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

[Squeaky]

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

lol thats why the Spetznaz are using the AN-94.... sarcasum. Its just a cheap cop out Treyarch probly didnt look all that much into what weapons to be honest but most players that play CoD have no idea about weapons etc so they dont really need to worry its not Arma or Operation Flashpoint.

 

[Weslebear]

I'm loving how anyone that even mildly enjoys BlackOps has the intelligence of a prokaryotic organism apparently? I will admit that is a part of the CoD community, but every game will have ridiculous fan-boys so it's not even worth mentioning anymore, ever. People need to calm down with the labeling.

About the guns themselves, they are there because they are FUN, they add gameplay and make it more interesting for people who enjoy the game. BlackOps never claimed to be perfectly accurate and it's not, they explained it away with bullshit because it's really not relevant. The game is for fun, deal with it.

There isn't really a topic of discussion here at all, just another circle jerk of hatred for a CoD game. It's at a point where mouth frothing fan-boys are well away outnumbered by the level of haters, who are actually just as annoying.

 

[dibblywibbles]

no way man. all those guns were invented by the government before they tell anyone about them. black ops dude! the name says it all! that being said, I don't care. "historical inccuracy" in a fictional storyline is far more forgiveable than other atrocities committed in this world. Us gamers get upset about the silliest things.

 

[archvile93]

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...

Really, you've seen zombies in realife, or at least saw a news article saying they're real?

Sarcasm, people... Second time someone's taken that comment seriously.

You mean you didn't? Well now I regret spening all that money on a new rifle.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Eh. If i wanted realism, I'd go to actual war.

besides, i dint care for Black ops, so i doubt that true to decade games would have helped it.

 

[Xkaliber]

My thoughts on the subject is that I think the people defending this are making excuses. The point of setting games in differant eras is to sort of vicariously experience the warfare of that era...

Edited for wall of text removal.

All posts like this and the others above are nonsensical and whimsical at best, as to what they expect a post Modern Warfare CoD game to include.

Why people question the guns and focus on that is beyond me. Most of the plot is made up and based around things that could conceptually have happened, but didn't. None of the characters are real. The whole venture to the German's V2 rocket stacked ship at the North Pole is pure farce.

Did people really expect cutting edge weapon realism after it was shown that a remote-controlled racing car with a bomb and a tomahawk were featured in the game? Most of the criticism in this thread, is like watching a Michael Bay war movie and expecting Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan, then tearing it apart when it wasn't.

 

[JemothSkarii]

I'm one of those people that enjoyed the old CoD games, with healthkits and reasonable historical accuracy. I guess I became a little skeptical when Modern Warfare came around; practically a superhuman death machine, regenerating health...
'Huh...next Halo'
I'm not a big fan of the new CoD Games now as they're just so...over-hyped? When they come off to me as a generic everyday shooter. But I probably would actually believe that a develop with as much respect and fans as Treyarch would hold some historical accuracy with the weapons, not ENTIRELY, but some.
Saying that since you were a Black ops member with access to weaponry before they were made just seems like a cop out, especially while there are other soldiers running around with them.

 

[Starke]

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

Yeah, but these are (mostly) weapons that would not exist for another decade at least. In the case of the AKS74, the gun is literally identified in its name off a later date.

A better blow off suggestion would be that the torture has turned the player's brain into some kind of egg salad, and the resulting mess includes a hideous amount of anachronisms.

 

[Starke]

My thoughts on the subject is that I think the people defending this are making excuses. The point of setting games in differant eras is to sort of vicariously experience the warfare of that era...

Edited for wall of text removal.

All posts like this and the others above are nonsensical and whimsical at best, as to what they expect a post Modern Warfare CoD game to include.

Why people question the guns and focus on that is beyond me. Most of the plot is made up and based around things that could conceptually have happened, but didn't. None of the characters are real. The whole venture to the German's V2 rocket stacked ship at the North Pole is pure farce.

Did people really expect cutting edge weapon realism after it was shown that a remote-controlled racing car with a bomb and a tomahawk were featured in the game? Most of the criticism in this thread, is like watching a Michael Bay war movie and expecting Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan, then tearing it apart when it wasn't.

Maybe the player character has just been tortured to the point where he has no fucking clue what the hell is going on around him?

Sorry, that's the best suggestion I can offer.

 

[Therumancer]

My thoughts on the subject is that I think the people defending this are making excuses. The point of setting games in differant eras is to sort of vicariously experience the warfare of that era...

Edited for wall of text removal.

All posts like this and the others above are nonsensical and whimsical at best, as to what they expect a post Modern Warfare CoD game to include.

Why people question the guns and focus on that is beyond me. Most of the plot is made up and based around things that could conceptually have happened, but didn't. None of the characters are real. The whole venture to the German's V2 rocket stacked ship at the North Pole is pure farce.

Did people really expect cutting edge weapon realism after it was shown that a remote-controlled racing car with a bomb and a tomahawk were featured in the game? Most of the criticism in this thread, is like watching a Michael Bay war movie and expecting Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan, then tearing it apart when it wasn't.

Not really, because using period weapons wouldn't have caused any signifigant problems. It's sort of like buying a sword and sorcery game and then finding out everyone is carrying an AK-47... well perhaps not that pronounced, but similar.

This was supposed to be a period game, that's part of the selling point. If they are going to produce a period game, they should at least do it right as far as the armaments go. Even in other "alternative histories" (which are mostly novels) the writers take the time to make sure that the things that were actually in use, were what people wer using.

Sure, I get it, you love "Black Ops.", you don't like people picking on it. It's still a valid criticism though, and a big one. It's this kind of thing exactly that hurts video games being taken seriously as a medium. It would be one thing if they weren't promoting this as a period game, but they were. The whole "Cold War" setting and combat emulation was a big part of the promotion.

 

[thedeathscythe]

I gotta say, they f**ked up. Even if you don't care about the historical accuracy, just picture a game like Grant Theft Auto deciding to be historically accurate and then it messes up what year Obama became president. I'm Canadian and even I would think they're just plain f**king stupid. It just shows a lack of due diligence or care. They either had no idea of this, or they knew it and just didn't care. In the end, it's just a game, and they can put aliens in their game, or hoverboots or anything. But for a game that tries to be gritty and realistic, it sure is odd that it made this mistake.

 

[Go Fighting In The War Room]

Cod does it's best for historical accuracy. Reznov was the guy who planted the flag on the Reichstag. A Nazi Doctor, two marines and a Russian were able to time travel away from Nazi Zombies. Everything in Black Ops Is true.

MW2 is a prediction of 2016.

Shotguns from 1887 work perfectly in a modern war environment.

Armies will willingly allow soldiers to launch nukes after they achieve 25 kills without dying.

But Simo Hayha and Vasily Zyatsev didn't have nukes then.

So they were able to get this jolly bastard to fire at whatever they want.

And nope. That isn't totally a Nazi Gun. It's for all armies. Like AK-47's. All soldiers use that. Nope not Soviets.


COD is fantasyland shooter, with less plausibility than Halo. It's not one to be all serious over, as much as the story may make it look out to be. They know what people want, and give it to them. And the fanbase doesn't care.

They don't care either. Make the gun look good. Make it go bang. That's all Treyarch had to do.

And they make millions.

 

[finecrazydud]

look at the major players of cod, alot of people i know who play it just want things to go pew pew and big flashing things to keep them from being dumb asses outside in public

 

[warprincenataku]

Yeah, next thing you'll be telling me is that there is no such thing as the SPARTAN laser. *tisk tisk*

 

[SovietSecrets]

Its a game. Just enjoy it. If you let things like when weapons are from or that didn't exist back then ruin a game for you, then I will shed a tear for you.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

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.

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.

Thank you for this. I completley agree. For a series that has worked so hard for historical accuracy, this is extremley upsetting. You could never say CoD was realistic by any means, just by the gameplay style, but the weapons, tactics, and characters were always historically accurate. I never really liked Treyarch, and I didn't really feel WaW was up to par, but at least the game was historically accurate. This game did not deserve the Call of Duty name, because it wasn't a CoD game. I knew many of the weapons were off, but this just compiles all of the fail. The FAMAS was really funny to find out about, and I knew the AUG was waaaay off, because that is one of my favorite weapons.

Also, just to add to that list, the M16 is off in several ways. In multiplayer, it has a 3 round burst, which wasn't out until a later version (A4 I believe). And in the first mission, you have an M16, full auto, with a 30 round magazine, and an M203 grenade launcher. None of which were available in the earliest version of the weapon, except the full auto.

If the game would've been based in the 1970/80s as we all thought, it would've been different, but this is just sad.

 

[furry-ryuu-ken]

They said you would have the guns early because your a special ops team

 

[x0ny]

Guys, lay off OP, he/she's gone all quiet now. And please, someone tell him/her that it wasn't Alex Mason who shot Kennedy.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

A videogame is unrealistic??

OH NO!!!!

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

The game is set during the Cold War. From what I can see, those weapons are all historically accurate. Just because the last mission takes place in 1968, that doesn't mean the multiplayer must take place before 1968. For all we know it's 1988 in the multiplayer.

Also, lol historic accuracy + Call of Duty.