Why the Hatred for Black Ops?

[SuperNova221]

I don't understand why, really. Black Ops has been the only Call of Duty game since MW1 that has at least tried to do things differently and take the multiplayer into a more sophisticated direction. It didn't succeed, but it did try. So of all the Call of Duty games since MW1 it's the least deserving of all the hate that's given to the series.

 

[Nazulu]

I don't understand why, really. Black Ops has been the only Call of Duty game since MW1 that has at least tried to do things differently and take the multiplayer into a more sophisticated direction. It didn't succeed, but it did try. So of all the Call of Duty games since MW1 it's the least deserving of all the hate that's given to the series.

Well that's the funny thing. Because it made few changes, a lot of fans who enjoyed the original COD mechanics were upset by it. So, it's probably perecieved as still another COD by many against franchise in the first place, while some of the fans from the previous games look down on Black Ops too. Hate from both sides.

 

[GundamSentinel]

I can think of hundreds of companies that have been living off of the same product range for dozens of years and have been very successful because of it. And as a consequence, many consumers have been able to get a product that lived up to wishes and expectations, even though they might not be your wishes and expectations.

This bit bothers me. It seems like you're claiming their hatred of Black Ops is wrong simply because other people like it, as if you can invalidate an individual's opinion by pointing at numbers.

No, I mean something different. What I'm saying is that people hate it for the wrong reasons.

Is it a bad game? Maybe. I can understand why people would say so. And I can perfectly understand why people would dislike Black Ops as a consequence. It's brainless, the campaigns and multiplayer are uninspired, sure. And that's a valid opinion, no matter how many millions buy the game. As George Orwell wrote: sanity is not statistical. Me, I don't think they're great games either.

Is it iterative design with little improvement over the last installment? Yes, it is. But I don't think that is a bad thing in itself. Everyone knows by now it's wrong to look to Treyarch and Activision for innovation. It's just not what those companies do. They just crank out franchised shooters and make loads of money with it. Does that make them horrible companies? Maybe, but that's not what this is about.

Bad business practices aside, the practice of cranking out FPSs in itself is not something hateful to me. What a lot of people hate about it, is that they want improvement from a company that's not in the business of improvement. I ask: what do you want from Treyarch and Activision other than what they are doing now? Do you want them to make games like Journey? Well, they just don't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'd love them to start doing that (if they could do it well (HA!)), but it's just not their market.

What I do agree with you about, are the affects on the industry. Yes, the cause of many problems lies with the popularity of games and game franchises like Call of Duty. Sadly, that's capitalism: supply and demand. People want games like CoD, so the industry will provide, often cheapening games and the industry because of it.

But in the end, this is about hate for this particular game. You can hate a game because it is a bad game (God, how that cheapens the term 'hate'), but it's silly to hate a game because its developer isn't in the business of making the kind of games you like. Black Ops is a symptom, not the cause. But yes, as you've indicated, it is a symptom of bigger problems in the games industry, and that is where a lot of the 'hate' for Black Ops comes from.

Why won't people just enjoy the games they like and leave others to their own preferences?

And this seems like you're making assumptions. "Leave others to their own preferences" sounds like you think this thread is about hatred towards Black Ops players, when it's really about hatred towards the game.

I know, but many people who have an opinion about Black Ops, or any other multiplayer-focused game for that matter, involve the players in their opinion. For example, they hate Black Ops because of teenage screaming kids. That is both silly, but also completely valid in some way:

I personally think it's not completely fair to judge a game itself by its player base (or even more so, judge a player by his games). If you don't want to play a game because of screaming kids, fine, that I can understand. That makes it a worse experience for you, but not necessarily a worse game.

Yet on the other hand, it does: those screaming kids (and anyone else who buys the game (including me, sorry about that)) are very much responsible for Treyarch and Activision (and EA for that matter) making these games. But you have explained that very well already.

And I agree, it's perfectly valid to discuss a game because of that. I'd just like to see people getting their reasoning straight. It's always purely subjective whether or not a game is good, I have yet to hear a valid argument that quality =/= popularity (although I do think so).

 

[LilithSlave]

Because I'm sick of first person shooters.

Entirely.

At this point, the less I even hear about them the better.

 

[BaronUberstein]

The campaign was the most far-fetched of them all and the multiplayer was like MW2's but worse.

I found it's multiplayer to be better for one reason, it had dedicated servers, so you could have custom server setups and admins who actually banned hackers.

MW2 multiplayer was unplayable for me, far too many hackers.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

What? I really enjoyed it, the customization was good, emblem making was a nice touch, a campaign I actually cared about, and zomies.

 

[ElPatron]

Black Ops can be easily considered the best/worst CoD after 4.

Some people did not like MW2 and focused on BlOps, others liked MW2 and didn't like BlOps and finally there were people who didn't like MW2 and put their hopes in Treyarch's devs - only to be utterly disappointed.

Basically, by playing BlOps you won't be getting a "sober" game. While not as "flashy" as MW2 is just as ludicrous. Huge letdown if you're a fan of CoD4.

Even if you enjoy the "brown Halo in the 60's" setting, it has flaws, some of which already mentioned here. Poor optimization on computers, the changes they did to sniping, etc.

MW2 was the only amazing CoD and black ops was okay. As far as most CoD games are it was pretty damn good.

I refuse to call it amazing because of two things:

- Plot is full of holes and is completely ludicrous compared to 4
- Multiplayer had a lot of issues (unbalance, spawns, lag, host advantage, etc etc etc)

If MW2 could be more like CoD4, it would have been much better.

It sounds like a Catch-22, but there are some things they could innovate, and others that should stay the same.

I didn't like the idea of continuing Modern Warfare.

and battlefield is the epitome of innovation *rolls eyes* they are just as imaginative as cod makers. their formula has changed just as much as CoDs has.

Except that Battlefield blatantly tried to copy MW, so at least they innovated in some way.

BF 2142 changed the classes systems and introduced the Titans and Walkers. Innovation. The Bad Company spin-off added a campaign. Innovation.

Don't get me wrong, I hated the way BF has been treated. But there are things that work and shouldn't be changed.

 

[Simonism451]

The Tex Murphy games were always better at being interactive movies. *trollface*

 

[ElPatron]

I ask: what do you want from Treyarch and Activision other than what they are doing now? Do you want them to make games like Journey?

That's a huge hyperbole, and if to you innovation is changing the genre of a franchise then I can't think of any way your argument can be taken seriously.

Call of Duty had improvement and innovation. CoD4 was an improvement compared to CoD2, whether you like WWII or modern conflicts.
MW2 and 3 are not any improvement (it seems like the general consensus is that CoD4 is still superior) and they only innovate on certain things that don't make the game better.

Example: the engine still has the same bugs and the multiplayer still has the same unbalance and spawn issues. Maybe that should have improvement (unlikely) or innovate their mechanics. They don't. They innovate in areas like killstreaks and weapons and all that.

MW2 is still what I would love to have in a first person shooter, but in my personal opinion it's so broken that it could only be enjoyable some times - and I just gave up on trying to like it.

Black Ops only takes place in the 60's and 70's. It never branches into the 80's or 50's.

I thought it was 60s only, but some of the armament you get your hands on does originate from later, like the Styer, CZ75 and G11. (And utterly fails to explain why a CIA officer would be carrying a Czech handgun FROM THE FUTURE.)

For reference, Operation 40 was 1962 (at least in our world), and IIRC the final mission takes place in 1968, but I could be mistaken there.

The game is complete non-sense. Apparently Mason participated in the assassination of J. F. Kennedy but it was Lyndon B. Johnson who escalated the Vietnam war.

That means that Mason would have to kill JFK before he went on those missions on Vietnam. It didn't make any sense to me.

Let's face it, the CZ75 is regarded as one of the best handguns in the world and the CIA used whatever the hell they want before lobbying became so widespread.

Also, if killed/captured having an American pistol would identify him.

The part with the G11 makes the least sense. It has a ridiculously complex mechanism that makes it unsuitable to be sent to combat unless you train every soldier to become a watchmaker.

It also uses caseless ammunition which is a stupid idea. The casing helps cooling down the weapon because most of the heat is transferred to the brass, and ejecting it allows that energy to dissipate into the air instead of into the firearm itself.

I think the G11 making an appearance on the game is more unrealistic than the CZ75.

 

[LilithSlave]

With that Avatar this statement is just downright funny.

I don't see why. Because Pinkie Pie looks exhilarated while my words do not?

 

[Nazulu]

Numbers are more important that you want to realize.

Transformers (the Bay movies) were, and are, a success. Rightfully so too.

Just cause you don't like it, doesn't make it any less.

Have you ever studied meditation? Have you ever realized how many unique individuals exits in the world? After you do that, think about how pitiful a few tens of thousands (that is really fucking generous number) forum posters really represents.....

You would probably feel really bad when you learned how few people in the world know/care about what STEAM is. That coming from a tech repair business...

The point is : Millions of people love it. The tens of thousands that don't, aren't really a factor worth representing. Unless you work for the company that made it, the rest of us just kinda laugh at the minority view on this one.

It's not like CoD is the only game out there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eh?

So, popular=good, eh?

I hear a certain Mr hi-<Censored by Goodwin's law> was popular too.

It was also once popular to be racist, invade other countries and be sexist. Guess that made it good, eh?

Yep. You said it right, and proper!

Good day.

So you support racisim and sexisim.

He probably doesn't, he's probably just, in contrast to you, figured out that popular opinion is what counts and what makes something good or bad. Both of those are inherently subjective, so if we even want to TRY and be objective, if you say CoD is a bad game you are inherently wrong, the numbers prove it.

Aren't you meant to try and prove something, with actual proof that it's good or bad? Not that that's my complaint but what you are saying is hardly objective. Your evidence will have to be convincing unlike 'because it's popular', which doesn't mean jack shit to me and everyone else your trying to convince.

I wonder if that is sheepish to believe somethings good just because it's popular. No offence, but it seems like it.

All in all, I think Sober Thal just really likes the game and is trying to defend any way he can.

 

[Cowabungaa]

The campaign was the most far-fetched of them all and the multiplayer was like MW2's but worse.

No it wasn't. The multiplayer that is. Mainly because it wasn't horribly broken in terms of balance, like MW2, and featured a ton more variety than MW2 ever offered.

Of course I can't disagree on the far-fetched-ness of the single player, but honestly I didn't mind that at all. I had quite a good time with it, and despite what many haters say I liked it how Black Ops wasn't one of those "shitbrown shooters" people rile against these days. I also liked the fact that they picked a different setting for once. The Cold War era is pretty under-used.

 

[Nazulu]

With that Avatar this statement is just downright funny.

I don't see why. Because Pinkie Pie looks exhilarated while my words do not?

You're sick of FPS and seeing them everywhere.

The internet is sick of MLP and seeing it everywhere, I thought that would've been obvious.

Yes, the whole of the internet is sick of MLP. THE WHOLE INTERNET. Since were being technical and off topic.

 

[ablac]

Its the 3rd time they've released it, save for a new campaign its the same mechanics, levels, and modes. Also the sheer amount of gibbering insane 10 year olds online threatening to lay your mother thrice.

BArely ever encountered them, you must just be unlucky because I play a lot and most people I knwo/spoke to have my experience rather than yours. The rest is accurate to a degree, they aren copies but they are pretty similar though ops did some cool things and is a pretty enjoysble game plus by Cod standars it is pretty innovative, which is pretty tragic, not sure why it gets all the hate.