So I Did A Little Research On Black Ops...

[x434343]

Last night I was aiming to kill some time before Conan started, and I decided to look at what weapons appeared in Black Ops. What I saw confused me, as the last mission took place on February 26, 1968.

Pistols:
CZ 75 (1975)

Submachine Guns:
MAC-11 (1972)
Heckler & Koch MP5K Prototype (1976)
SITES Spectre M4 (1980s)
OTs-02 Kiparis (1976)

Assault Rifles
FAMAS F1 FELIN (base weapon 1978, in-game used variant late 1990s)
AKS-74U [mislabeled as AK-74u & misclassified as a SMG] (1979)
Galil ARM (base weapon 1972)
Steyr AUG (patented 1974, introduced into service 1977)
Colt Commando (early 1970s)
Heckler & Koch G11 (1980s)

Shotguns
Franchi SPAS-12 (1979)

Sniper Rifles
Accuracy International Arctic Warfare (1982)
Walther WA 2000 (1982)
Heckler & Koch PSG-1 (1970s)

Launchers
SA-14 Gremlin (1974)

I'm pretty sure if I looked into it more, I'd find more weapons in the game that technically shouldn't be in the game since they weren't invented yet. How could Treyarch screw up this badly? Doe this effect how you view Blops/Treyarch? For me, I've lost all respect for the developer for this, even though I love Call of Duty 2: Big Red One and I thought that the Russian levels in WaW were interesting enough, but this is just too much for me.

Treyarch has said on several occaisions they wanted to make the game "authentic" (NOT REALISTIC). In a simpler term, remember the 60's James Bond films? There's the ticket they wanted. If that means saying "Fuck you" to pinpoint realism, then that's what they need for their product.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Last night I was aiming to kill some time before Conan started, and I decided to look at what weapons appeared in Black Ops. What I saw confused me, as the last mission took place on February 26, 1968.

From the list of unnecessarily massive proportions that follows, you had too much time to kill.

I'm pretty sure if I looked into it more, I'd find more weapons in the game that technically shouldn't be in the game since they weren't invented yet. How could Treyarch screw up this badly?

Here's the thing: they didn't screw it up. And do you know why? Simple enough: the period weapons were either A) boring B) carryovers from WWII or C) lacking sufficient variety. And considering that the game is supposed to be about the secret wars that rarely actually/didn't actually happen during WWII, I couldn't care less if their period weapons were bumped a few years in development.

Doe this effect how you view Blops/Treyarch? For me, I've lost all respect for the developer for this, even though I love Call of Duty 2: Big Red One and I thought that the Russian levels in WaW were interesting enough, but this is just too much for me.

If you're putting historical accuracy, and not even particularly important historical accuracy, before actual enjoyability, then you've got bigger problems than a pistol existing seven years before it was actually released.

- It's not just the poor choice of weapons that made me loose all respect for Treyarch. The screwy story, poor voice acting, the poorly constructed characters and many other factors in Blops (as well as in WaW) led me to despise Treyarch. The mess with the guns was the the last straw.

Funny thing about things that tend to be "the last straw" is that they're almost inevitably laughably petty.

- Yes I know that with things like a hand held mini-gun, Russian sleeper agents, shooting Castro ('s double), a dead man brainwashing a dude and so forth lessens the game's credibility, but this just really got to me.

Bit of a double standard then, isn't it? You're railing on real-world weapons because they're being used in a game that takes place within a decade of their actual creation, yet you couldn't care less about the camera-guided rockets and portable mini-guns.

 

[TOGSolid]

This effects how enjoyable a video game is how?

Because for some people, whining about stupid shit in a game is how they enjoy video games.

Boo fucking hoo. A game with an unrealistic plot has guns from the future, whoopdeedoo. If an honest to god tactical shooter had this, sure, I'd be irked because accuracy in a sim is important. In a game like this though, who fucking cares?

 

[syndicated44]

Haha Cortez showed up and fucked it up. Time to Split.

 

[Vykrel]

their justification for this (which they mentioned before the game came out) is that these black ops soldiers possibly had access to those weapons as prototypes before they were mass produced.

also, the story was interesting, the voice acting was good, and who gives a crap about historical accuracy in a call of duty game... stop playing TreyArch games if you hate them for stupid reasons

 

[NJ]

I guess to a degree the excuse for why the AKS74u is classified as a SMG is cause of it's compact size. Even if it fires assault rifle rounds, can hold a grenade launcher and technically speaking is just a spec-op version of the AK74. That they can get away with D:

The other rifles being in the game roughly 10-15 years ahead of their actual creation, welcome to Black Op magic. "A prototype of a prototype for a prototype to examine a future prototype" logic always applies, jokes' on you for taking realism into the fray.

 

[Mikkaddo]

You really are thinking too much on this one I think. In the graphic novel Priest Ivan Isaacs uses a tommy gun and other chars use clip loaded 9mm pistols in the 1600s, not to mention fully formed TNT with pre-cut fuses, and the main villain is a fallen angel that somehow subsists on the I guess exhaled breaths of attractive young women he has tied to the walls of his castle with tubes tied into their mouths.

Stop thinking so much about it and just "enjoy the ride" as they say . . . if you stop enjoying things and spend all the time focusing on what's wrong with the details, you forget why you ever enjoyed it at all . . .

 

[MattyDienhoff]

Since Call of Duty gave up trying to be even remotely authentic several games ago, I don't see why this is surprising.

 

[captaincabbage]

SSSSSSHHHHHH!!!! You'll ruin it!

Meh, I've never been a real stickler about specific gun ages and the like, unless it's more of a period piece like Red Dead, since I love the west and I'm very fastitious about it.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

Ever been on Call of Duty? seriously, majority of the people on call of duty are like what Noble Cookie described, 10 times in under an hour you will find someone swearing because he got killed, or because he hates shotguns, or because he was sniped, or because he sucks and he thinks people are hackers.

Secondly it is better to have historical accuracy and have fun in a game, after all we do buy games for fun and entertainment. If they go and make an inaccurate shooting game why does it have to be related to something that has already happened? why not just create something entirely different.

Lastly, people might go and buy Call of Duty to play with their friends but when they go online and start being dicks to people by calling them all kinds of vulgar things because they are pissed off, it stops being fun and it starts being a composite of swearing, yelling, gun shots and explosions which no one seriously needs to hear. If you haven't seen someone basically addicted to Call of Duty like I have, and who is what Noble Cookie and I have described, and who has a family, then maybe you shouldn't be saying that they're just normal and respectable people because a lot of them aren't, a lot of them are addicts and do sit on their couches all day playing call of duty screaming into a head set.

I play Call of Duty, and I am, for the most part, a normal person. I work a 40+ hour week. I'm married. Gaming is one of several hobbies I enjoy.

I seldom use a headset, and if I do I am not discussing works of poetry or literature, I am going to be talking about the game - sometimes, if I die, I may swear. I may not. It depends on my mood at that given moment.

Because there are children online who swear, and shout, and behave like cavemen, you cannot automatically assume everyone who plays the game online is a mouthbreathing, foulmouthed retard with no attention span.

Your assertions are unfounded. Your assumptions are unwarranted. You have leaped to a conclusion based on minimal evidence, in order to spew your own mindless vitriol against a community you were clearly biased against from the outset.
You are closeminded, bullheaded and apparently lack the ability to form a functionally rational argument. This makes you a poor debater and my subsequent opinion of you is low. I do not expect to see my expectations raised in the future, as you would likely rather insist your baseless accustations are reasonable and only seek out likeminded individuals to breed your contempt rather than contend with the possibility you are mistaken, your beliefs riddled with inaccuracy.

Okay for starters, I said majority not all but majority okay? does that make sens sir? Secondly you're getting angry at me for forming and voicing controversial and offensive thoughts about some Call of Duty players, seriously? The entire last part of what you said is just you pointing out how stupid and idiotic I am (even though you didn't use those words) Your also stating I have minimal evidence and a poor debater, that I have baseless accusations, what are you talking about, there is evidence all around you when you play and hear people swearing their heads off you even said it yourself, and I was just speaking ill of those people, if you play Call of Duty and be respectful on it good for you but I wasn't speaking about the people who are like that. I was talking about the people who would rather spend their day yelling and screaming through a head set.

You are also jumping to conclusions about me, you're calling me a poor debater when it is YOU who has minimal evidence of this, you're calling me bullheaded and close minded from one small passage of text about my view. I think your also guilty of being close minded because you already have a bad opinion of me, because of my opinion about people who swear and curse unnecessarily on games, all the things you have convicted me of can also be just as easily convicted of you for your doing similar things to what you are saying I am doing. Thats all I really want to say on this, it seems this is turning into a war

P.S. I FREAKING SAID MOST PEOPLE! will people stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[0p3rati0n]

the last mission took place on February 26, 1968.

So did it really take place in February 26, 1968 or is that a cover up?

 

[irishstormtrooper]

Meh, Call of Duty was never really about historical accuracy. Doesn't bother me all that much.

EDIT:Aside from the early ones of course.

Whey 100th post win:].

Tbh yeah, the mainstream audience don't really care about historical accuracy like some of us do. To them, it's just moarh gunz'n'sploshunz.

Bless'em.

Actually, it doesn't matter. At all. Since CoD 4, the games have not been all that historically accurate. Hell, this one doesn't even pretend to be. Almost none of the missions have very much to do with anything that actually took place, so the fact that the guns haven't been invented yet is pointless. Developers look at gameplay first, and then accuracy. If you didn't get to use half of the guns in the game, it would be no fun at all.

 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Yes the game is historically inaccurate, but I'm just curious why people seem to be hating on the voice acting? I haven't actually played the game myself, but there are actors like Sam Worthington and Gary Oldman, who are generally considered to be good actors. Do their voices just not fit their parts?

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

OK. Great.

Are you forgetting that this is a game that has an explosion every five minutes, zombies, and hallucinations? I don't think they give two shits about historical and/or factual accuracy.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

So do you want to be playing with world war 2 guns? they are well aware of the historical innacuracy (yeah i know i misspelled that, and probably 'misspelled' too), they just don't give a flying fuck. and why should they? if they take out all those guns everyone will complain. if they put them in a few nit picky people who didn't like treyarch anyway won't buy the game. big deal.

 

[ExplosionProofTaco]

Accuracy International Arctic Warfare (AWP) (1982)

Great, I have one MORE reason not to buy Black Ops.

Counterstrike traumatized me...

 

[superbatranger]

It's a video game. That alone breaks the realism factor.

 

[Darkhill]

By the sound of it, most of the repliants would advocate Yahtzee's suggestion of a return to the "silly" shooters of the 90's, like Duke Nukem 3D and Painkiller (OMG it shoots shuriken and lightning!). Sounds reasonable, as it seems that's what the developers are leaning toward anyway. I'll be very interested to see what Duke Nukem Forever brings to the table. But really, if they want to make silly games they should stop dressing them up as "realistic"

It seems to me the simplest solution for Blops would have been to set the timeframe as 70's Vietnam onward, but I haven't played it yet, so I can't say how workable that would be.