-2010, 2:13 PM
Translate that to movies. Would you rather watch war movies like GI JOE or BLACKHAWK DOWN? Which is a better movie and why? Research and attention to detail can and do make or break a film or game.

You guys are so completely full of it your eyes are brown. What is worse you know you're full of it. You would never have purchased this game on its own merit. Because it doesn't have any. You did so because of the games that came before it and the games that came before paid at least some attention to detail.

It is a complete and utter cop-out to say "it is just a game" or "it is just a movie". That attitude will result and has resulted in crappy games nobody wants to play and movies nobody wants to see. The only way we get good games and movies is by complaining when they cheat on the research and skimp on the realism. This is a billion dollar business, and if they want to keep making top selling games that set selling records every single time, they are going to have to do more to live upto the Call of Duty name next time around. This one may be a huge seller now, but I would bet good money if they repeat this kind of laziness on the next one it won't be as successful, because a lot of gamers are beyond disapointed in this game. They bought it because the pervious games were so great. Not because of anything this game had to offer on its own. That is going to kill the next games sales unless that game is a marked improvement.
^ agreed, they need to do more testing before they release games as well. Can't believe I paid 60 bucks for this ****

Nose Nuggets
12-30-2010, 2:39 PM
Translation, lazy mo-fos too busy chasing a dollar to do their jobs right.

Thats actually not the case usually. A friend of mine works for Activision. They have real ex SF guys helping with the games. They don't do things like dual wielding because they think real people do that in real life, they do it because its cool and its going to sell more copies. If you want an infantry combat simulator, go buy one. Bohimia has been doing really good work with the ArmA series for years now. You have to understand that a HUGE percent of people who play games like Halo and CoD want fun and cool not realistic.

tacticalcity
12-30-2010, 2:44 PM
Do a search online my friend. You will discover you are incorrect. A lot of people are annoyed with the lack of attention to detail and reuse of existing assests to save time and money at the expense of realism. Even on their own forum, there are a ton of people complaining about it. The "it is just a game" defense does not cut it when you are spending $60 of your hard earned cash. They have set certain expectations, realisitic guns for the era the game is set in is one of those expectations.

tacticalcity
12-30-2010, 2:52 PM
There is no question the game play is fun and the story line is interesting. The one major problem with the game, and thing you see the most amount of complaints about online (other than the use of STEAM) is that they recycled existing assets from other games instead of using real weapons from that era.

I am not exactly asking for money back, but I am not going to buy the next release in the series at full price either, for this level of attention to detail on their part I can afford to wait until the game hits the bargin bin. That buy the way, is a growing sentiment being echoed again and again online. They lost a huge segment of their fan base who before would have paid any dollar amount for their games, and now will wait however long it takes for it to go on sale. The "I've gotta have this right now" edge that they had before this game is gone.

The real guns from that era would have been a lot of fun. Slick side XM117s (what the USAF calls GAU-5s) for one would have made an excellent primary weapon for the main character. Actual scopes from that area instead of "ACOGS" would have been great. Vietnam Era M40 and M40A1 sniper rifles with the correct optics would have been great. Stuff history buffs and gun nuts would have raved about. Instead, they instantly alienated about 1/3 of the audience they have locked into instantly buying a copy of their next release. Some of those guys will still buy the next version no matter what. But a lot won't...and that translates into huge numbers. Worse, you are starting to hear non-gun guys echo this complaint, and before they heard us complain they would never have even noticed. They may not know realism if it hit them in the head, but they still want it in their games.

Reputation is everything. Part of Call of Duty's superior reputation had to do with the fact that you were using the real weapons of the era, or at least as close as any video game ever got, and you were using a boat load of them. Now that no longer applies. Which in the long run will hurt sales.

gadjeep
12-30-2010, 2:53 PM
Just another reason i didn't buy this one or WAW. This developer stinks.

Colt-45
12-30-2010, 2:57 PM
OP,

did the Stoners reflex really exist?

Nose Nuggets
12-30-2010, 2:59 PM
Do a search online my friend. You will discover you are incorrect. A lot of people are annoyed with the lack of attention to detail and reuse of existing assests to save time and money at the expense of realism.

Just to be clear, you are saying that "a lot" of people posting trumps the 8.4 million units sold in November alone? You have to remember, 99% of the people who like the game the way it is dont take the time to post about how awesome it is on internet forums, they just go and play the game. You will always have more posts from disappointed people then positive posts from people who like it because the people who like it dont need to vent. they just play the game.

now, im not arguing that the game is fine, or even good, its a POS. its the first COD game i didnt actually beat in SP and i have maybe 5 hours in MP before i uninstalled it. but providing forum posts as anecdotal evidence that the best selling CoD game in CoD history is unliked by a reasonable % let alone a majority lacks credibility.

tacticalcity
12-30-2010, 3:16 PM
Another false argument, which was already covered above.

The sales are not based on the merit of this game, but on the games that came before. They are buying based on the Call of Duty name, and thus far this is the worst one in the series by far. Once people actually play the game...they find it is a let down. Your own comments back this up 100%.

You won't see the impact of that for a while. As word spreads sales will taper off much quicker with this game than with previous versions, and it will likely impact the sales of the next game big time. People won't rush to the store to buy the next one without first finding out if it actually lives upto the Call of Duty name next time around. This time, we all got ahead of ourselves.

Sales are probably so high as a result of the bad economy. Sounds off right? Spend $60 on video game in hard times? The expectation is that they would get countless hours of entertainment playing that game. That is time and money they do not need to spend on other forms of entertainment, during which they would have spent much more than that $60. Previous COD games delivered that, and it was largely based on all the really cool guns they let you use. By reusuing their existing assests, they ruin the experience. It is too much like previous games. Realistic weapon choices would have allowed you to suspend disbelief a little easier and buy into the gaming experience a little more. Even non-gun nuts are noticing that...even if they can't put their finger on the exact cause.

Ergo the Qualmed
12-30-2010, 4:03 PM
I'm willing to overlook all of that, because it has a G11 :D

MontClaire
12-30-2010, 4:13 PM
Or the assumption that you can't hit a choper propellers with a rocket granade. Tha's just crap man. You supposed to take it down if you damage it's propellers. I call it's BS. Plus I can unload the whole mag in to an opponent and he will bunny hop his way out of getting shot. that's just crap has written all over it.

Scratch705
12-30-2010, 4:26 PM
the problem is people thought that treyarch would develop something better than infinity ward's MW 1-2.

treyarch is the stepchild of the CoD world. and not a good stepchild at that. you want a better CoD with attention to detail, wait for Infinity Ward. although with half the top brass of IW being fired by activision and going to work for EA, maybe the next best shooter will come from EA and their new developer, Respawn Entertainment

tacticalcity
12-30-2010, 4:32 PM
Take a look at some of the pictures this guy has from Vietnam. Imagine if the game immersed you in the reality of that war the way these still photographs do. If it made you feel the dry sticky heat and dirt in every crevasse of your body the way they do. If you felt the fear, and the pain, anxiety, adrenaline and yes sometimes even boredom the way these simple photographs do. Then they would have succeeded in making something worthy of the franchise. The first two COD games did an excellent job at all of the above given the limitations of the technology. The next two games glossed over the boredom and negative aspects of war a bit more since it mimicked on going conflicts and made up for it by trying to show the latest and greatest weapons of our era. Given how far we have come on the technology end, there is no excuse for such a poorly crafted game set in the past. The feel is all wrong, the firearms are only one aspect of that...but a major one.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?34454-Vietnam-(Lot-of-pics)&

pyromensch
12-30-2010, 8:18 PM
see! now look what you have started.....ranting and raving!

Dhena81
12-30-2010, 8:22 PM
My biggest gripe with all of the shooter games is I absolutely hate Halo jumpers, last stand, and in previous ones Martydom. Other than that I really hate how off the knockdown power is for example a 9mm sub gun more powerful than a 5.56 I don't think so. Body shot placement should matter more and just because someone has a dedicated sniper rifle in the game doesn't mean that there same .308 firearm is more powerful than my .308 battle rifle.

I want to see guys with a bolt gun lose momentary target acquisition when cycling a round after firing I'd like to see some bullet drop and rise too that would be great. If I'm peppering someone in the torso and face they shouldn't be able to look down a scope and shoot me in the foot and I go down. Same goes for the knife I'm sorry I'd rather get stabbed any day of the week than get shot in the chest with a rifle.

There needs to be a delay of the knife coming out of the sheath if I get slashed in the chest you'll just be breaking my skin and making me bleed my organs will be fine. Last but not least they should have a Magpul dynamics video watch perk which would let you add all the attachments you want make you speed reload quicker engage multiple target faster because of your grip and give you a kevlar beard attachment. I'm not talking **** about MPD BTW I like their videos I just think that would be funny and I think Tacticalcity would like that perk since your such a fan lol.

Oh and if you get caught hacking once your console or activation key should be deactivated and your character should be stripped of all accomplishments you should go back to level 1 and you should be fined I hate cheaters they suck at life.

:rant:

ke6guj
12-30-2010, 8:32 PM
My biggest gripe with all of the shooter games is I absolutely hate Halo jumpers, last stand, and in previous ones Martydom. Other than that I really hate how off the knockdown power is for example a 9mm sub gun more powerful than a 5.56 I don't think so. Body shot placement should matter more and just because someone has a dedicated sniper rifle in the game doesn't mean that there same .308 firearm is more powerful than my .308 battle rifle.

I agree. the "power" of all 5.56 rifles should be about the same, maybe a small adjustment for barrel length. Same for 7.62, etc. I am tired of seeing one rifle/mg in a caliber having a significantly different amount of power as another firearm in the same caliber, and having "lessor" guns having more knockdown power than the larger guns. adjust the manuverabily if you want. make it so that I can't snipe across the map with an UZI, but keep the power wherei t belongs

Joe
12-30-2010, 8:33 PM
Black ops is definitely a step backwards. I would much rather play mw2. The problem is ALL of my friends and 3 of my brothers have black ops. So I am forced to play an inferior game. I don't mind because I still completely destroy every game I am put in.

Uriah02
12-30-2010, 8:53 PM
Black ops is definitely a step backwards. I would much rather play mw2. The problem is ALL of my friends and 3 of my brothers have black ops. So I am forced to play an inferior game. I don't mind because I still completely destroy every game I am put in.

The only problem with that statement is Black Ops set a new record in breaking the 1 Billion dollar mark.
The developer's explanation for having weapons featured in the game prior to their actual release date was the SOF community regularly gets a hold of expiramental weapons before they are manufactured on a large scale.

tacticalcity
12-30-2010, 9:30 PM
It set that bench mark based on the reputation of the franchise and not based on this particular game. Think about it. Did you do a lot of research and read lots of reviews before buying it? Or did you trust the experience you had with the previous games? We all did the same thing. Some of us are just smart enough to smell the BS when we see it.

As for their excuse....gamer please! Some of the weapons in the game were not invented until the current Iraq war. Others were not on the drawing boards until the 70s, others the 80s, and so on. The develepment of each weapon, even its experimental counter parts is well documented.

They got lazy and used pre-existing assets they already owned from previous games and tweaked them here and there.

As for the story line in single player, I admit enjoyed it. I just now got around to beating single player tonight. Still, if I knew what I know now...that they did a half as job on the guns and the game was a complete fail on an authenticity and "feel" level I would have waited to buy it used on Ebay.

Gryff
12-30-2010, 10:31 PM
Translation, lazy mo-fos too busy chasing a dollar to do their jobs right.

Little harsh, don't you think? They do a good job creating a fun, technically well-developed game. It's unfortunate about the anachronisms (my 12-year-old son asked me when the AK-74 and SPAS-12 were introduced after he played the game), but it is still a piece of software that a lot of hard work went into.

Joe
12-31-2010, 2:17 AM
The only problem with that statement is Black Ops set a new record in breaking the 1 Billion dollar mark.
The developer's explanation for having weapons featured in the game prior to their actual release date was the SOF community regularly gets a hold of expiramental weapons before they are manufactured on a large scale.

Because sold more copies means a better game? no..

mark2203
12-31-2010, 6:27 AM
The weapon combinations in Black Ops seemed a bit odd. It didn't make sense putting a modern optic like an ACOG on your grandfather's Enfield, which is why I sold Black Ops to a coworker and reverted back to playing MW2 on-line. Infinity Ward's MW1 and 2 are way more cool.

adrenaline
12-31-2010, 6:38 AM
I like the fact that an attachment that takes you from a long barrel revolver to a short (snub nose) barrel improves accuracy. :rolleyes:

lewdogg21
12-31-2010, 8:28 AM
I'm with nose nuggets. When I play a video game it's to have fun and blow off some steam/stress with friends. If I really cared about the ultra authenticity I would play ARMA and spend 3 hours roaming around a map to shoot 3 people.

I finally got the game 2 days ago and enjoy it so far. I really liked COD4 and our server group ran that game for over a year.

tacticalcity
12-31-2010, 2:06 PM
Little harsh, don't you think? They do a good job creating a fun, technically well-developed game. It's unfortunate about the anachronisms (my 12-year-old son asked me when the AK-74 and SPAS-12 were introduced after he played the game), but it is still a piece of software that a lot of hard work went into.

No question it is fun, but it would have been a lot more fun if they had not cheated and reused assets they already had. That is the only excuse I can come up with that would explain it. I figure some executive was anxious to meet a holiday deadline (which is where the money part of my statement comes in) and the only way the designers could do that from a technical level was to tweak a bunch of existing weapon models and assets they already owned (which is where the lazy part comes in).

There were so many really cool and exciting weapons and variants of those weapons back then. The optics and accessories where also pretty darn cool. One visit to AR15.coms Retro Picture Gallery will prove that to any skeptic. So the "fun" argument doesn't hold up. It would have been much more fun if this COD at least made an effort to get the details right. The games that came before did a great job of that. Not perfect, but admirable. They didn't even try in this one. There were no flat top ARs with flip-up sights.

The game should have focused on the followed for allied forces: M1911, XM117, M14, M24, M40, M40A1, M60, M79, M72 LAW (the one in the game functions like a modern TOW missle which is way off), M1-A1 Claymore, M870 Shotguns and a bunch of WWII era weapons that SOG teams still used such as greese guns. There was some use of optics here and there, but they were not ACOGs. I am not aware of any red dots back then either.

Keystone
12-31-2010, 3:15 PM
If you bought cod as a war action simulator (which you wish it was based upon your criticisms), then you bought the wrong game as it was never intended to be one. writing pages of rants about its inaccuracy makes you look only marginally less foolish than a professor of ancient Greek history doing the same thing about god of war.

MikeinnLA
12-31-2010, 4:29 PM
My kid is a competitive gamer and he agrees that the game blows. He got # 1 on the leaderboards for, I think, four of the categories. But, they've screwed up Halo Reach so badly, whatcha gonna do? Me, I just like to spend some evening time shooting people for fun. I do pretty well in the Multiplayer until my kid comes home on break. He's scary.:eek:

Mike

tacticalcity
12-31-2010, 8:34 PM
If you bought cod as a war action simulator (which you wish it was based upon your criticisms), then you bought the wrong game as it was never intended to be one. writing pages of rants about its inaccuracy makes you look only marginally less foolish than a professor of ancient Greek history doing the same thing about god of war.

Once more for the learning impared, I expected it to live upto the franchise name and it didn't.

evidens83
12-31-2010, 8:40 PM
Videogames may not be for you..

tacticalcity
12-31-2010, 8:51 PM
How could you possibly get that from any of my statements? If I were not a HUGE video game fan, and a huge fan of the COD franchise, I would not care at all that they did such a piss poor job making this one.

Wanting a $60 video game to live upto the standards and expectations set by the previous games in the series is perfectly reasonable.

tacticalcity
12-31-2010, 8:53 PM
Next you guys are going to say GI Joe was a cinematic masterpiece on the same level Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and Apocolypse Now!

grammaton76
12-31-2010, 9:08 PM
For general recreation, I prefer sci-fi games like Borderlands or Resistance... no real need to be upset at the guns there. :)

tacticalcity
12-31-2010, 9:23 PM
For general recreation, I prefer sci-fi games like Borderlands or Resistance... no real need to be upset at the guns there. :)

Have yet to play either, last time I opted for a science fiction game was one of the MechWarrior games. The Resident Evil series was fun as well.

Keystone
01-01-2011, 9:30 AM
Once more for the learning impared, I expected it to live upto the franchise name and it didn't.

Lol u mad.

chiseenchinaman
01-02-2011, 12:58 AM
wow... really? ::shakes head::

its a video game. not history channel.

novabrian
01-02-2011, 1:17 AM
What I don't understand is why the UMP45 is more powerful than the Vector (TDI super V) they are both 45 acp. referring to Modern Warfare 2.

Gryff
01-02-2011, 1:19 AM
wow... really? ::shakes head::

its a video game. not history channel.

It's $60 for the game...the History Channel is cheaper.

dw33b
01-02-2011, 11:52 AM
I too wish for a video game that will gave me sitting in the corner bleeding to death for four hours if I get shot in the stomach.

I'm sick and tired of being about to get shot and keep going like nothing happened. I WANT IT TO BE LIKE REAL LIFE AND I AM FURIOUS!

Scratch705
01-02-2011, 12:28 PM
What I don't understand is why the UMP45 is more powerful than the Vector (TDI super V) they are both 45 acp. referring to Modern Warfare 2.

i guess they decided it upon barrel size? who knows... :confused:

Bhobbs
01-02-2011, 1:05 PM
My and my brother both own copies of CoD2, MW1, W@W, MW2 and now Black Ops. I will not buy the next CoD unless I rent it and it is worth it. The last two have been really disappointing. My brother who loves CoD says the same thing. I will wait for Homefront and Battlefield 3.

Uriah02
01-02-2011, 1:38 PM
For general recreation, I prefer sci-fi games like Borderlands or Resistance... no real need to be upset at the guns there. :)

Borderlands FTW! I've never played such a awesome game both in gameplay, storyline and amazing humor.

hollowpoint67
01-02-2011, 2:24 PM
I like the fact that an attachment that takes you from a long barrel revolver to a short (snub nose) barrel improves accuracy. :rolleyes:

IN ADDITION TO THIS^

the backwards mounted Troy rear sight, the fact that the rear site exists in the game. Colt 4x20 scopes being referred to as Aimpoints, the fact you get an m16 with m203 in 1961. i had more gripes but i cant think of them now.

The story is captivating but I prefer Infinityward products. RIP they wont be releasing a new game.

Bizcuits
01-06-2011, 6:41 PM
I'm more bothered by the lack of creativity in the industry... I'm tired of run and gun FPS shooters. I was holding Alien Vs Predator and Medal of Honor in my hands at GameStop today. I wanted AVP, because I love the franchise, but I figured "maybe" Medal of Honor would be something different then COD..... I was wrong and wasted $40.

grammaton76
01-06-2011, 6:44 PM
I'm more bothered by the lack of creativity in the industry... I'm tired of run and gun FPS shooters. I was holding Alien Vs Predator and Medal of Honor in my hands at GameStop today. I wanted AVP, because I love the franchise, but I figured "maybe" Medal of Honor would be something different then COD..... I was wrong and wasted $40.

AvP is ok if it's cheap.

Aliens move almost too fast to hit, so the way you nail them is to run up and melee them to stun them, then shoot them.

Really? I kind of preferred the older AvP games where a human trying to melee an alien more or less meant you were about to be eviscerated.

Bizcuits
01-06-2011, 6:46 PM
AvP is ok if it's cheap.

Aliens move almost too fast to hit, so the way you nail them is to run up and melee them to stun them, then shoot them.

Really? I kind of preferred the older AvP games where a human trying to melee an alien more or less meant you were about to be eviscerated.

I've heard a lot of bad reviews about AvP, but one of the huge factors holding me back was that a few people said the online play on the Xbox360 for it was void of players. Any truth to that rumor?

grammaton76
01-06-2011, 7:10 PM
I've heard a lot of bad reviews about AvP, but one of the huge factors holding me back was that a few people said the online play on the Xbox360 for it was void of players. Any truth to that rumor?

Afraid I can't comment on it - not only am I a PS3 guy, but I tend not to play online. I'm more into the story/campaign modes. If I play with others, generally it's because they're with me in the same room on a co-op game. Borderlands for instance, or Dynasty Warriors (pick one; played a bunch) or Resistance.

The Undertaker
01-06-2011, 7:55 PM
After I saw some pre-release screenshots and read some reviews after the release, I didn't buy Black Ops.

Was it fun to play? The single player definitely was. I liked the storyline, and assassinating the VIP in the Cuban mission was a blast. But the weapons (I don't mind the fact that virtually none of them SHOULD be in the game, but I am bothered by the lack of attention paid to modeling) left too much to be desired. I like Rainbow Six Vegas (both of them) better because I get an epic story that makes me feel like being in a movie, accurately modeled weapons (they even have functional selector switches), and a fairly robust multiplayer.

The main problem with weapons in video games is that the developers these days must cater to a larger market. If they had indeed done their research and modeled the weapons accurately in terms of damage dealt, it would upset the multiplayer balance and before you know it, you'll have a whole bunch of idiotic 12- and 15-year-olds spamming the developer's website's forums crying about "the lack of balanced weapons" or what not.

There has to be a balance between fun and realism in entertainment. That's why I preferred Halo: Reach vastly over Black Ops. At least the weapons in Reach look and feel realistic, or what would be realistic 500 years into the future. Plus the alien weapons felt very well designed and therefore very convincing. The Halo team did their research well, going as far as shooting real weapons to get an idea of what firing one feels like. They never rushed their development cycle (three years) and still came out with a solid, very playable title that also sold extremely well.

Seriously, the only game I'm looking forward to is Homefront, based on the premise of a 2027 invasion of the US by a unified and expanded Korea under the northern government. It's realistic enough to be believable, but not enough to detract from the fun. The weapons in the game looks well modeled, as least in looks. Sure, their M16A4 is single-fire only and their SCAR-L does three round bursts only, but they have a little more room for interpretation since it is in the near future. Looks great, and it looks like it will play great too.

tacticalcity
01-06-2011, 8:49 PM
IN ADDITION TO THIS^

the backwards mounted Troy rear sight, the fact that the rear site exists in the game. Colt 4x20 scopes being referred to as Aimpoints, the fact you get an m16 with m203 in 1961. i had more gripes but i cant think of them now.

The story is captivating but I prefer Infinityward products. RIP they wont be releasing a new game.

Yep, this is the stuff that annoyed me. The game play was fine, as was the story. But then they completely blew it with the weapons and accessories.

hollowpoint67
01-06-2011, 9:06 PM
I just remembered another big one. in COD you clearly see yourself inserting 20 round magazines in the M16 and Commando...but magically you get 30 rounds...

ajaffe
01-06-2011, 10:12 PM
Get Operation Flashpoint series games if you want realism. Get shot in the leg? You can't run. Get shot in the stomach? You can't do anything until you bandage yourself up. Pretty good in terms of realism.

Dreaded Claymore
01-06-2011, 10:43 PM
In Battlefield: Bad Company 2, you and your squad (in the single-player campaign) are running around with XM8s. Furthermore, you've completely missed the point of the XM8 (integrated accessories for a lighter-weight weapon) and have mounted ACOGs on them. Guns chambered for the same cartridge (like the XM8, F2000, and SCAR-L) somehow have WILDLY different ballistics. Derp a derp.

Get Operation Flashpoint series games if you want realism. Get shot in the leg? You can't run. Get shot in the stomach? You can't do anything until you bandage yourself up. Pretty good in terms of realism.

This is good to hear, thanks for the tip *buys game*

ElDiabloRobotico
01-07-2011, 12:06 AM
I too wish for a video game that will gave me sitting in the corner bleeding to death for four hours if I get shot in the stomach.

I'm sick and tired of being about to get shot and keep going like nothing happened. I WANT IT TO BE LIKE REAL LIFE AND I AM FURIOUS!

lol. yeah, how come when i die, i re-spawn? in order to be truly realistic, you would only get one life in multiplayer. get killed? you never get to play the game again. ever. ;)

noob_tube
01-07-2011, 1:15 AM
Interesting thread. This is why I stick to Left 4 Dead 2 when I need to get my shoot 'em up jollies :D

grammaton76
01-07-2011, 2:15 AM
Get Operation Flashpoint series games if you want realism. Get shot in the leg? You can't run. Get shot in the stomach? You can't do anything until you bandage yourself up. Pretty good in terms of realism.

Forgot to mention the awesomeness of that one. My friend and I are still trying to work up a time to do a LAN co-op session of Flashpoint: Dragon Rising. The idea of actually being able to do sniper+spotter combos in one living room is awesome.

Hornet_RN
01-07-2011, 5:00 AM
Reuse existing assets I guess. I mean flamethrower effects implemented in in COD WAW. low and behold, flamethrower as rifle attachment. Everyone stopped taking the franchise seriously after knife throwing and dual wielding. We all know its hollywood

being a gun nut, i was also very disappointed at the inaccuracies of the firearms in the game. how was there a red dot and ACOGs during the 60s??? however, regardless of how fake and inaccurate the game is...i cannot stop playing anything else right now!!! (especially multiplayer) heh heh :D

tacticalcity
01-07-2011, 11:30 AM
Get Operation Flashpoint series games if you want realism. Get shot in the leg? You can't run. Get shot in the stomach? You can't do anything until you bandage yourself up. Pretty good in terms of realism.

I wasn't expecting that kind of realism, as none of the COD games have been that "difficult", especially not in multiplayer. If they did, the little kids would loose interest very fast. I just expected them to pay more attention to detail, which is something the COD franchise is known for. Attention to detail to the weapons started off as CODs main strong point, and has gone down hill from there.

COD and COD2 had a wide variety of realistic period weapons. More so than other games of its kind. The got the uniforms, the weapons, and the gameplay just right.

Modern Warefare had the most attention to detail to weapons. There were a few screw-ups (such as making a 4x ACOG an upgrade on the M40A3 when it already had a 10x Uteral Scope) but not many, and they did their best to use current issue weapons and current issue upgrades.

Modern Warefare 2 tried to push the envelope a little bit too far. They included some experimental weapons not yet adopted by the armed forces, which was fine since at least those weapons did exist and the military was indeed testing them. Where they screwed up is that some of the accessories they featured in the game were the things gun NOOBIES all fall in love with before they actually learn what the hell they are doing. So much so you would think Tapco was a sponsor. They also miss-understood how some of the accessories are actually used. Like Doctor sights being used as primary sights rather than a backup for a magnified scope (which happens now and again but it is extremely rare). Still, they made an effort to pay attention to detail. So I give them an A- for effort.

BlackOps just completely abandonned any attempt at all to get the weapons right. Complete and utter fail on that front. Yes the story line and game play is fun. But if I am going to spend $60 I expect them to do more to earn it.

ajaffe
01-07-2011, 6:20 PM
COD is known as a run and gunner style game that keeps the action coming that is far more focused on the plot than the realism of weaponry. It is not marketed as a military simulator. It is a first person shooter. I don't get why you keep re-ranting the same points. Just don't play it if you don't like it. Or send an email to the developers.

It is not nearly as big of an issue as you make it seem. I can tell you now that no one in my personal bubble of friends knows of, or cares about, weapon issues. They see it as a game and want to run around getting the best kill death ratio.

shy 7th
01-07-2011, 7:29 PM
Do any of you people remember Counterstrike? And I'm not talking about counterstrike:source, but good ol' counterstrike 1.0 - 1.3. (1.4 neutered it) Mid-air, AWP, no-scope shots. TMP spray&pray headshots. Bunny-hopping across the map faster than you can run. Hell, the weapon skins were F***in backwards if you switched to "right-handed" mode.

Yet for years that game was the number 1 played game in the world by far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Strike#Legacy

You could click the "refresh server list" button and it would return thousands of results.

Sometimes, it's not about realism.

But I think COD is crap. In fact, all of this "release the same game over again with but this time a different setting" is crap. How many CODs are there? And they are all the same freakin game.

MikeinnLA
01-07-2011, 7:58 PM
I'm just glad the Claymores have the red lights or I'd step on more of them than I already do.

Mike

DanDaDude102
01-07-2011, 8:25 PM
What are you talking about? obviously they were invented and classified, i read that on wikileaks! Plus they even left out perks like stopping power, danger close, one man army, and commando pro because those weren't invented yet during Vietnam.

God Bless The Mauser
01-07-2011, 8:43 PM
Flat top upper with backwards Troy flip up rear sight, neither of which existed in Vietnam:rofl2:

iareConfusE
01-07-2011, 11:39 PM
Translation, lazy mo-fos too busy chasing a dollar to do their jobs right.

You must have just met Activision and Bobby Kotick. This is his philosophy. He isn't out to make good games, only to make profit from existing franchises - his words, not verbatim, but close enough.

Toast
01-07-2011, 11:54 PM
The COD games got crappy after Modern Warfare IMO. I hated MW2 they took the good things from the first one and tried to cram way too much into it. I was initially interested in Black Ops because of (what seemed to promise) older weapons, I was looking forward to playing with a CAR-15, but instead you get these stupid weapons.

Oh, and I never got why the FAL/G3 was always so weak with virtually no recoil. It's 7.62x51 ffs, it should be more powerful then most of the other AR's in the game.

Bizcuits
01-08-2011, 11:15 AM
I gotta say.... I bad mouthed Medal of Honor, but decided to give it a second shot last night and played for hours! Absolutely love the class system and how you play to unlock stuff. It is "JUST" a little different from COD and the graphics are amazing. I'm surprised more people do not play Medal of Honor.

ajaffe
01-08-2011, 1:26 PM
Wait what? MOH graphics have been the target of critics since launch. Even the MOH guys said that they could have done better. Also COD gameplay inspired the MOH unlock system.
The killer is that back in the day Medal of Honor was THE game while Call of Duty was the little brother. Now the tables have turned.

iareConfusE
01-08-2011, 6:32 PM
You guys need to play Bad Company 2.

Bizcuits
01-08-2011, 9:28 PM
Wait what? MOH graphics have been the target of critics since launch. Even the MOH guys said that they could have done better. Also COD gameplay inspired the MOH unlock system.
The killer is that back in the day Medal of Honor was THE game while Call of Duty was the little brother. Now the tables have turned.

Yea but there is a point when you have to many unlocks. I do not want to wait 6 months to be able to use an AK-47 or RPG on my character. A progressive class system like Battlefield 2 is a lot more enjoyable for myself when I do not have 18 hours a day to play and hopefully someday unlock the guns I want to use.

Could have or should have done better on the graphics is regardless. The weapon effects are awesome. The maps on multiplayer feel a lot more real then the MW2 maps do. The maps are very destructible.

SnWnMe
01-08-2011, 11:27 PM
I dunno. If they kept the weapons period correct then the only ARs (that's assault rifles) of note would be the M16, AK , LAR/FAL and M14 types. The rest would be obscure or WW2 weapons. The SMGs won't do that much better (they should've included the Beretta M12 though)

Additionally if they kept the ballistics and terminal effects the same for every rifle that used the same round then there won't be any need nor any incentive to use other weapons.

jaustin612
01-09-2011, 12:12 AM
[QUOTE=shy 7th;5576182]Do any of you people remember Counterstrike? And I'm not talking about counterstrike:source, but good ol' counterstrike 1.0 - 1.3. (1.4 neutered it) Mid-air, AWP, no-scope shots. TMP spray&pray headshots. Bunny-hopping across the map faster than you can run. Hell, the weapon skins were F***in backwards if you switched to "right-handed" mode.

Yet for years that game was the number 1 played game in the world by far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Strike#Legacy

YES! Hell yes! man, I played the **** out of all of those Half life mods back in high school! I remember it must have been right around 2000, I was playing one of the very very first versions of counterstrike. ****in epic man. That game was awesome! Jumping in midair, using the AWP for an instant kill, then switching weapons and switching back because its faster than reloading.

good times, that brought back some nostalgia.

Honestly, Half life, by far, the best first person shooter ever made, bar none.

SnWnMe
01-10-2011, 1:09 AM
Half Life would've been better if they didn't have that ghey jumping and platforming crap in the end. What a stupid idea.

MrPlink
01-10-2011, 3:31 AM
Lets see, troy flip up sights on damn near everything, rear tech sight on the RPK, liberal use of the word acog, modern versions of guns which did not exist at the time, heck some of the guns didnt exist PERIOD at the time...


Still entertaining though. I think MW2 over all was a better game, sure Black Ops is all "play balanced" which is fine, but sometimes being stuck as the guy without cold blooded and being forced to run arround on "snipers maps" is half the fun!

MW2 isnt without its faults though, esp if you want to talk about realism.
Heart beat sensors??? Javelins that lock into the floor? A 203 round that explodes sans air fuse. Two opposing forces that BOTH happen to have AC130s and used them at the same time? Or howbout having to EQUIP FMJs? Am I to assume Im using HP or SP rounds otherwise?
Or what about showing up to battle with only 2 and half mags? (My marine buddy swears its realistic if youre an Iraqi though)

Lets keep in mind, these games arent designed to please militaria or gun nuts like most of us on here. And yes, at the end of the day, they are just games.
Besides, in the genre, can you think of a better game? Bad Company, or Medal of Honor? PLEASE!

MrPlink
01-10-2011, 3:33 AM
Additionally if they kept the ballistics and terminal effects the same for every rifle that used the same round then there won't be any need nor any incentive to use other weapons.
exactly!
MW2 was much worse at this than Black Ops, take a look at the difference in damage between a 3 shot burst Famas and M16.

TNP'R
01-10-2011, 4:18 AM
IMO the guns in BC2 look nothing like the real thing. the saiga shotgun looks nothing like it does in real life.

bomb_on_bus
01-10-2011, 8:42 AM
I still laugh at the fact that all the different types of guns are pretty much weak sauce until you get to the higher levels equals better weapons crap. The franchise doesnt care to pay attention to detail as they are only worried about the bottom line. I stopped playing COD all together when I ran around killing people left and right with the knife attack. I could hose someone down with a hail of bullets and eventually kill them or one knife attack from supernatural distances with one move. And dont even get me started on that sorry &ss auto aim bull crap.The thing that irritates me the most besides how weak every weapon is compaired to a knife is the fact that you can get cought up on any piece of map detail even if its only for a brief moment. There are so many aspects to the game that are wrong or simply ignored it took the fun out of playing. The only game I hold on to from the COD franchise is COD WAW every other COD game is long gone.

blackberg
01-10-2011, 11:24 AM
I taught Black Ops was based in modern day not Vietnam :confused:

-bb

PixelBender
01-10-2011, 6:14 PM
Bad Company 2 Is wicked!

I like MOH as well, the graphics are awesome the maps where a little small, but BFBC2... Choppers.... Is all I have to say... Now with the vietnam expansion... <3

I have COD Black ops... and Ive played it about 4 hours tops online... Sloppy/Lazy Console to PC port, and frankly they left in one of the most annoying features... PRONE... sure its great to get a little accuracy, or hide, whatever, but when some noob with a rocket launcher or 203 comes around a corner, JUMPS, then Lays flat out in the air, lands in the prone position, and then you go flying because of an RPG or 203 round at POINT BLANK RANGE... thats stupid...

WilliamAnderson
01-10-2011, 7:10 PM
Remember how good COD 2 was? That was an awesome game. :D No kill streaks and RC car bonuses. Just cool WW2 guns and a quick trigger finger!

GettoPhilosopher
01-11-2011, 4:02 PM
Infinity Ward "Call of Duty" games: Great.
Treyarch "Call of Duty" games: Crap.

'nuff said.

Iknownot
01-11-2011, 4:14 PM
Infinity Ward "Call of Duty" games: Great.
Treyarch "Call of Duty" games: Crap.

'nuff said.


Except for MW2 being IW and W@W being Treyarch. I'd say W@W was the last good MW game and MW2 was clearly the beginning of the end.

Oh well. At least I have Battlefield Bad Co 2 and Red Orchestra 2 Stalingrad is looking like it could be pretty cool.

Dreaded Claymore
01-11-2011, 5:49 PM
Bad Company 2 Is wicked!

The gameplay of Bad Company 2 is indeed wicked. I like the singleplayer campaign, and I like the multiplayer even more.

It detracts slightly from the gameplay, however, that guns which fire the same cartridge display wildly different ballistics. :(

Toast
01-19-2011, 12:15 AM
Oh, and why the heck is the G36c always so powerful in video games? It's got a 9 inch barrel, and assuming you're shooting 77gr it would only have an effective frag range of like 20 yards.

mtsul
01-19-2011, 1:57 AM
Black ops is definitely a step backwards. I would much rather play mw2. The problem is ALL of my friends and 3 of my brothers have black ops. So I am forced to play an inferior game. I don't mind because I still completely destroy every game I am put in.

The only problem with that statement is Black Ops set a new record in breaking the 1 Billion dollar mark.
The developer's explanation for having weapons featured in the game prior to their actual release date was the SOF community regularly gets a hold of expiramental weapons before they are manufactured on a large scale.

I got 3 black ops at 12:08am when they came out 1 for me and 2 for my roommates (brother, and best friend) took them home played them was depressed took 2 back the same day around 4pm to get a copy of MW2 for my roommate ( he did not have a copy he got his PS3 for black ops) it sold because of the fact that most people thought it was going to be a upgraded MW2 not an upgraded WAW:mad:

P.S. hackers SUCK

mtsul
01-19-2011, 1:59 AM
Except for MW2 being IW and W@W being Treyarch. I'd say W@W was the last good MW game and MW2 was clearly the beginning of the end.

Oh well. At least I have Battlefield Bad Co 2 and Red Orchestra 2 Stalingrad is looking like it could be pretty cool.

for campaign mode w@w was better for MP mode MW2 all the way