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

[Dimensional Vortex]

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.

*twitch*

Funny, I always thought the rule was "If JFK, Nixon, and Castro are fighting off zombies in the Pentagon, historical accuracy comes second to fun and it shouldn't be judged on lack of said accuracy". Did the game ever claim to be accurate? No? Therefore, is it entirely possible that the game in which you slaughter thousands of enemy soldiers in pursuit of a fictional nerve gas took some liberties with history? Or possibly is even set in an alternate universe! Oh fuck no, it was somehow assumed despite all prior indications that this game would be the equivalent of a documentary and I was going to use it to study for my test on the Vietnam war, which I failed because I relied on a game where I break thousands of Russians out of a fictional prison with a shank.

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.

Did CoD kill your family or something? Are the both of you really calling people drooling morons because they bought a popular video-game they can enjoy with their friends?

Someone's enjoyment of a product you dislike does not make them your mortal enemy, nor does it make them a moron. The game has sold seven million copies and I doubt every one of them went to a drooling moron.

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.

That's the same with every game. Just mute them, it's not very difficult.

The game is loosely based on historical events. They said that, it's like alternate history. I'm not really sure what you mean in your second paragraph, could you care to re-explain it?

Again, they are the minority, and you can mute them. You only have to hear them for the second it takes you to reach for the mute button. If you judged every group by the worst examples you'd have a very negative world view.

Yes, I was a bit tired when i wrote it and you have some valid points. What I meant by it was, why do they and other game creators make their story lines around things that have already happened e.g. Afghan war, Cold war, ww2 just so they can go and make it entirely different? why couldn't they go and have the exact same idea but in a war they invented (and hopefully they will leave the Russians alone this time)

 

[soren7550]

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.

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

And to the bunch of other people that said pretty much the same thing:
That can be understandable if the gun was released 'to the public' so to speak a few years after, but about half of the weapons I listed were made a decade or more after the final mission took place, which is really pushing the 'they had early prototypes' theory.
And your enemies had these guns as well, like the NVA w/ the SPAS-12 in Hue City (or wherever it was in 'Nam), and the NVA aren't what you'd call elite special forces, so why would they get really early prototypes?

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

Uh, Its a game. What difference does it make if they get their history wrong?

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

If these weapons end up making the game more enjoyable, why not?

It´s a game, not History Channel.

 

[Valagetti]

You don't really know that though. Yes Black Ops is a rubbish n' broken game. But you might be wrong on this subject. Some of the weapons could be a 'prototype'. Take AA-12 in MW2 (fully automatic shotgun). That gun was first made during the mid 70's.
There is just some subjects that the public shouldn't know. Not even game designers!

 

[newfoundsky]

Let's not forget that the device that allows you to take 30000 rounds of ammunition to the face but heals you while you hide behind cover wasn't invented till 2364! Geez this game is so terrible.

/sarcasm

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

I'm sure most if not all of those weapons had working prototypes or early desgins at that time anyways.

 

[Caligulove]

I think we threw realism out the window a long time ago.

Plus, I'm sure theres someone that would try to make excuses that "the guns existed around then, but only for the CIA and other Black Ops missions! See its, actually appropriate!!" But then again, I'm pretty sure those people would also believe that the Moon Landing was a cover-up for sending the co-opted NASA-CIA Time Machine back to '63 to kill Kennedy.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Damn. You know didn't they go on an on about how CoD games involve lots of research into getting accurate settings, weapons, and technology? Just awful.

 

[Fuselage]

When I want to play a game I don't really care about realism, I want fun, Having big-ass machine gun's are fun.

 

[vrbtny]

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.

Most are right, except for the Colt Commando, that was specifically designed for Spec Ops personnel in the Vietnam war.

Also, when did the AIAW sniper appear in Black ops?

And I don't remember the Spas-12 being in the last level.

 

[Fuselage]

I really doubt they cared at all when they made the game. I can understand getting a bit annoyed if you are a gun nut but to say you have lost all respect for Treyarch? It's a arcade shooter they never said anything about it being realistic. They probably said "Who gives a shit?" when they put the guns in.

I don't care what guns they give me for whatever reason because it's a game that I play to have fun with my friends in Multiplayer, if you really want realism and historically accurate guns then play ARMA2 or something.

And try to live through the many, MANY bugs of ARMA2

 

[k-ossuburb]

Maybe, being Black Ops guys, they had the weapons before they were officially announced within the public circle?

I don't know, but I wonder if someone will say something along those lines in defense of the inaccuracy. I don't really know much about black ops, all I really know about is what I read in Andy Mcnab novels. I haven't played the game (or any of the previous ones) so I'm not much of a fan, but that's the best reason I can give for the inaccuracy, it's probably wrong and it's just a guess. The most likely thing is that they just messed up and have no excuse, but if someone uses something similar to what I said as a reason then I want it on record that I called it.

 

[Vigilantis]

Uhmm...wasn't this one of the major topics concerning this game like 3 or 4 months before its release? Eh doesn't matter to me either way, but I do know this topic if far from new.

 

[Spectre4802]

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

'Does anyone really care that much?'

I think the answer is 'no'.

So long as you get to shoot shit and have fun, it really doesn't matter about historical accuracy.

And saying that you've 'lost all faith' in the developer just because they put in weapons 10-20 or so years after the actual time period is not only over the top but, frankly, juvenile too. It's kind of like saying "I hate you" to your parents because they won't give you a lolly.

...ok, maybe not exactly. But you see where I'm coming from.

EDIT
And you know what? I wouldn't hold it against developers if they made some kind of alternate history game where WWII is fought with futuristic weapons.

 

[Cutter9792]

They could explain that all the weapons you are using are prototypes, but if half the armies of the world already have them, then that doesn't make it a prototype, does it? Just an extremely badly kept secret.

 

[mechanixis]

Right. Okay. Some of the weapons were anachronistic. THAT'S what breaks your immersion.

Not the part where you ramp a motorcycle fifty feet through the air while firing a shotgun with one hand. Totally authentic, that.

But that the SPAS-12 couldn't have existed in the sixties, that's the event horizon.

I think Call of Duty is pretty far removed from realism at this point, and it's for the better. There are more authentic war shooters out there, and you're not playing them because authenticity isn't actually fun.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I should care...why?

It's not like they're aiming for total historical accuracy.

 

[dark-amon]

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.

I know you edited, but still. Before CoD4 CoD was all about trying to be historical accurate. It was kinda CoD's "thing".