Doesn't that just make the lack of change between iterations worse? I don't see your point. I don't hate it because it's popular I dislike what they're doing with the series because I hold it up to the same standards as I do other games.mjc0961 said:
Why the Hatred for Black Ops?
- Thread starter Hazzard
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, in part it's because it's popular. Very popular. Almost everything popular gets almost equal amounts of hate. Take Justin Bieber, Twilight and Harry Potter. A lot of people love something, a lot of people either don't care or dislike it. However those people have to hear about it to no end. They get sick of living with something that they don't want to hear about.
You'll see the same when it comes to people being bullied. Sometimes they just snap and go berserk. Call of Duty and anything else that is popular works the same way with a few exceptions. This is something that it's completely acceptable to vent your feelings about. It also occurs from several channels, sometimes at the same time. People react by starting to hate something they didn't have strong feelings about in the start.
I'm sure there's tons of other reasons, but I think what I just say may be a part of it.
You'll see the same when it comes to people being bullied. Sometimes they just snap and go berserk. Call of Duty and anything else that is popular works the same way with a few exceptions. This is something that it's completely acceptable to vent your feelings about. It also occurs from several channels, sometimes at the same time. People react by starting to hate something they didn't have strong feelings about in the start.
I'm sure there's tons of other reasons, but I think what I just say may be a part of it.
That explains it. Playing a Black Ops without the "downward spiral" feeling makes it more enjoyable. Unlike other players, you didn't expect Black Ops to solve the problems IW created.Karutomaru said:
I expected Black Ops to solve critical mistakes. I know that people whine about "BUT A GAME SHOULD BE REVIEWED AS IT IS", but guess what? This last decade reviewers have compared games to their predecessors as a way of judging innovation and progress.
I have to say that BlOps let me down because I really wanted another jungle shooter. Sadly there wasn't a lot of jungle in it. I have been spoiled by Crysis...Cowabungaa said:
The Cold-War era has been used in a load of games, books and movies.
The plot was also completely predictable.
Before playing BlOps I had been reading some Len Deighton and Frederick Forsyth books - anyone who had watched or read any spy story set in the Cold War could see it coming from miles away.
Immediate reaction: A 6 hour story campaign and the Spec Ops, a nice addition but it still comes nowhere close in terms of playable content versus ~ 100-150 odd hours of New vegas content. I also disagree that the multiplayer changes were substantial, there really are patches for games that do more to change the multiplayer modes than iterations of CoD do.Monoochrom said:
Listing the features like that doesn't examine how much content is added, it simplyu lists the areas where content was added.
I'm intrigued as to what you think the right arguments are though
I don't hate it, I just think that I have had enough of being screwed over for being a fan.
I want a game with a new engine rather than them sticking to the formula they know will sell. Mario of the FPS world if you will.
Personally I enjoyed Black Ops. I think that they put effort in to entice players to return to the single player with a complicated story that probably made more sense second time around and there was a reason to return with little hidden extras. Okay it was still the same non-stop set pieces but after I saw screens for the next cod and saw more of the same I thought not for me.
Haven't played one since.
I want a game with a new engine rather than them sticking to the formula they know will sell. Mario of the FPS world if you will.
Personally I enjoyed Black Ops. I think that they put effort in to entice players to return to the single player with a complicated story that probably made more sense second time around and there was a reason to return with little hidden extras. Okay it was still the same non-stop set pieces but after I saw screens for the next cod and saw more of the same I thought not for me.
Haven't played one since.
Because it's not an improvement.
See you might like eating pizza once and even if it's a little burnt around the edges and the cheese isn't quite melted and the pizza is maybe a little cold you're okay with that because damn pizza is good right?
Then the next day you have pizza again and it's exactly the same. You wonder why they didn't change anything but along with the other pizza eaters (stretchin' ma metaphor) you raise a bit of a fuss, you just point out where it's wrong and what you think a good idea is. Sure you think your one voice is pointless and it is, personal opinion is silly and the pizza is mass produced, not everyone is going to like the same thing as you. Still though the consensus is pretty tight, people agree on what's wrong and what's good.
Then they send out a new pizza again, this time with a few slices of pepperoni but the pizza is still the same, same quality, same problems, they're just trying to cover up the taste with some cheap meat.
That's my issue with CoD and specifically Blops. It has made some progress but as a whole it's weak sauce. I don't agree with taking a game on its own merit because that's silly, you compare games, you need to, the easiest scale is to compare two things. Taken on its own it's a fine game, it's enjoyable, sure the SP is short but the MP is a good laugh, there are issues (hit detection, poor maps) but overall it's not terrible by any means and zombies is a neat feature. Taken with WaW and CoD4 and MW2 in the mix it's apparent just how little is changed and what is being changed is for the worse (compare CoD4 story).
See you might like eating pizza once and even if it's a little burnt around the edges and the cheese isn't quite melted and the pizza is maybe a little cold you're okay with that because damn pizza is good right?
Then the next day you have pizza again and it's exactly the same. You wonder why they didn't change anything but along with the other pizza eaters (stretchin' ma metaphor) you raise a bit of a fuss, you just point out where it's wrong and what you think a good idea is. Sure you think your one voice is pointless and it is, personal opinion is silly and the pizza is mass produced, not everyone is going to like the same thing as you. Still though the consensus is pretty tight, people agree on what's wrong and what's good.
Then they send out a new pizza again, this time with a few slices of pepperoni but the pizza is still the same, same quality, same problems, they're just trying to cover up the taste with some cheap meat.
That's my issue with CoD and specifically Blops. It has made some progress but as a whole it's weak sauce. I don't agree with taking a game on its own merit because that's silly, you compare games, you need to, the easiest scale is to compare two things. Taken on its own it's a fine game, it's enjoyable, sure the SP is short but the MP is a good laugh, there are issues (hit detection, poor maps) but overall it's not terrible by any means and zombies is a neat feature. Taken with WaW and CoD4 and MW2 in the mix it's apparent just how little is changed and what is being changed is for the worse (compare CoD4 story).
I have played the CoD series for nearly 1,000 hours excluding MW 2 as I will never play that thing due to boycott reasons. Between CoD 2 and 4 I can vouch for a counted 700 hours rounded up off my xfire profile which is not 100% accurate on play time. I played BO for around 40ish hours.
I have to be honest a lot of that time was spent tweaking settings to get the game to work respectably and sorting out campaign bugs. The rest was spent trying to get my money's worth.
There have things that have been wrong with multiplayer since at least CoD 2 days that should have been fixed. The example I want to use is a bit strange as they actually managed to make it worse in BO. The Spawn points. They have always been awful but I just want to say I am aware WaW and BO are made by Treyarch.
There has been a massive power creep in the multiplayer in terms of what weapons do and they seem to have the mentality that if everything is imbalanced it will become balanced again. That is what it feels like when I play BO. In CoD 4 the only thing that was unbalanced was the P90 and even then it was manageable. Some say the M16 was OP but that seems to be a console centric complaint.
I do know a bit of what I am talking about as I was in clans in CoD up until WaW and then I just lost interest in the series as it wasn't moving forward but just stepping to the side. I used to do a bit on clan base and scrims here and there so I know what people thought was balanced and what was most used by competitive players. Well for CoDs 2 and 4
If people like the series and still buy it that is fine I don't care any more but it is a bastardised version of what it once was. You can say things like Lean and Dedicated servers are insignificant as much as the haters that hate for no reason hate it but it doesn't make it any more right.
Maps not balanced for Lean. Really that is the best you got?
I may give the series another try if it ever decides to stop doing spin offs and make a CoD 5 but until then because of BO I won't ever touch it again.
EDIT: I came back after I remember the horrid map design in BO which were all awful and for some reason everyone wants to fucking play Nuketown 24/7. Probably the worst map I have ever played.
EDIT 2: I realised some people think the M16 comment might be a bit PC elitist but it isn't. I've never heard anyone complain about it being OP before a console user did on this forum. I looked into a bit and due to complaints that were made I think it is a more a problem with the aim assist on consoles.
I have to be honest a lot of that time was spent tweaking settings to get the game to work respectably and sorting out campaign bugs. The rest was spent trying to get my money's worth.
There have things that have been wrong with multiplayer since at least CoD 2 days that should have been fixed. The example I want to use is a bit strange as they actually managed to make it worse in BO. The Spawn points. They have always been awful but I just want to say I am aware WaW and BO are made by Treyarch.
There has been a massive power creep in the multiplayer in terms of what weapons do and they seem to have the mentality that if everything is imbalanced it will become balanced again. That is what it feels like when I play BO. In CoD 4 the only thing that was unbalanced was the P90 and even then it was manageable. Some say the M16 was OP but that seems to be a console centric complaint.
I do know a bit of what I am talking about as I was in clans in CoD up until WaW and then I just lost interest in the series as it wasn't moving forward but just stepping to the side. I used to do a bit on clan base and scrims here and there so I know what people thought was balanced and what was most used by competitive players. Well for CoDs 2 and 4
If people like the series and still buy it that is fine I don't care any more but it is a bastardised version of what it once was. You can say things like Lean and Dedicated servers are insignificant as much as the haters that hate for no reason hate it but it doesn't make it any more right.
Maps not balanced for Lean. Really that is the best you got?
I may give the series another try if it ever decides to stop doing spin offs and make a CoD 5 but until then because of BO I won't ever touch it again.
EDIT: I came back after I remember the horrid map design in BO which were all awful and for some reason everyone wants to fucking play Nuketown 24/7. Probably the worst map I have ever played.
EDIT 2: I realised some people think the M16 comment might be a bit PC elitist but it isn't. I've never heard anyone complain about it being OP before a console user did on this forum. I looked into a bit and due to complaints that were made I think it is a more a problem with the aim assist on consoles.
First off, the multiplayer was a horribly unbalanced mess with certain weapons making other weapons completely obsolete. Let's give some examples:
- The AUG and FAMAS were complete upgrades to the AK-47 and Commando, literally being higher rate-of-fire versions of them.
- The AK-74u had significantly less recoil, a faster reload, and far more attachment options (including Dual Mags, something only it and the MPL can use) than the MP5k,; but otherwise were exactly the same stats-wise.
- The Spectre was a complete upgrade to the Uzi, MAC-11, Kiparis, and PM-63. All of its stats and attachment options were either the same as the other low-powered SMGs or flat out better with the sole exception of the MPL's ability to equip Dual Mags. The only things they have going for them were the 2-round larger magazine of the Uzi (which gets completely eclipsed by the Uzi's ridiculously high recoil and much longer reload) and the Dual Wield option of the other 3 (which is far too inaccurate and impractical to be of any use on them even with Steady Aim).
- The Stoner rendered the HK-21 almost completely pointless, boasting a much higher rate-of-fire, same damage, same recoil, and faster ADS speed (though the HK does have better hipfire).
- The CZ-75 had the exact same stats as the Makarov and M1911, but boasted the Full-Auto attachment option and had a far larger magazine. No matter how you look at it, it's a complete upgrade.
Anyways, the map design is just as terrible as MW3's. Incredibly bland maps that focus far too much on corridor-based combat that extremely limit line-of-sight and discourage all playstyles other than CQC blitzkrieg-rushing. The spawning systems amplify these issues further by spawning players nearby enemies and encouraging instant-revenge kills by deliberately spawning players by the enemy that just killed them. In the end, Black Ops is a CQC-clusterfuck that lacks any real focus (like MW3) and is full of weapon imbalances. I'm honestly amazed that some people consider this game the most balanced CoD to date when there are so many complete upgrades that exist in this game.
- The AUG and FAMAS were complete upgrades to the AK-47 and Commando, literally being higher rate-of-fire versions of them.
- The AK-74u had significantly less recoil, a faster reload, and far more attachment options (including Dual Mags, something only it and the MPL can use) than the MP5k,; but otherwise were exactly the same stats-wise.
- The Spectre was a complete upgrade to the Uzi, MAC-11, Kiparis, and PM-63. All of its stats and attachment options were either the same as the other low-powered SMGs or flat out better with the sole exception of the MPL's ability to equip Dual Mags. The only things they have going for them were the 2-round larger magazine of the Uzi (which gets completely eclipsed by the Uzi's ridiculously high recoil and much longer reload) and the Dual Wield option of the other 3 (which is far too inaccurate and impractical to be of any use on them even with Steady Aim).
- The Stoner rendered the HK-21 almost completely pointless, boasting a much higher rate-of-fire, same damage, same recoil, and faster ADS speed (though the HK does have better hipfire).
- The CZ-75 had the exact same stats as the Makarov and M1911, but boasted the Full-Auto attachment option and had a far larger magazine. No matter how you look at it, it's a complete upgrade.
Anyways, the map design is just as terrible as MW3's. Incredibly bland maps that focus far too much on corridor-based combat that extremely limit line-of-sight and discourage all playstyles other than CQC blitzkrieg-rushing. The spawning systems amplify these issues further by spawning players nearby enemies and encouraging instant-revenge kills by deliberately spawning players by the enemy that just killed them. In the end, Black Ops is a CQC-clusterfuck that lacks any real focus (like MW3) and is full of weapon imbalances. I'm honestly amazed that some people consider this game the most balanced CoD to date when there are so many complete upgrades that exist in this game.
Black ops in my opinion was the best CoD game of them all. Had a brilliant plot twist, my favorite mission out of all the games, an actually really great plot twist. I dont understand the hate...towards the campaign that is. The online was the same shit as before. Its time they mixed it up!...please?
Monoochrom said:
How good something is isn't determined by the majority, it's determined by the people who are most familiar with the subject. Majority rule is a horrible way to determine somethings worth because the thing that garners the majority is often the thing that's easiest to get into, not the thing that's most well designed.
Not everyone is passionate about video games. A lot of people pick up call of duty because it's easy to get into the game and it doesn't require any dedication. They don't know or care about call of duty's effects on the rest of the gaming industry or how it compares to a lot of other more obscure titles. They don't get to decide it's good. They're not experienced with the subject.
The reason sexism and racism is considered bad now is because the more experienced people started to fight for their rights, and the majority slowly joined them. The majority almost never starts something new, it always takes a few people who know about the subject to spark its popularity. Who better to determine the quality of a game than the ones who decide the mediums future?
Personally the thing i hate most about call of duty is its lack of any real depth. yeah, sure, the weapon selection is nice, but there's very little thought that goes into it. New weapons don't change the play style that much. From what i played of call of duty a lot of my accomplishments didn't really make me feel good. A lot of my kills came from catching people while they were looking away which didn't really make me feel good as much as make me feel lucky, and a good chunk of my deaths came from random grenade spam, which always pissed me off to no end. I never had any what i call "evil laugh" moments in call of duty, when i accomplished something so amazing i just wanted to laugh to myself. Like sneaking into an enemy base in TF2 and planting a lvl 3 sentry there, or flanking an entire group as a heavy and just gunning them down pretending i was a giant fat spy with a mini gun.
For me the game is mindless fun. It's nice for a little while but i get bored of it very very quickly. Even with the leveling system the new guns and perks don't really give me enough to keep playing. I'm not shelling out $60 more for it every 2 years. I have better games i want to spend the money on. To me it looks like activision is trying to milk as much money out of the franchise as possible before gamers get bored and move on.
The game takes place in the late 60's. Most of the guns in the game were from the 70's (i.e. the AUG, FAMAS, or MP5K) or 80's (i.e. the WA2000, L96, or G11) and wouldn't have existed even in prototype form in the time period of the game. Hell, to make things worse, the versions of the AUG and the FAMAS the game used weren't developed until the 1990's. So yeah, Black Ops's weapon selection was VERY anachronistic.Hazy992 said:
In fact, just read over this: http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Black_Ops . It gives information on what weapons truly didn't exist in Black Ops's time period and which ones did.