Call of Duty: Black Ops 2

[MattFancy]

Can we all agree MW3 is easily the worst. Literally 95% the same as COD4.

It should've been called MW2.5

[Sticksboi05]

I just don't see how any game beats COD4 relative to when it was released. Every game sibnce has at least been 90% the same as 4 and builds on its game engine. Nothing that unique.

Maybe the first or COD2. 3 was eh.

[Mr. Sinister]

Typically (maybe this is just me), but the older I get, the more I am not a fan of companies that get released yearly. At some point, it just becomes repetitive, because after ahile, companies know that people will eat it up no matter what they do. It's even worse with the companies that monopolize their competition. They all start to get lazy.

[Chew]

Can we all agree MW3 is easily the worst. Literally 95% the same as COD4.

I've only played MW2, Black Ops, and MW3. MW3 was by far the worst of the three. The lag on MW3 made the game unplayable. I know I know, everybody deals with lag. But of the 10 or so FPS games I've played on PS3, I've never experienced anything like the lag I had with MW3.

[Major Harris]

World at War sucked. That's just being honest. Except the dogs, that was awesome. But it didn't do much of anything for the series. They just added some perks and went back to WWII.

it was the best one to date. different opinions. some people smoke weed, some people smoke crack. mw would be crack.

and as far as "doing anything for the series," the series was fine. 25 killstreaks didn't do anything for the series other than make it a crackfest.

[skins1206]

Woah dude...i haven't seen the article yet, but my friend just texted me saying that Black Ops 2 will be much like the Homefront system, in that you earn points for everything. Capping flags, spotting bad guys, destroying enemy equipment, will all lead to killstreaks. Though the game didn't do very well sales wise, I thought Homefront had the best killstreak system of any FPS i've ever played.

Finally, "try hards" are starting to be rewarded for their hard work. FPS games have been encouraging people to camp for years because you had to stay alive in order to hit big streaks. not anymore. :evilg::evilg::evilg::evilg::evilg:

In MW3 you get points too. So they are already doing that.

As far as MW3 goes, I still think its a better game than MW2. Its basically a polished MW2 to me. However, it didn't really change anything so people hate it. If it came out when MW2 did, people would have had a different view i think.

[Chew]

Pretty big heads up here guys. I was in GameStop last night, and the dude told me that the pre-order special to get the bonus nuketown 2025 map is only through this Friday. He said he wasn't sure about it, but he thought it was this Friday. i went ahead and put a down payment on it just to be safe. might wanna check into if if you were planning on pre-ordering to get the bonus map.

i NEED that nuketown

---------- Post added August-16th-2012 at 06:54 AM ----------

In MW3 you get points too. So they are already doing that.

.

ah, that's good stuff. I didn't remember if it did or not. I only had about 4 hours online before i stopped playing it LOL. I can't put my finger on why MW3 was so bad to me. I really enjoyed MW2, had a ton of fun playing it. But within 10 minutes of playing MW3 for the first time, I hated it.

[Sticksboi05]

it was the best one to date. different opinions. some people smoke weed, some people smoke crack. mw would be crack.

and as far as "doing anything for the series," the series was fine. 25 killstreaks didn't do anything for the series other than make it a crackfest.

It's 95% the same as COD 4 but in a different era. Same engine + a couple updates. COD4 was much more innovative and even then outside of the perks system it didn't do that much to the FPS formula started with Goldeneye in '96.

---------- Post added August-16th-2012 at 09:01 AM ----------

In MW3 you get points too. So they are already doing that.

As far as MW3 goes, I still think its a better game than MW2. Its basically a polished MW2 to me. However, it didn't really change anything so people hate it. If it came out when MW2 did, people would have had a different view i think.

You should expect more from a new game than MW 2.1.1 no?

[Chew]

Mmmm.....Goldeneye. Rockets in the Complex. Proximity Mines in the Caves.

[MattFancy]

In MW3 you get points too. So they are already doing that.

As far as MW3 goes, I still think its a better game than MW2. Its basically a polished MW2 to me. However, it didn't really change anything so people hate it. If it came out when MW2 did, people would have had a different view i think.

But why would you spend $60 on a game when its the same as the last one? That's why people were mad. Its not that the game itself was terrible, its just that it was pretty much an expansion pack to MW2.

---------- Post added August-16th-2012 at 09:05 AM ----------

Mmmm.....Goldeneye. Rockets in the Complex. Proximity Mines in the Caves.

Haha those were the days!

[Major Harris]

It's 95% the same as COD 4 but in a different era. Same engine + a couple updates. COD4 was much more innovative and even then outside of the perks system it didn't do that much to the FPS formula started with Goldeneye in '96.

to me, cod is about gameplay and maps. w@w had the best of both. adding a million different ways to get kills did nothing.

[Sticksboi05]

to me, cod is about gameplay and maps. w@w had the best of both. adding a million different ways to get kills did nothing.

I mean the maps were decent and the online gameplay was more unreliable. The gameplay was about the same since they were too lazy to use a new engine.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

I don't need the game I love to be revamped every year. The more you play, the more you notice a difference between the games. All the little nuances that can change your style up, the different map layouts, they make all the CODs vastly different to me. I'm all about these games and get excited for each new one. Don't care, or understand for that matter, when people bash it so much. I feel like it's one of those things where attacking something extremely popular is easy. I could go around and bash everything I'm not a fan of either, but what does that do other than make fans of the subject matter disdainful towards me? I like the COD engine like I like football. I don't need either revamped every year, the small changes are good enough.

[Sticksboi05]

I don't need the game I love to be revamped every year. The more you play, the more you notice a difference between the games. All the little nuances that can change your style up, the different map layouts, they make all the CODs vastly different to me. I'm all about these games and get excited for each new one. Don't care, or understand for that matter, when people bash it so much. I feel like it's one of those things where attacking something extremely popular is easy. I could go around and bash everything I'm not a fan of either, but what does that do other than make fans of the subject matter disdainful towards me? I like the COD engine like I like football. I don't need either revamped every year, the small changes are good enough.

Some of us expect more effort that's all. It's the equivalent of expansion packs and we are charged $60...

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

Some of us expect more effort that's all. It's the equivalent of expansion packs and we are charged $60...

I disagree. A hypothetical expansion pack would add a select number of new items or maps to the base gameplay. A new game, while it's still CALL OF DUTY -- like football is football, will have many subtle differences that are easy to dismiss if you aren't a hardcore player. For example, one of the many things that switched my style up between Black Ops and MW3 was the fact that they took away the "quickdraw" ability from Sleight of Hand Pro, and made it its own perk. Sounds negligible, but now I hipfire probably 30% more than I did in Black Ops.

I've changed my approach in every COD. Differences in the map designs are ridiculously obvious to me, and I always go through a period where I test everything out to find out what works best. I'd say it takes me 4 months to really start peaking at each COD.

I really hope they don't go insane and turn COD in to Battlefield's twin brother because everybody that DOESN'T play it still complains for some reason. Uh, go get another game. :idea:

[Sticksboi05]

I disagree. A hypothetical expansion pack would add a select number of new items or maps to the base gameplay. A new game, while it's still CALL OF DUTY -- like football is football, will have many subtle differences that are easy to dismiss if you aren't a hardcore player. For example, one of the many things that switched my style up between Black Ops and MW3 was the fact that they took away the "quickdraw" ability from Sleight of Hand Pro, and made it its own perk. Sounds negligible, but now I hipfire probably 30% more than I did in Black Ops.

I've changed my approach in every COD. Differences in the map designs are ridiculously obvious to me, and I always go through a period where I test everything out to find out what works best. I'd say it takes me 4 months to really start peaking at each COD.

I really hope they don't go insane and turn COD in to Battlefield's twin brother because everybody that DOESN'T play it still complains for some reason. Uh, go get another game. :idea:

I played each Call of Duty a lot up until MW3. I played Call of Duty 2 and 3 which I guarantee is more than the vast majority of current players can say. Enough was enough. Do something innovative. The online system introduced in COD4 was that. 4 was vastly superior to 3. It's almost the same since then. If you didn't play before 4 you won't understand how refreshing it was and how comparatively every game since has been underwhelming.

What you explained is understandable but it seems you're okay with dropping $60 to hipfire 30 percent more. It's still almost the game. If they stopped the ridiculous 2-year production cycles you would see much better products.

[No Excuses]

MW3 is the most diverse COD they've had in the series. They basically took out the cheap stuff from MW2 and turned into a well balanced game.

It didn't have crutches for the crappy players which is why I'm assuming it received negative reviews initially.

[MattFancy]

MW3 is the most diverse COD they've had in the series. They basically took out the cheap stuff from MW2 and turned into a well balanced game.

It didn't have crutches for the crappy players which is why I'm assuming it received negative reviews initially.

I don't think that had anything to do with it. My K/D ratio was pretty much the same in MW2 and MW3, may have even better a tad higher in MW3.

I just flat out didn't like the game. It honestly felt like they just made a few improvements from MW2 and newer maps. It just didn't have the replay appeal to me like MW2 or Black Ops did.

[Chew]

It just didn't have the replay appeal to me like MW2 or Black Ops did.

Exactly how I feel as well. For whatever reason, MW3 just didn't do it for me.

I loved MW2, but hated MW3. I loved Blops 1 as well, so here's to hoping I enjoy Blops 2!

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

What you explained is understandable but it seems you're okay with dropping $60 to hipfire 30 percent more.

K, hold on. :40oz: Ahhhhh, alright. 30% more, that's right. Hipfiring in MW3 a lot more than any COD before. In fact, I never friggen' hipfired in MW2, did you?

Anyhoots... guess it's necessary, for some reason, to point out that my example of having to hipfire more isn't only example I could list. Furthermore, it isn't the soul reason I buy new Call of Dutys...

Alright...just so we're clear on that...

So, yes, COD4 was a massively innovative gem of a game. Love that game more than any in the past 20 years, man. Maybe my favorite video game of all time. Hell, now that I think about it, COD4 IS my favorite game ever. And that game had Martyrdom and Last Stand as PERKS.

Just love to shoot players in ANY Call of Duty, man, that's it. It's pretty innocent (or maybe not). The subtle/not so subtle changes the series goes through each year keeps my ADD in check.

Can't wait to dive in to Black Ops 2, the new loadout system sounds amazing to me. Haven't played MW3 for a few weeks, but next week my COD partner will have Xbox up and ready for another push 'til November.

[Major Harris]

I mean the maps were decent and the online gameplay was more unreliable. The gameplay was about the same since they were too lazy to use a new engine.

you will never convince me that the gameplay from treyarch to iw is the same. they play differently. the feel of it, the pace, it's all different.

[Sticksboi05]

you will never convince me that the gameplay from treyarch to iw is the same. they play differently. the feel of it, the pace, it's all different.

Yeah it's a bit different. But the general mechanics are the same. I mean MW2 feels a bit different from MW. But it's still extremely similar a game.

[artmonkforHOF]

I am interested to see the new scorestreak they talk about. Nothing worse than playing domination, capture the flag or any other game that really isn't a kill first type of game and have retards going for killstreaks. I might have a 0.5 k/d ratio, but I'm securing more locations than any player on the board. Sounds good to be rewarded for killing a guy to prevent him from taking a flag or area as oppose to the chump who just looks to get kills around the focal points, not even caring if his team wins or loses, as long as he gets his 25 kill streak. I call it team deathmatch with training wheels, instead of trying to find someone by yourself, you play a game where you know action will be and just try to get kills there

I might actual play this for more than 1 month, provided they do something about those aweful remote control car bombs. Give me a perk to kill them instantly or at least make them die if I put a clip from any gun into them. Those where the most indestructible things in the game, far more resilient than even the juggernaut.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

To me, MW2 was a huge disappointment. By the far the easiest and most inexplicable spawn trapping in any COD, by far the most noob tubing in COD history, duel shotties were rampant, as was Commando. I never used SMGs in that game because of Shotties/Commando. OMA was ridiculous, so was reacquiring claymores with Scavenger. I know I'm forgetting more **** I couldn't stand, but if COD4 was genius, MW2 was its crackhead brother. I found COD4 and MW2 so much more different. Constantly played Domination in COD4, never played Domination in MW2.

Now that Terminal is in MW3, it is by far the worst map in the game, IMHO -- and this is coming from someone who 'enjoyed' it back in the day. It clearly shows the differences in map design. Most of the players on that map simply aim down their sights waiting for people to turn corners while head-glitching or lying in prone. Went through a few games of Domination where the team that spawned at B got trapped there for the entire length of the game. The other team just sat back, ate some chips and camped like hippies. That would never happen on any other map in MW3, I constantly have to run around in that game to keep enemies off flags, even if we're kicking serious ass. I literally took a piss break during a game on Terminal because there were a couple BEASTS on my team racking up the kills from the fast food counter. :facepalm:

To me MW3 and COD4 feel a lot alike, gameplay wise. There are obvious differences, one being the amount of pointstreak rewards, but they aren't nearly as dominant as they were in MW2. MW2 just felt like a hasty exploitation of what players found cool in COD4. "Oh, you like killstreaks? Here you go, have an emergency airdrop!"

[Sticksboi05]

Constantly played Domination in COD4, never played Domination in MW2.

I found this to be true. And even more so for headquarters.