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

[knuckles2812]

ummm... I'm pretty sure the realism goes out the door when I can shoot a dog 6 or 7 times and it doesn't die and really, lag doesn't help much for that whole realism thing either. So I say let them have a little bit of "artistic license" here. If it makes the game more fun, I say go for it. Oh yeah... I just remembered. Realism =/= zombies

 

[BenzSmoke]

I had a feeling that those guns shouldn't have been in that game. I never bothered to check though.

 

[Danish rage]

Nitpicking and complaints is the internets number one pastime .

It´s getting old, real fast.

The complaints over BLOPS has went from unfounded gibberish to random grasping for straws.

OT. I guess they put the guns there for..hmm lats say, playability and fun.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Call of Duty is mostly composed of idiots how will sit on the couch with drool lazily drizzling out their mouth, so the developers will do anything to make some money by adding in content that these people like. Seriously I think that if they didn't add in certain guns, the guns that were left would be crappy and boring and would have little killing power compared to more modern guns.

Since when has COD bothered with modeling realistic killing power in guns? The Model 1887 was nigh game-breaking in MW2!

 

[AnAngryMoose]

That... Is some serious fuck-upery.

Must. Agree. With.... DEADPOOL!

But seriously, seriously fucked

Finally! I'm getting the respect I deserve.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

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.

People dont care about the historial accuracy of the guns in a fps game. I also have to state that just because a gun is in the multiplayer for the game doesnt mean its in the single player. I noticed alot of the guns you were using in single player wernt actually available in multi. They put in the multiplayer weapons just because they liked them. They have absolutely no relevence at all on the actual time period of the game.

Really the fact is most people dont know and even if they did they wouldnt give a shit. Does the fact that a gun shoudlnt exist in that time period distract from the entertainment value of a game. Its a means to an end and the gameplay woudlnt change at all just because they changed what the item in your hand looked like or was named. I mean its not like any of the events in the game actually happened anywhere near like how it portrayed them, or even during the time they said. Your complaining about realism in a game that is extremely obvious that they were not going for that in the first place.

Dont forget this is the game that has a zombie game mode, ZOMBIES that pretty much throws all realism out the door.

Honestly your complain makes about as much sense to me as people complaining that the bfg in doom isnt realistic.

I wouldn't exactly say Zombies through realism out the door...

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Ah, but I shall answer your question with another question:

'Does anyone really care that much?'

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Well, sure. CoD has always been totally about realism and it has been stated multiple times that the event the game depicts ACTUALLY HAPPENED and it takes place in the REAL WORLD.

Uh-huh.

If that's something you can lose all respect for someone over... that's pretty petty.

And the thing is, these idiots will probably defend the appearance of those guns. Purely because the bullshit that runs through their minds goes a bit like this...

"OMGFUCK U LUL COD IS RITE AND U RONG NERDRAGEGEGEG"

Because CoD is the only game worth playing, apparentley.

Yes, apparently, everyone who enjoys Call Of Duty is an imbecile who can't take any critisism and plays only Call Of Duty.

No, that's not the thing. By writing this comment, you demote yourself to the level of the people you describe.

Good day, sir.

 

[thedoclc]

These guys are special forces. They always get prototypes and the very latest technology. Or something.

SFers prefer what they trust, has been tested, and have trained extensively with. That's movie/Hollywood logic there. And most of the weapons highlighted in the game were not even invented by the time of the game.

I can't think of a single SFer or conventional forces soldier or marine who'd say, "Sure, I want to try out a prototype!" Nobody wins with a beta version.

My $0.02 : Some people do find ultra-realism fun, and some don't. Some games will cater to the market segment that craves ultra-realism, and others won't. If CoD: BO's lack of realism annoys you...don't play it! I won't be playing it either, because I just don't find it -fun-. No need to rant about how the game "sucks" because of it. Let those people do their own thing without the smug, "Hawrhawr, ur game so silly 'cause the guns're wrong!"

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

Uh, except the devs have stated multiple times in interview that the game spans from whenever to present day, as in, they can use whatever shit they like. And besides, it's a videogame, it's not about being accurate it's about being fun.

 

[llew]

I think that treyarch explained it by saying that weapons were available to special agents before the regular armed forces, though obviously this only explains away a certain amount of them.

pretty much, what they did was ask some ex-spec ops people aboiut certain weapons and they confirmed that they got to use prototype versions of modern weapons years before they were used by standard forces, sometimes decades (apparently)

 

[MR T3D]

Spoiler: EPIC SPOILER AND REASON

He imagined the future weapons just like he imagined resenov. for example, his colt commando was actually a CAR-15, in service during 'nam.

but I really think that the game should have been set in the 80's based on their weapon palette.

 

[Branches]

There isn't a lot out there in that time period, I'll be honest. The only other weapons in the game you could have are M14s, M16s, AKs, SKS's, and maybe the AutoGyro as a sniper rifle, but really, A lot of the ground has been covered before.

I get there's also an argument about "Well, they are just black Ops and they get all the new stuff faster", which has it's merits, but is also 100% wrong.

As for losing respect for Treyarch as a publisher, that's going a little far. Frankly you have to come to terms with the fact that historical authenticity is not a priority for these games.

The Call of Duty games aren't the games looking for authenticity, they are looking for entertainment. Let us not forget the ISS was farther than the most powerful nuclear weapon in the world away, but still somehow got destroyed in MW2 to go with that also that America was somehow 100% dependent upon satellite radar systems that no one thought "Huh, SOSUS is picking up a massive armada of Russian ships, and older radar stations across the globe are reporting multiple air armadas, oh well, no biggie".

It's the entertainment in the game, and watching it happen, rather than sticking with reality.

 

[philzibit]

Months before the game came out, Treyarch said most of the guns that are gonna be in the game wouldn't have been in use at the time. If your really gonna let inaccuracy spoil your experience, the M16 wasn't a burst fire weapon during Vietnam, ***** about that too.