Title: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nonentity on September 02, 2010, 02:24:59 PM Didn't see a thread for this.
I know most people here enjoyed Modern Warfare 2 on the consoles, but I was one of the few who enjoyed it on PC. Latest trailer about the 'Wager' modes in multiplayer sound kind of interesting - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg_8mPoloBo Treyarch really must be trying to win that PC crowd back, as they keep going down the bullet list of things that are expected, such as dedicated servers and mod tools. It also seems like for more of the casual players, they'll be interested in the standard modes, and the more dick wagging players can go into the more intense wager modes in an attempt to get a lot of 'CoD Dollars' to unlock a bunch of stuff. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: K9 on September 02, 2010, 05:42:33 PM That looks pretty fun
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Malakili on September 02, 2010, 07:00:00 PM The gun game is ripped straight from a counter strike mod. Looks decent enough I suppose if you are into Call of Duty to begin with.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nonentity on September 02, 2010, 09:29:13 PM The gun game is ripped straight from a counter strike mod. Looks decent enough I suppose if you are into Call of Duty to begin with. Yeah, I'm familair with the mod. I find it interesting they are putting that mode specifically into the wager modes. Call of Duty is very much my guilty pleasure game. There's not exactly that much compelling content, but I like shooting dudes and getting new guns. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nonentity on October 31, 2010, 01:03:07 PM Bumping this for reveal info. This is kind of a plotline spoiler (not really, lol) in that it comes after the very end of the game, and is in relation to the zombie co-op mode.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Ingmar on October 31, 2010, 01:09:27 PM That is... :awesome_for_real:
I might buy the game for that alone, and I don't play these things at all. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: jakonovski on October 31, 2010, 01:12:29 PM So is there going to be a sniper section like Chernobyl in MW, only this time you assassinate Kennedy. :awesome_for_real:
...I wish, the games industry is way, way too spineless to even entertain the idea. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: NiX on October 31, 2010, 02:37:11 PM Ugh, dolphin diving.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: 01101010 on November 09, 2010, 01:30:19 PM Is this even remotely worth getting right now? Anyone currently playing have an opinion? My curiosity is peaked a bit.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Rasix on November 09, 2010, 03:00:28 PM Reviews are pretty glowing. Single player looks like vanilla FPS with vehicles.
Multiplayer options at least sound a bit intriguing. I haven't done the whole online FPS thing since the first few months of TF2. I'm pretty positive my PC would croak on this game and.. I'm not on board with the new fangled console shooter thing. I'm pretty much waiting on the reaction here as well. As a whole through, we don't seem like the audience for this. edit: Hah. The Kotaku review has me less interested. Crecente is such a useless, fanboy hack. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: eldaec on November 09, 2010, 03:39:34 PM Everything I read says it is MW2 without herpes.
So I might pick it up when steam is selling it for £2 or whatever at christmas. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: NiX on November 09, 2010, 04:28:53 PM Roomie blew through this a day early. MW2 without Herpes is a very apt description.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Hawkbit on November 09, 2010, 04:32:24 PM Apologies for the obtuse question, but what was MW2 Herpes?
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nonentity on November 09, 2010, 04:54:34 PM Compared to MW2 on PC, the multiplayer in Black Ops is simply a refinement of what was there already, but with proper dedicated server support, and fun wager match modes.
There are some notable performance issues for a good chunk of people currently, and it is purportedly being related to something server side, but there are some tweaks you can do at the moment to make it playable. If you're on the fence, I'd say give it a week or so to make sure the issues clear up, but it's plenty fine as-is. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on November 09, 2010, 05:03:18 PM Hrrm. While World at War had interestingly aggressive AI, the level design sucked literal ass. I'm not convinced that most reviews these days will actually be representative of the actual gameplay, I'm not convinced it won't just be a 5 hour ripoff, and I'm also not convinced that there aren't any activations even though steam doesn't say anything about activations yet.
And what the christ at the €60 pricepoint? Is it made of pure gold? Apologies for the obtuse question, but what was MW2 Herpes? No console, no lean, no dedicated server (even though PC gamers managed to find all of the functionality in the game itself I believe, until IW released a patch that just removed it even further), 5 hour disjointed SP and a few other details I can't be arsed to remember offhand.Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: FatuousTwat on November 09, 2010, 07:29:05 PM Anyone else :facepalm: when they saw the Kobe commercial?
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Paelos on November 09, 2010, 07:41:32 PM I liked the music. I was annoyed that they put Jimmy Kimmel in there.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: waffel on November 09, 2010, 08:01:57 PM (http://i.imgur.com/FJLYw.jpg)
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: FatuousTwat on November 09, 2010, 08:37:54 PM Hey, Carl Winslow will fuck your shit up.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Ginaz on November 09, 2010, 08:51:14 PM Gah. :ye_gods: I don't know what I hate worse....hopping or flopping.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: LK on November 09, 2010, 10:32:05 PM I almost don't want to see what that guy looks like today for fear of ruining my late 80's / early 90's image of him.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Engels on November 09, 2010, 11:00:31 PM So, uhm, does this have lean? Its a serious question. World of Tanks has no lean. I'm ok with that. Its a tank. It can't lean. Humans, they be leaning machines. I gotta have lean.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: eldaec on November 10, 2010, 03:19:31 AM So, uhm, does this have lean? Its a serious question. World of Tanks has no lean. I'm ok with that. Its a tank. It can't lean. Humans, they be leaning machines. I gotta have lean. Black ops is balanced for lean. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on November 10, 2010, 03:31:20 AM Black ops is balanced for lean. You're not just making a funny now, are you? It actually does have lean?(It's a bit sad to have to actually ask that of a COD game) Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: NiX on November 10, 2010, 06:22:18 AM No lean to be found when we played.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Engels on November 10, 2010, 07:40:13 AM Well, which is it?
I'm only interested in the PC version, and for the matter, only the Multiplayer elements. It may have a good first person storyline, but its secondary to me. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Paelos on November 10, 2010, 07:43:23 AM Lean is in.
Gamespot thread here. (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/callofduty7workingtitle/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-57073117&pid=960187) Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: NiX on November 10, 2010, 08:13:23 AM Well then, Phire just sucks at games then. Finally, I can confirm this truth.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on November 10, 2010, 10:05:21 AM Quote I still dont see why people make such a big deal out of it though. It has its situations, but for the most part people dont use it. Because PC gamers are the biggest crybabies with entitlement issues the gaming world knows. You're right, lean isn't a big deal. A couple "big bad hardcore PC FPS bros" will go around telling everyone it's the only way for a FPS to be "legit" and that they use it "ALL THE TIME OMG," but it's just a situational, minor feature. I love that mentality. "It's a minor feature, which only a few people use, so why even bother putting it in? Damn, they've such an entitlement issue!" Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Paelos on November 10, 2010, 10:49:22 AM In any competitive environment, a working grasp of the "minor" features are the ones that usually seperate the great and the average.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: waffel on November 10, 2010, 09:57:56 PM Competitive online gaming is one of those things you do from ages 16-early 20s. After that you just say fuck it and play for fun.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 10, 2010, 10:13:47 PM The very little I managed to play actually was pretty good. It lacked that "lol you take three steps and die" approach to map design that MW2 had... Too bad the hitching makes the game essentially unplayable.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on November 11, 2010, 12:31:08 AM Competitive online gaming is one of those things you do from ages 16-early 20s. After that you just say fuck it and play for fun. I actually play "competitively" in a lan party once a year, on a lan-party for neckbeards over 25. We still play such games like CSS (I don't, I got bored of that eons ago, though), MW1 and (this last time) BC2.I still want lean. :P Too bad the hitching makes the game essentially unplayable. What hitching?Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 11, 2010, 12:41:59 AM Quote What hitching? The game is unplayable for a large number of people, some of them even having expensive new gaming machines. The issue definitely isn't server side. What happens is you get crap frame rates and random hiccups no matter how good or bad of a system you have; rendering the game pretty much unplayable. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Phire on November 11, 2010, 07:00:38 AM Well then, Phire just sucks at games then. Finally, I can confirm this truth. More like I am too boss to need to lean. Call of Duty SP is a not a game that really requires leans as most of my deaths were caused by grenades :P Besides I don't have manuals for these games nor do I read option menus. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on November 11, 2010, 09:09:56 AM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSChUAF83AY :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: LK on November 11, 2010, 09:35:04 AM I have trouble justifying putting the disc into the drive and playing it after MW2 & Infinity Ward. It seems I'm the extreme minority in feeling this way given the record number of sales the game has received (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129030).
It feels like a meaningless gesture on my part to not purchase the game on principle, regardless of the fact that it seems to be a good game that continues the CoD tradition while keeping the things that Treyarch added, like Nazi Zombies. But I've seen franchises taken over in the past by other companies (Bethesda -> Obsidian, Bioware -> Obsidian, Blizzard -> Swinging Ape) and I haven't really complained, but I guess I haven't seen something so dramatic as IW -> Treyarch. I don't know, what do you all think? Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on November 11, 2010, 10:33:06 AM If it'd been a good game, without online activations and consoleitis, and at a reasonable price point, I would've bought it. I haven't seen any indications of online activations (so far), but the price point has been ludicrous (60 euro? what the fuck), and for now it seems like it has a chance of being unplayable.
Personally, I think that's more the way to go than to avoid buying a game simply because they were total asshats on the previous game, since hey, they could've changed their ways. If they haven't, however (like 60 fucking euro for a 5-6h SP game), fuck'em. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: LK on November 11, 2010, 10:35:28 AM I can see them justifying a high price point because of multiplayer combined with no subscriptions, and the single player being a short but dense experience meant to be replayed on higher difficulties but ultimately not the core of the experience. The multiplayer is the core of this series now and mostly what you're paying for. The SP is an action movie you're meant to blow through and get to the multiplayer. If you don't like multiplayer then yes, it's going to be a *huge* waste of your money.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Azazel on November 11, 2010, 10:45:33 AM I have trouble justifying putting the disc into the drive and playing it after MW2 & Infinity Ward. It seems I'm the extreme minority in feeling this way given the record number of sales the game has received (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129030). It feels like a meaningless gesture on my part to not purchase the game on principle, regardless of the fact that it seems to be a good game that continues the CoD tradition while keeping the things that Treyarch added, like Nazi Zombies. But I've seen franchises taken over in the past by other companies (Bethesda -> Obsidian, Bioware -> Obsidian, Blizzard -> Swinging Ape) and I haven't really complained, but I guess I haven't seen something so dramatic as IW -> Treyarch. I don't know, what do you all think? IW were great Devs, all the way from when they were 2011 and produced the first MoH games through to CoD4:MW. Somewhere after that, they changed to giant douches with the MW2 shit. I don't mind developing for Consoles first, but MW2 had a variety of issues. Treyarch have gone from shitty to solidly "okay" with COD5:WaW. If they've decided to not be massive douchebags in the post-MW2 space, and have created a fun game, then fucking well done to them. I'll be buying it when it gets cheap, which with Activision and Bobby on board, might be a couple of years. I hope I can find another couple of games to play in the meantime. :why_so_serious: Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Azazel on November 11, 2010, 10:47:07 AM With the SP so short on this and MW2, I might see if the local video library has either of them for rental when I go on Christmas holidays in a few weeks. Screw their MP. I have Battlefield!
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Azazel on November 11, 2010, 10:48:17 AM [Besides I don't have manuals for these games nor do I read option menus. Wow. You sound tough. You must get all the girls. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Cyrrex on November 11, 2010, 10:54:29 AM I can see them justifying a high price point because of multiplayer combined with no subscriptions, and the single player being a short but dense experience meant to be replayed on higher difficulties but ultimately not the core of the experience. The multiplayer is the core of this series now and mostly what you're paying for. The SP is an action movie you're meant to blow through and get to the multiplayer. If you don't like multiplayer then yes, it's going to be a *huge* waste of your money. Really? I can't see it. I'm probably being dense, but no way does development for multiplayer, pound for pound, cost as much as developing the single player game. No way. In hell. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: LK on November 11, 2010, 11:16:16 AM Really? I can't see it. I'm probably being dense, but no way does development for multiplayer, pound for pound, cost as much as developing the single player game. No way. In hell. Probably not, especially when you factor out things like V.O., scripting levels, etc., but I look at it as the amount of entertainment / enjoyment you'd get out of it. By that standard MMOs with $15 / month subscription fees are the best bang for buck compared to no-subscription $60 games with highly entertaining and recyclable multiplayer with new editions received annually or semi-annually. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on November 11, 2010, 11:31:27 AM I can see them justifying a high price point because of multiplayer combined with no subscriptions If they had actually said that, I would've said that what they really mean to say was "The price is so high because today's kids are so concerned about having what's considered 'the last edition of $game' that they're willing to pay extra for the ... privilege".And as for "no subscriptions", what? I'm supposed to pay premium just because they're not trying their hardest to wring even MORE money out of me over time? Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 11, 2010, 12:08:58 PM This reminds me of a funny little thing that appears when you fire up Black Cops Multiplayer.
"Black Ops Multiplayer: Free with every copy of Call of Duty: Black Ops" "Have a nice day" :oh_i_see: Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Pennilenko on November 11, 2010, 12:31:37 PM This game is shit, it barely runs, constantly goes black. This is the last time i buy a shooter just because all my friends are getting it.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: LK on November 11, 2010, 12:36:36 PM I need to see a screenshot of that Nightblade.
No subscriptions: the game servers are always running and no subscription to get them. Assuming best-case scenario of new game every year, 60 euro works out to 5 euro a month to purchase access, aside from the other features of the game. Maybe I don't understand how much regular games cost or how much previous Call of Duty games cost in Europe. The game costs $60 here which is normal for a "big" release like this. Would a multiplayer-only title fly at $60? No. But the strength of it's multiplayer would allow it to skimp on single player since the franchise isn't about that anymore. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Cyrrex on November 11, 2010, 12:40:05 PM I think people are complaining that the PC price point is 60. It's usually 10 bucks/euros cheaper than the console version. A little trick MW2 started with last year.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 11, 2010, 02:31:47 PM I need to see a screenshot of that Nightblade. No subscriptions: the game servers are always running and no subscription to get them. Assuming best-case scenario of new game every year, 60 euro works out to 5 euro a month to purchase access, aside from the other features of the game. Maybe I don't understand how much regular games cost or how much previous Call of Duty games cost in Europe. The game costs $60 here which is normal for a "big" release like this. Would a multiplayer-only title fly at $60? No. But the strength of it's multiplayer would allow it to skimp on single player since the franchise isn't about that anymore. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Blade111/th_Derp.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Blade111/?action=view¤t=Derp.jpg) After that, the little message flips Patch just released, works fine (not perfect) now for me; some other people still having issues. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: LK on November 11, 2010, 02:44:33 PM What.
The. Fuck. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on November 11, 2010, 02:48:07 PM You see, they're adding value to their product by giving us free online gameplay. It's a new and never-before-seen feature.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: NiX on November 11, 2010, 04:06:01 PM You see, they're adding value to their product by giving us free online gameplay. It's a new and never-before-seen feature. They're making fun of Bad Company 2. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 11, 2010, 04:19:16 PM You see, they're adding value to their product by giving us free online gameplay. It's a new and never-before-seen feature. They're making fun of Bad Company 2. I... don't get it? Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Rendakor on November 11, 2010, 07:14:21 PM Bad Company 2 (along with most EA sports games) came with a one-use CD Key that allowed you to play online.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Tairnyn on November 11, 2010, 08:43:03 PM Having played MW2 on the 360 extensively with friends I've enjoyed Black Ops (360) a lot when we can connect to a game as a party. There's still some significant issues with finding a game with more than 3 people during prime time, and it usually just kicks everyone and has the leader start a new game by themselves. I've heard both PS3 and PC are having connection issues as well.
The handling on the guns is significantly changed. LMGs now have much more violent, unpredictable kick and only one of them offers a grip option. I was hoping to get my lovely RPD with grip but alas, such a beast is no longer available. SMGs are very steady and easier to run-and-gun but do very little damage at medium to long range. Assault rifles seem to be the middle ground, but it's still very difficult to control your fire while on the move. Overall, I think they balanced the weapons, perks and killstreaks well, although the choppers still seem to be pretty deadly. The customization options for the emblem have already yielded some interesting pictures. I've seen a well-done Boba Fett and some creative bestiality depictions so far. Adding the emblem and clan tag to the gun is pretty useless, but I do like the reticle customization. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Tarami on November 11, 2010, 10:15:19 PM Bad Company 2 (along with most EA sports games) came with a one-use CD Key that allowed you to play online. Any reason you couldn't simply sell the account bound to the key?Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 11, 2010, 10:20:22 PM Yeah so as it turns out, the patch improved things for people, but not to the point where it should be, even at low settings I (and others) are getting hiccups during fire fights: IE: the worst possible time.
Isn't this game using a modified QUAKE 3 engine? Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Tarami on November 11, 2010, 11:29:04 PM A bastardized Quake 3 engine maybe. It has been 11 years.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Rendakor on November 12, 2010, 04:42:57 AM Bad Company 2 (along with most EA sports games) came with a one-use CD Key that allowed you to play online. Any reason you couldn't simply sell the account bound to the key?Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: LK on November 12, 2010, 04:12:03 PM Ohhhh.
Eh. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: 01101010 on November 12, 2010, 04:56:17 PM Quote Having to pay your way gives you more loadout options at lower required levels than in previous Call of Duty games, and the fact that points are so crucial to improving your arsenal makes them as just as sublimely satisfying to earn as experience points. SOURCE (gameslop) (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/callofduty7workingtitle/review.html?tag=topslot;thumb;5)How many xp bars does this game have again? Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Tarami on November 12, 2010, 05:56:24 PM Many. Money generally isn't a problem though if you know what you want. Buying every available weapon is going to take time, but if you have your eyes on something, it's easy. A single public game is enough to earn money for a new primary weapon.
Ranks are still more important, money is just a retardant. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Malakili on November 13, 2010, 06:56:10 PM Picked this up semi on a whim because I really wanted something shootery and everything in my library is stale at this point. Actually pretty good. Hardcore mode in multiplayer feels very good, will probably be my preferred mode.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: NiX on November 15, 2010, 11:17:06 AM Yeah so as it turns out, the patch improved things for people, but not to the point where it should be, even at low settings I (and others) are getting hiccups during fire fights: IE: the worst possible time. Isn't this game using a modified QUAKE 3 engine? Modified version of the W@W engine, which is a modified CoD4 engine. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Azazel on November 15, 2010, 11:27:07 AM Bad Company 2 (along with most EA sports games) came with a one-use CD Key that allowed you to play online. Any reason you couldn't simply sell the account bound to the key?So I cracked open my newly-arrived 360 copy of Bad Company 2 the other night. Guess what I was able to do without putting in any form of CD-Key? :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: jakonovski on November 15, 2010, 01:20:20 PM So I just ordered this for the PC. Suddenly I got the idea, why not play multiplayer with an Xbox 360 pad. How hard can it be?
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: NiX on November 15, 2010, 01:45:01 PM So I cracked open my newly-arrived 360 copy of Bad Company 2 the other night. Guess what I was able to do without putting in any form of CD-Key? :awesome_for_real: I don't believe the VIP key activates MP. It just entitles you to the free DLC and other stuff. I didn't say Treyarch was doing a good job of making fun of BC2 ;) Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: 01101010 on November 15, 2010, 01:45:42 PM Never like the "feel" for a pad in FPS or RPG games. I am not very accurate with my thumbs in terms or precision aiming or rotating a screen. My wrist is much more exact moving a mouse that is controlling the reticle...how and why that happened is for your own amusement. :grin:
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Rendakor on November 15, 2010, 02:32:45 PM So I cracked open my newly-arrived 360 copy of Bad Company 2 the other night. Guess what I was able to do without putting in any form of CD-Key? :awesome_for_real: I don't believe the VIP key activates MP. It just entitles you to the free DLC and other stuff. I didn't say Treyarch was doing a good job of making fun of BC2 ;) Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Surlyboi on November 15, 2010, 02:49:13 PM Well, you did need a code if you wanted to redeem any of the cool extra shit that could be applied to your account. Like say, if you purchased a special edition, you got shinier guns quicker than the guys that bought the regular editions.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Typhon on November 15, 2010, 03:28:24 PM Anyone play the zombie maps? Are they as much fun as the COD4:WaW maps?
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Mortriden on November 15, 2010, 04:15:15 PM Anyone play the zombie maps? Are they as much fun as the COD4:WaW maps? I've only played the first one, which was a gas. Mostly due JFK spouting out awesome one-liners "Your President NEEDS ammunition!" Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 15, 2010, 08:32:11 PM Anyone play the zombie maps? Are they as much fun as the COD4:WaW maps? I've only played the first one, which was a gas. Mostly due JFK spouting out awesome one-liners "Your President NEEDS ammunition!" The first one? The first one I have on zombie mode is just 4 random stereotypes; which depressed me because I wanted to play as JFK. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Mortriden on November 16, 2010, 10:31:49 AM Anyone play the zombie maps? Are they as much fun as the COD4:WaW maps? I've only played the first one, which was a gas. Mostly due JFK spouting out awesome one-liners "Your President NEEDS ammunition!" The first one? The first one I have on zombie mode is just 4 random stereotypes; which depressed me because I wanted to play as JFK. Hmm... maybe it's only after you finish the single player? There was this quirky little cut scene with JFK, Castro, Nixon, and McNamara. I assumed it was the "standard" map. The map I'm talking about takes place in the bunker in the Pentagon. Your "objective" is to turn the power on, I always die before I find that switch though. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: NiX on November 17, 2010, 06:40:09 AM Yeah, you have to beat the game to unlock the JFK zombie map.
I'm finding the new maps to require a lot more planning. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Zetleft on November 17, 2010, 08:31:38 PM Yeah, you have to beat the game to unlock the JFK zombie map. I'm finding the new maps to require a lot more planning. Nope. Just enter the code 3arc unlock to play the JFK zombie map (which is a blast). Also enter DOA to play a zombie apocalypse type game :p Just follow the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n63N6mhv7I4) to see where to enter the code Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 19, 2010, 07:40:48 PM So Treyarch just released the patch that made the game go from somewhat playable to completely unplayable.
:awesome_for_real: Money well spent. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Engels on November 19, 2010, 07:53:45 PM So Treyarch just released the patch that made the game go from somewhat playable to completely unplayable. :awesome_for_real: Money well spent. Can you elaborate? Was thinking of picking this up this weekend. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 19, 2010, 07:59:45 PM So Treyarch just released the patch that made the game go from somewhat playable to completely unplayable. :awesome_for_real: Money well spent. Can you elaborate? Was thinking of picking this up this weekend. Stutters. In game performance is fine, but when you get into a fire fight (or zombie); the game gets choppy and locks up. Lowering the settings doesn't help. Just tried one tweak to fix it, lets see what happens... NOPE, didn't work. Lovely. edit 2: Ok, now it works after reverting previous tweaks made pre patch to make the initial poor game performance bearable. edit 3: I still get stutters actually, but it's back to pre patch playable levels. Lost a game a of CTF because the game decided to lock me for a split second as some retard jumps out of cover and aimlessly spray kills me. Back to L4d2 until they fix it, I guess. BO was supposed to replace that in my rotation. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Malakili on November 20, 2010, 07:01:37 AM What is with the popularity of nuketown? The map is so damned small.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 20, 2010, 07:05:13 AM People play Nuketown to get quick exp and pro perk challenges.
For me, I just do it for pro perk challenges, some of them are ridiculously stupid. Especially Marathon to Marathon Pro. "Cap 15 flags in CTF", a game mode almost nobody plays, and unless the other team is stupendously inept; you're lucky to see two caps per game. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Malakili on November 20, 2010, 07:55:26 AM People play Nuketown to get quick exp and pro perk challenges. For me, I just do it for pro perk challenges, some of them are ridiculously stupid. Especially Marathon to Marathon Pro. "Cap 15 flags in CTF", a game mode almost nobody plays, and unless the other team is stupendously inept; you're lucky to see two caps per game. Oh yea, I forget people actually try for those things, that makes sense. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Jeff Kelly on November 23, 2010, 01:26:14 AM Sorry I'm late to the party but I just got around to buying the game, mostly because of the glowingly positive reviews.
Now I feel cheated, this game is a fracking joke and it has invalidated any residual relevance gaming jounalism still had to me. The single player campaign only lasts for about 6 hours. I get more entertainment out of 60 dollars when I spend it on movies. There is no strategy or tactics whatsoever. You can run, you can crouch and you can somewhat clumsily position yourself behind obstacles (taking cover would be to big a term for that), although if you combine the latter with ducking you won't be able to see over the obstacle. The AI is dumber than the whole cast of Jersey Shore and The Hills combined, they ignore or even pass opponents that are shooting at you, they constantly run into your line of sight (and then complain if you accidentally shoot them). Opponents somehow have death wishes and happily run from behind cover just to be mowed down by your autofire. Somehow you carry a huge "I'm the player please ignore everybody else except me" sign that makes everybody shoot me even if there is a frigging army that accompanies me. I'm glad that restarting levels is fast because I lost track of the number of times I needed to do that just because the stupid AI got me killed or because I couldn't use the available cover effectively. Not that tactics matter at all. Each level is basically designed like you're playing a rail shooter. You never run out of ammo, aiming is completely optional. Just point the gun in the general direction, pull the trigger and you're fine. You won't even have to choose between going left or right in most levels, there is only one direction. You have to reach the waypoints however or you just end up fighting against wave after wave of opponents. Don't get me started on the morally ambiguous story line and unnecessary gore that wholly exists just to shock conservatives and parents and serves no narrative purpose whatsoever. It also doesn't even leave you a choice if you actually want to do some (or any) of that stuff. (I'd like to carpet bomb their office for making me use a vietnamese guy as a human shield for example). The infantile zombie levels are just the icing on the cake. Seriously, I played Uncharted 2 prior to CoD: Black Ops and it's a much better game in every respect. The running time is longer (more like 20 hours as opposed to 6), the story is way better and you have more (or even any) tactical options during combat. Oh and the person that decided that close combat and running on the PS3 should be on R3/L3 should be fired with extreme prejudice. Seriously I use a knife or my fists by repeatedly pressing down on an analogue stick that I also use for aiming or moving? Really great idea. Oh and its a crapfest of bugs even after the latest update. So unless I'm completely off with my opinion of the game (which might be a possibility, so cue the "you don't really get the genre" kind of answers) how could this have gotten any of the glowing reviews that it did? I can name at least 5 games that are way better than CoD from the top of my head and since I based my purchasing decision entirely on the reviews I feel kinda taken advantage of. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Comstar on November 23, 2010, 02:52:13 AM is the story more morally offensive than the first one?
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Jeff Kelly on November 23, 2010, 03:17:55 AM Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Tarami on November 23, 2010, 03:20:24 AM This has single player?
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Margalis on November 23, 2010, 03:35:29 AM Quote Now I feel cheated, this game is a fracking joke and it has invalidated any residual relevance gaming jounalism still had to me. Professional game reviews are horrible but it's so obvious it just goes without saying. You're much better off reading Gamefaqs reader reviews. Seriously. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Malakili on November 23, 2010, 04:44:17 AM how could this have gotten any of the glowing reviews that it did? Because no one cares about single player? I honestly haven't read a single review so I don't know what they emphasize, but I bought this game expecting 100% the single player to be short and terrible. However, I've already logged a solid 15 hours in multiplayer and have enjoyed pretty much every minute of it. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Jeff Kelly on November 23, 2010, 05:28:31 AM Then just don't include a single player campaign and market it as a multiplayer game, problem solved.
This would automatically make people like me - who couldn't care less about multiplayer shooters - pass on the game. Alternatively split the reviews for single player and multiplayer. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on November 23, 2010, 06:14:20 AM Because no one cares about single player? *ahem*. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: jakonovski on November 23, 2010, 07:53:37 AM Finally got the game, better if I hadn't. The single player campaign is incredibly broken, with two game breaking bugs on the first two levels. Level one, I always fail the mission when BTR splodes --> restart campaign. Level two, Reznov always dies while trying to weld the door open --> never play this pos again?
edit: omg, I only needed to replay the level this time. Had a funny glitch too -- a dead mob was lying on the ground dead, but still firing at me. His arm swung at me as I moved. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Malakili on November 23, 2010, 07:57:12 AM Then just don't include a single player campaign and market it as a multiplayer game, problem solved. This would automatically make people like me - who couldn't care less about multiplayer shooters - pass on the game. Alternatively split the reviews for single player and multiplayer. That'd be fine with me. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Azazel on November 23, 2010, 10:22:25 AM is the story more morally offensive than the first one? Do you mean the last one? (MW2) Because this is like, the seventh one in the series. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Engels on November 23, 2010, 11:00:12 AM Jeff, I hear ya, but at the same time, everyone by now knows that the CoD line never, ever has had a good single player story or gameplay. It is at best, a small training piece for multiplayer. Its like going to see Jack Ass 3D for the story line. Shame on them the first time, sure, but after the 7th game? Should probably know better by now, unless you've been completely out of touch with the gaming community.
The ONLY reason to spend 60 bucks for this is if you are an avid fan of CoD Multiplayer. That's where the fun is, and the market they are catering to. That's where the developers put their thought. Now, I haven't played the multiplayer yet (just downloaded tonight) so I can get back to you on that, but I suspect that it'll be comparable to their other releases. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: LK on November 23, 2010, 12:48:40 PM I enjoyed MW & MW2's story with all the seriousness it warrants.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on November 23, 2010, 01:34:45 PM is the story more morally offensive than the first one? Actually, people actually found that sequence in MW2 as morally offensive? The only thing I thought when I played through that was "oh god, there's so little freedom to move", "oh god, what's with the slowmo movement?", and "oh god, they really are trying way too hard to be offensive, aren't they?".Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: LK on November 23, 2010, 02:49:03 PM I think No Russian accomplished all the creative, marketing, and viral goals they had for it, and then some.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Malakili on November 23, 2010, 03:02:34 PM I think No Russian accomplished all the creative, marketing, and viral goals they had for it, and then some. I agree with this statement. That doesn't mean it was morally offensive though. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 23, 2010, 03:21:26 PM Those still having trouble with game stuttering, try this launch option command (inside the properties menu of steam)
-noprefetch Actually worked for me. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: LK on November 23, 2010, 05:36:26 PM I think No Russian accomplished all the creative, marketing, and viral goals they had for it, and then some. I agree with this statement. That doesn't mean it was morally offensive though. I wasn't implying either way, or at least, that wasn't my intent. Morally offensive is something for each person to decide, not someone to decide for you. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Azazel on November 24, 2010, 05:58:40 AM Jeff, I hear ya, but at the same time, everyone by now knows that the CoD line never, ever has had a good single player story or gameplay. It is at best, a small training piece for multiplayer. Its like going to see Jack Ass 3D for the story line. Shame on them the first time, sure, but after the 7th game? Should probably know better by now, unless you've been completely out of touch with the gaming community. I have to disagree. The first two CoD games had very solid/robust singleplayer campaigns. I don't think I ever bothered to play MP. CoD: Big Red One and CoD3 never happened as far as I am concerned, since they weren't released on PC - so I have no experience with their MP, though since Big Red One was an original XBox/PS2 title, it would have had to have stood on it's SP campaign. CoD4:MW had what I thought was a reasonable balance between a fun, if short (for the time SP) campaign and a decent MP set. Unfortunately it became too popular, and we have what we have today as a result. Console counterstrike. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on November 24, 2010, 06:28:00 AM COD2 was so robust I even had to play it through once more when MW2 had been tested, just to see how COD SP used to be. MW1 I'll agree was an okay, albeit a bit too short SP campaign for my taste at the time, but I think it lost something in the translation to the modern times for me. The act of running around with a single-action rifle when you see tons of infantry swarming towards you creates a feeling which I didn't think MW1 could capture, and the less I say about MW2 the better I think.
MW1 MP is at least pretty good when played at a LAN party with people you can discuss tactics with face-to-face, although I have to admit I liked the BC2 way of fighting on a map a bit better, with 2 rounds lasting about an hour each pr match, compared to the max 5 minutes pr round with MW1. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Azazel on November 24, 2010, 07:13:14 AM Yeah,
edit - Whoops above. Said MW2 meant MW1! Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on November 24, 2010, 07:15:15 AM MW2 SP was not a step up over MW1. I'm not budging on that point. :oh_i_see:
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: KallDrexx on November 24, 2010, 07:18:38 AM I definitely enjoyed MW1 single player. Didn't play MW2 at all, and never played any MW or CoD multiplayer.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Engels on November 24, 2010, 07:49:12 AM Ok, I must confess that I have no memory of the earlier CoDs, just MW onwards. I am pretty sure I played them, but they left such a weak impression that I have forgotten any aspect of the single player play entirely. Make of that what you will.
MW for me was the most anti-climactic moment in single player 'story driven' gaming I think I have ever experienced. Edit: sorry, had to run off to work, which I found out just now is cancelled due to the weather. So anyways...after MW, I had low expectations for any CoD line. I tried, god bless me, to play the single player of W@W, but that too was ridiculous. So far, I've played the first chapter of BO, and considering my low expectations, I'm not disappointed. It flowed, the combat was ridiculously over-busy yet pretty easy considering. I also played a few rounds of Multiplayer and found it to be pretty much as expected. A few hitches here and there. A quick question to those that might now: If you get to see someone's 'kill cam' and you notice that they're stuttering all over the place, does that mean that they're using some hack, or that their connection is weak? Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Azazel on November 24, 2010, 08:57:11 AM MW2 SP was not a step up over MW1. I'm not budging on that point. :oh_i_see: Heh. I fucked up and said MW2 when I was talking about CoD4:MW. I still haven't played MW2 aside from the demo, since I'm only interested in the SP campaign. :why_so_serious: I'll pick it up when it's cheap, whenever that is. Same deal-io with Black Ops. I wrote up my opinions (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=15877.0) on WAW awhile back. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Engels on November 24, 2010, 10:50:13 AM Azazel, read your review of W@W and I concur on just about everything you said. BO seems to be more of the same. Squadmates, pretty much decoration, enemy respawn too quick to 'clear' anything. Lots of Run-while-wounded to next Yellow Waypoint, at which point the enemies behind you tend to evaporate. At one point, going down a hill with VietCong, I turned the difficulty down to 'recruit' just to get through it, and forgot to turn it back up to 'normal'. The next chapter involved a shotgun, and it was freakin hilarious. One shot from 6 meters away ignites your enemies. I can shotgun an enemy from a distance, too! It feels a bit like some Mario Bros game rather than a shooter. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, since this is how CoD does its single player.
As far as the story writing is concerned, its better than I expected, even if its a bit overly dramatic. I have no earthly idea why I'm so invested in this one Russian guy. Maybe its some numbers station programming, maybe I'm just a blithering idiot. I'm not sure. Either way, its hard to feel there's a whole lot at stake. Technically, I am getting hitching in some of the busier single-player encounters. I'm a bit hesitant to turn off prefetch for the game, since it suggests that it'll run on raw memory alone, and I'm not sure my system will like that. I'll probably give it a try at some point. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Muffled on November 24, 2010, 12:48:27 PM ... I liked the BC2 way of fighting on a map a bit better, with 2 rounds lasting about an hour each pr match, compared to the max 5 minutes pr round with MW1. Never played BC2, but two hours to complete a single match is way, WAY too long. 45 minute Starcraft matches strain my patience, and I rarely have more than an hour that I can just sit and stare at a screen non stop for any way because of real life things. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Malakili on November 24, 2010, 01:08:51 PM ... I liked the BC2 way of fighting on a map a bit better, with 2 rounds lasting about an hour each pr match, compared to the max 5 minutes pr round with MW1. Never played BC2, but two hours to complete a single match is way, WAY too long. 45 minute Starcraft matches strain my patience, and I rarely have more than an hour that I can just sit and stare at a screen non stop for any way because of real life things. I think thats over stating how long matches last in BC2 to be honest. Maybe 45-hour is more reasonable based on my experience. Though I think it could change based on what server(s) you frequent. I do find the turnover in BO to be a little quick, but it feels about right, and given that the map rotation is all in all pretty solid, it keeps things fresh and the teams from getting stacked too much. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Engels on November 24, 2010, 01:11:53 PM Not to mention that I've played on custom servers for CoD:MW with games that lasted quite a while too. Huge maps, 16x16 players, etc. All boiled down to the customization available for MW, which Activision subsequently horked. Maybe BO has the ability to make custom maps, I dunno.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on November 24, 2010, 02:27:09 PM While I'm not going to sit here and claim that it lasted at least 2 hour for each map (with one stint each as attacker and defender), I'm going to just point out that I don't play MW1/BC2 in "normal" settings, but in a LAN party where we're 50+ fat nerds whose sole purpose that entire weekend is to eat junkfood and play CSS, MW1 and BC2. I literally wouldn't complain at all if matches lasted for even more than 1 hour pr side.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Engels on November 24, 2010, 08:31:57 PM So, I had a lot of hitching today in multiplayer. Turns out, setting Steam's process to Low on the task manager that then launches the BlackOps exe at low priority helped enormously with the hitching. The reason stated on some random steam forum post is that the game is meant for quad core processors (which mine isn't) and forcing the processing task to low pushes a lot of the game's workload into the GPU. Since my vid card is a 5870, this seems to have the beefiness to handle the processes otherwise choking my CPU.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 25, 2010, 09:28:19 AM So, I had a lot of hitching today in multiplayer. Turns out, setting Steam's process to Low on the task manager that then launches the BlackOps exe at low priority helped enormously with the hitching. The reason stated on some random steam forum post is that the game is meant for quad core processors (which mine isn't) and forcing the processing task to low pushes a lot of the game's workload into the GPU. Since my vid card is a 5870, this seems to have the beefiness to handle the processes otherwise choking my CPU. Yeah, that's a complete and total load of shit. There is absolutely nothing in this game you need a quad core processor for. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Engels on November 25, 2010, 11:26:56 AM Well, my happiness was short-lived. After getting rid of the hitching issue by lowering the process priority, I now have sound stuttering! Fixes include restarting the sound serve each time a new map loads! Yay!
Nightblade, I'm not sure its a canard. I'm reading reports that WinXP on DX9 runs this game fine, but Win7 64 on DX10/11 runs less well. Sounds like the code for DX10/11 wasn't done too well, and that the processor speed makes up the difference. I'm running a E6750 C2D which is a bit long in the tooth if the game has to use processor power to mitigate poor DX10/11 coding. Edit: Well, I updated drivers, still now love, but then I forced VSync and switched from headset to speakers and the problems all vanished. No earthly idea why. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 25, 2010, 12:19:03 PM Well, my happiness was short-lived. After getting rid of the hitching issue by lowering the process priority, I now have sound stuttering! Fixes include restarting the sound serve each time a new map loads! Yay! That's pretty much the thing with every "fix" it works fine for a bit then suddenly DERP GAME IS UNPLAYABLE AGAIN. Quote Nightblade, I'm not sure its a canard. I'm reading reports that WinXP on DX9 runs this game fine, but Win7 64 on DX10/11 runs less well. Sounds like the code for DX10/11 wasn't done too well, and that the processor speed makes up the difference. I'm running a E6750 C2D which is a bit long in the tooth if the game has to use processor power to mitigate poor DX10/11 coding. This game does not have Direct X 10/11 support. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Engels on November 25, 2010, 01:32:03 PM Well, my happiness was short-lived. After getting rid of the hitching issue by lowering the process priority, I now have sound stuttering! Fixes include restarting the sound serve each time a new map loads! Yay! That's pretty much the thing with every "fix" it works fine for a bit then suddenly DERP GAME IS UNPLAYABLE AGAIN. Yep. About 20 minutes after I posted, on the same settings after a game restart, the game went back to stuttering audio and hitching graphics. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Sheepherder on November 25, 2010, 06:27:13 PM A quick question to those that might now: If you get to see someone's 'kill cam' and you notice that they're stuttering all over the place, does that mean that they're using some hack, or that their connection is weak? Bad connection, usually. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nightblade on November 25, 2010, 06:32:21 PM A quick question to those that might now: If you get to see someone's 'kill cam' and you notice that they're stuttering all over the place, does that mean that they're using some hack, or that their connection is weak? Bad connection, usually. Its a known bug, one of many. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: K9 on February 16, 2011, 02:49:55 PM I finally got around to playing through the campaign for this on my housemate's 360. The campaign definitely got better towards the end, although I'd say the overall story wasn't as involving or fluid as COD4. I guess single player isn't where the main focus of development is, although this is a step up from MW2. Definitely worth a playthrough sometime, and the zombie modes are good fun.
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Azazel on October 10, 2011, 06:41:33 AM Arise!
So anyway, This has dropped low enough in price to make me interested in using a coupon to purchase it :awesome_for_real: I'd normally favour the PC as my platform of choice for a FPS (duh!), but I've become corrupted and I don't actually mind playing CoD's multi on console (well, WaW on occasion), and all those issues listed above (I'm running an i7 870 8-cpu with DX11) make me think that perhaps I should let the PC price drop even lower and just get the 360 version for now... thoughts? Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: tgr on October 10, 2011, 06:58:10 AM /me holds up the cross to ward off the evil spirits. :why_so_serious:
Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Nonentity on October 10, 2011, 11:27:20 AM Arise! So anyway, This has dropped low enough in price to make me interested in using a coupon to purchase it :awesome_for_real: I'd normally favour the PC as my platform of choice for a FPS (duh!), but I've become corrupted and I don't actually mind playing CoD's multi on console (well, WaW on occasion), and all those issues listed above (I'm running an i7 870 8-cpu with DX11) make me think that perhaps I should let the PC price drop even lower and just get the 360 version for now... thoughts? Performance has gotten notably better on PC with recent patches. If you have an i5 or better, the game will run fine. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Malakili on October 10, 2011, 02:22:37 PM Arise! So anyway, This has dropped low enough in price to make me interested in using a coupon to purchase it :awesome_for_real: I'd normally favour the PC as my platform of choice for a FPS (duh!), but I've become corrupted and I don't actually mind playing CoD's multi on console (well, WaW on occasion), and all those issues listed above (I'm running an i7 870 8-cpu with DX11) make me think that perhaps I should let the PC price drop even lower and just get the 360 version for now... thoughts? If you like playing twitch shooters, the PC is the place to do it, and I got about 50 hours out of this on PC during a gaming dry spell last fall. If you want the game for playing with friends and such, then console is probably the better choice, I guess depending on who your friends are. I played the single player once and then never again, so if thats your angle I don't have anything useful to contribute. Title: Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Post by: Azazel on October 10, 2011, 09:32:49 PM hmmm. yeah. Obiovusly the PC is the "better" platform for shooters, I don't have any friends that play shooters with me, except for some friends who come over on Friday nights/weekends and play some BC2 of L4D2. My wife plays co-op stuff with me, and she prefers console for shooters.
I guess I prefer the PC for "serious" shooters - stuff I'm going to sink a lot of time into, while the console is good for "Michael Bay" shooters or stuff I'm going to run through a short campaign on, and then just pick up and muck about with occasionally online. Your BF:BC2 is a PC choice, while I played CoD4 on PC, CoD: WaW I played on PC, and later picked up to play the co-op biuts with my wife on console, but then muck about with in MP on console rather than PC. Hm, probably console, then. And pick up on PC later for a "proper" playthrough of the campaign. |