Why the Hatred for Black Ops?

[Hazzard]

So far I think good points have been made, but this hasn't answered by question. This because I worded it wrong.
Here is a more revised version:
Why have long-time CoD fans who buy the same rubbish every year hate black ops but love all of the other games?

 

[Evilpigeon]

Also, the people saying everything after CoD4 should've been DLC are clearly talking out of their arse, perfect example of mindless hate. There are changes to every title that you would have to actually play to understand (which as you can tell, most people who ***** about it don't actually play it).

All in all, it's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.

They add a short new story campaign, tweak the multiplayer, add new maps and maybe expand upon the coop a bit, depending on the game.

Look at Modern warfare and now look at Modern Warfare 2, are yu seriously trying to tell me there's enough of a difference there to warrant two separate games?

I own both, what has changed that makes MW:2 not a total waste of my money?

Hell it's actually worse than an update because to keep up the facade of it being a new game they reset all my progress and got rid of the maps I enjoyed before they proceeded to make no noticeable changes to the gameplay beyond killstreaks, a change so small I'd have been annoyed if they'd tried to sell it as an addition to the original game. The spec ops and story, that's legitimate DLC territory. Maybe even an expansion. Enough change for being two iterations down the line from Cod4? Not in the slightest.

They don't add anywhere near enough new content to be considered new games. I believe they added even less to Modern Warfare 3, however I've only played with other peoplebecause I refuse to waste more money than I have already.

 

[Emiscary]

Only CoD game I've ever owned. Shitty, generic, overpriced, and I hate Sam Worthington.

 

[Evilpigeon]

Also, the people saying everything after CoD4 should've been DLC are clearly talking out of their arse, perfect example of mindless hate. There are changes to every title that you would have to actually play to understand (which as you can tell, most people who ***** about it don't actually play it).

All in all, it's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.

They add a short new story campaign, tweak the multiplayer, add new maps and maybe expand upon the coop a bit, depending on the game.

Look at Modern warfare and now look at Modern Warfare 2, are yu seriously trying to tell me there's enough of a difference there to warrant two separate games?

I own both, what has changed that makes MW:2 not a total waste of my money?

Hell it's actually worse than an update because to keep up the facade of it being a new game they reset all my progress and got rid of the maps I enjoyed before they proceeded to make no noticeable changes to the gameplay beyond killstreaks, a change so small I'd have been annoyed if they'd tried to sell it as an addition to the original game. The spec ops and story, that's legitimate DLC territory. Maybe even an expansion. Enough change for being two iterations down the line from Cod4? Not in the slightest.

They don't add anywhere near enough new content to be considered new games. I believe they added even less to Modern Warfare 3, however I've only played with other peoplebecause I refuse to waste more money than I have already.

You must not play very many sequels or Add-Ons if you think that's insubstantial in comparison to almost all the other ones. Most sequels do little more then put on a new coat of paint, a new feature or two and a new story.

Most sequels offer much more substantial changes that's my issue, I don't play anything that actually offers less. Modern warfare shortchanges you on content. Categories don't matter, when your changes to the multiplayer of a multiplayer focused game amount to
"we changed the perk system and let you guys pick what killstreaks you got"
Why are you releasing a new game? It's a rip-off and that annoys me to no end.

A short story campaign and some coop missions are not enough of a change to warrant a new game and that's pretty much all there is.

Call of Duty isn't the only game doing this, I don't buy any game that I percieve to be doing this, CoD is just the biggest and most obvious offender.

 

[Starke]

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.

The Vietnam stuff happens in '68. The key here is it's built around the Tet Offensive. That much is more or less coherent. Though it requires that he was able to assassinate Kennedy undetected, which, apparently he did. Though, IIRC, some of the email on the computer suggests that he was in fact outed sometime after '68.

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.

It's not my preference, but I'll agree about it. The only problems are, of course, he's carrying a gun FROM THE FUTURE, and a carrying a Warsaw Bloc weapon in Hong Kong in 1968 would have been a very bad idea. If captured he wouldn't be identified as CIA, true, he would most likely be identified as a Soviet allied agent. A Browning HP, would have been a much better choice, given the location and time frame, though, of course the HP isn't available in full auto (to my knowledge).

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.

Given that the first G11s didn't enter production until 1990? (I checked, I thought it was 80s) Yeah, quite a bit.

Caseless ammo itself, isn't actually a stupid idea, but the technology to actually support the concept isn't there yet.

The CZ75 makes sense as something a CIA op would carry anytime after 1989, but in 1968, when the weapon wouldn't even be designed for another 7 years, and would have been verboten under common sense in NATO territories for a few years after that, it's a bit strange.

 

[miketehmage]

For me, it was a variety of reasons. But I will admit it is a high quality game before I start. Okay, here goes: I played cod4 on the PC, with a clan, using a tactical mod, and we played very seriously, but always as a team. It was great fun. I skipped cod5 but decided to buy mw2, however I bought it for xbox instead. The first thing I noticed was that the community sucked, so I made the connection to the game. I noticed my friends didn't play as a team at all, everyone just competed for kills and didn't care about the win. I disliked this and made the connection to the game. BlackOps then was the last chance I gave the series. I hated the campaign. Flashbacks IMO are for talentless writers. The twist at the end sucked IMO. And the game mechanics weren't changed. So I essentially paid for a shit campaign and the same multiplayer on different maps.

So it was the last game in the series I bought. I also don't like the idea of throwing my money at a company to buy something that is almost the same as something I already own.

 

[gim73]

I don't hate it. If anything, I love the CoD franchise. I think this comes from the fact that I have yet to pay more than a 6 dollar rental fee for one since Call Of Duty 2.

Six dollars? It took you more than a weekend to beat? I pretty much had all the play value done with in a single redbox rental. It's not like the game could have helped it. It's a crap game with a short story and horrid interface. People rag on ODST all the time, but I'd put that game ABOVE Black ops, MW2, MW3 and WaW. I'd probably put CoD4 above it, but only back when it was sold for 39.99, back before it got popular.

 

[Evilpigeon]

Go ahead and name a few games where you consider the changes more substantial. Oh, but let's keep things remotely fair and stick to games that have about the same dev time.

I'm going to quote my last post at you because I feel it's easier than responding properly.

Call of Duty isn't the only game doing this, I don't buy any game that I percieve to be doing this, CoD is just the biggest and most obvious offender.

No, most games are not yearly franchises, they're simply the ones with the most iterations.

I have several games with expansions that added more to the original game than CoD sequels do. I don't play all that many fps game so I can't really give you like for like but I can expand on that if you like.

See below for a much better answer, full of games I have not played

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Well, I'm not sure if it's been said already but...

I dropped out of the CoD series after World at War (which was also my first foray). But it's not because "COD IS SHIIIIT" like strongly opinionated say, I just don't gel with these kind of games. I was never a big fan of the Medal of Honour series either, and the Battlefield games I like are 1942 and 2, but not the story based off-shoot series (haven't played 3 yet).

I liked blops, not loved it. I played a friends copy and even dabbled in the multiplayer until the first level of prestige. I found it a bit hit and miss, a little vanilla, a small bit plain... decidedly average. But not bad. I thought the story was quirky, but in a good way... I hate it when games that can't hold a serious note without shooting themselves in the foot try to play a plot straight. Blops went crazy, and I think it worked for it.

The gunplay has always been the highlight to the series. It just feels tight and well refined... though in MP, I find that the devs spend little time going over balance. I dread the day they try micro transaction schemes as it will be DEFINITELY a pay to win scenario.

 

[Evilpigeon]

Go ahead and name a few games where you consider the changes more substantial. Oh, but let's keep things remotely fair and stick to games that have about the same dev time.

I'm going to quote my last post at you because I feel it's easier than responding properly.

Call of Duty isn't the only game doing this, I don't buy any game that I percieve to be doing this, CoD is just the biggest and most obvious offender.

Yearly franchises are almost all rip-offs. CoD is simply the biggest offender.

No, most games are not yearly franchises, they're simply the ones with the most iterations.

I have several games with expansions that added more to the original game than CoD sequels do. I don't play all that many fps game so I can't really give you like for like but I can expand on that if you like.

I'm just trying to make you into a example as to point out that it's silly that this is the go to complaint about CoD when it could be said for nearly all sequels. It's strange because there are better, more befitting complaints. I was hoping that you could become my jumping off point to say, that it appears to me, that it isn't the substance of the sequels but the substance in comparison to it's popularity or in other words ''I think people just expect more from it because it is so popular, they are holding it to higher standards.'' Sadly you didn't indulge my wish xD

Anywho, yes, go ahead and elaborate, I am honestly curious if these unnamed games really have more substance or if you are just biased. But do know, seeing as I have no dea what games you are talking about, I don't know if I will actually be able to comment, it depending on me having played them or atleast having substantial information in order to comment.

Alright, it's nothing rare, I just mostly play rpgs and rts games. Speaking of which:

The Shivering Isles adds as much to Oblivion as MW:2 does to CoD4, 30+ hours of new single player content, plus new items, areas voiced characters etc... Probably some of the best content in the game as well.

Company of heroes opposing fronts doubles the number of playable sides in the muliplayer whilst adding a a longer campaign than Modern Warfare:2

The sins of a solar empire expansions really change up the game, also they did a major, major patch fairly soon after release that probably changed the gameplay more than Mw -> MW:2.

The fallout 3 DLC adds more content to the game than modern warfare sequels.

I guess it depends how you value it as well, it could be argued that you get 100s of hours from the minor changes from each CoD sequel but in that case is it realyl the new content that's making you play or is it simply that you enjoy the gameplay?

I did really enjoy Cod4, it's just that the sequels haven't changed anything so after being thoroughly dissapointed by Modern Warfare:2 I stopped buying them. I really hate people calling things sequels unless they're definite on the game and CoD just feels like an ever growing series of cash-ins.

 

[mjc0961]

The campaign was very poor. Lots of places with endlessly respawning enemies. It's also completely unfair that enemies can use cover and all you can do is stand behind it and get shot because there's no way to properly hide. There's also no way to properly peek out of cover, again because you can't even go into cover in the first place. You can just stand behind a wall or crouch behind a desk and hope that part of you isn't sticking out for the enemies to get shot (usually there is, though). Yeah, that game fucking sucked on Insanity or whatever they called the hardest difficulty.

Also, the story was god-damn stupid with a really bad ending.

I suppose the only redeeming feature would be the multiplayer, but I didn't find that interesting enough to keep the game.

Yearly franchises are almost all rip-offs. CoD is simply the biggest offender.

No, most games are not yearly franchises, they're simply the ones with the most iterations.

I have several games with expansions that added more to the original game than CoD sequels do. I don't play all that many fps game so I can't really give you like for like but I can expand on that if you like.

Except each CoD game is in development for about two years. Activision has multiple developers making the games so a new one can come out each year, but each game gets about two years to be made. Just like a lot of other games.

You "I hate CoD because it's popular" people always love to rattle on about that yearly release schedule while ignoring the facts, don't you?