did treyarch do their homework?

[Karma168]

I know what your thinking "another Black Ops bashing post, here we go" and trust me i was tempted (tbh there's a lot to complain about) but this is more about continuity errors than bad design.

In the 1st mission you are supplied as standard with a rifle with an M203 under slung grenade launcher. now i remember seeing a documentary saying that the the US were still using the 'bloop gun (think thumper from MW2) during the vietnam war. a quick check (2 mins) online tells me that the M203 wasn't brought into service until '69. so why can you use it 6 years earlier in game?

as a note the same is true for the GP-25 (russian variant), you can use it in the prison escape mission but the weapon wasn't designed until '66 let alone produced.

seems like treyarch didn't even bother doing the research and just stuck them into the campaign because people like using them in multiplayer.

EDIT: if someone has info proving me wrong id be grateful

 

[Thunderhorse31]

The be-all, end-all answer to your question is this:

It's Black Ops. You're supposed to have access to weaponry that is not mass-produced and technology that wasn't available to the masses.

Again, it's Black Ops. Not Standard Military Issue Ops.

 

[deathbydeath]

as long as they make enough money to buy russia, i don't think they care. (also, i think there was another thread like this a few weeks ago)

 

[badgersprite]

I guess because they couldn't be bothered creating different weapon sets for every single mission.

I have a number of problems with Black Ops, but this really isn't one of them. I'm willing to give them leeway on this from a design standpoint.

 

[Master Kuja]

I remember a post a while back that actually brought up a similar, if not the same issue, it showed that there were guns developed in the late 80s that were available for use in the campaign of Black Ops, as well as the multiplayer.

Would be lovely if someone remembered the title of that thread.

 

[Jasper Jeffs]

Honestly, I couldn't give a fuck about the realism or historical accuracy of Black Ops, it's Call of Duty. You can dive of towers, landing on your stomach, and survive. I don't even pay attention to the single player, I just play multiplayer for fun.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Right, 2 things.

1. There was a massive thread about this.

2. No one cares about historical accuracy so long as it looks about right. And most guns just kinda look like guns.

 

[E-Penguin]

There's a reason why the SAS don't use the L85 rifle, instead going for the older AR-15 base for their longarms.

Because they're cheaper?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I don't give a flying fuck if games are historically accurate. If the gun is fun to shoot, I'm happy.

 

[Something Amyss]

The be-all, end-all answer to your question is this:

It's Black Ops. You're supposed to have access to weaponry that is not mass-produced and technology that wasn't available to the masses.

Again, it's Black Ops. Not Standard Military Issue Ops.

Apparently, Black Ops have access to time travel.

A better answer, rather than that, is that it's a game that's about as Jesus riding a dinosaur. And nobody should really be that worried.

 

[legion431]

Weren't the Black Ops the "field testers" for new military equiptment.

 

[Geekosaurus]

It's Black Ops. You're supposed to have access to weaponry that is not mass-produced and technology that wasn't available to the masses.

It's such a crappy excuse that lets them overlook historical accuracies. It's just lazy.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

Believe me, I don't think my answer is a good excuse either. I just figure that's what they're going for, plus they're not exactly going for 100% realism. If people can run around with an STG44 in CoD4, then they can run around with a G11 in BO. Stupid in real life? You bet.

 

[The Last Parade]

historical accuracy or good gameplay? geeee.... what should a game prioritise in?

 

[Enemy Of The State]

Just enjoy the game.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I know what your thinking "another Black Ops bashing post, here we go" and trust me i was tempted (tbh there's a lot to complain about) but this is more about continuity errors than bad design.

In the 1st mission you are supplied as standard with a rifle with an M203 under slung grenade launcher. now i remember seeing a documentary saying that the the US were still using the 'bloop gun (think thumper from MW2) during the vietnam war. a quick check (2 mins) online tells me that the M203 wasn't brought into service until '69. so why can you use it 6 years earlier in game?

as a note the same is true for the GP-25 (russian variant), you can use it in the prison escape mission but the weapon wasn't designed until '66 let alone produced.

seems like treyarch didn't even bother doing the research and just stuck them into the campaign because people like using them in multiplayer.

EDIT: if someone has info proving me wrong id be grateful

Dude it's CoD, they are as historically accurate and realistic as Hollywood.
You get some guns and shoot people and alot of sh*t explodes, that is the only thing they can get right.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Weren't the Black Ops the "field testers" for new military equiptment.

That really only applies to the Ar-15 platform. It was originally fielded by a squad of Green Berets that loved it, so the Army decided to give it to everybody else. However, that's pretty much the only gun that went through a field testing before it was given out to the masses. Most service rifles are only tested at a range during the prototype phase.