Call of Duty: Black Ops

I guess I was the only one that saw nothing but random explosions and people running around?

well, it is a war game. also a COD title

you were expecting something different?
 
It seems that it's at least partially set in the modern age.

And yeah, W@W was probably better than MW2.
 
well, it is a war game. also a COD title

you were expecting something different?

Based on the reactions it got, yeah, I was expecting something that looked interesting or good. But yeah, it's a COD title, what was I thinking?
 
learn and adjust, man. learn and adjust.
 
itt: haters gonna hate
 
As much as people like to hate on the series, it's a decent game. There are far worse titles out there. I don't mind having it in my multiplayer rotation as long as I'm playing with friends. Activison is another story though...
 
Also if someone predict criticism by saying 'haters gonna hate' then said criticism is invalid.
 
I wasn't predicting anything. You were already hating.

It's comforting to know that there will always be people that will shell out $60 as long you slap the right words on the box.

Same arguments in every CoD thread.
 
Same arguments apply in every CoD thread.
 
go back to 4chan
 
Nah, I like it here. It's nice and cozy. :3
 
Modern Warfare 1 was a first person shooter set in the present day/near future with a plot that had a few gaps in logic but was for the most part fairly plausible and made the player feel like he was fighting on the frontlines of the modern battlefield.

Modern Warfare 2 was an absurdly over the top and jingoistic first person shooter that felt like a film by Michael Bay. Storytelling logic was sacrificed for cinematic effect and drama, best exemplified in the Washington levels, and while Soap and Price were likeable and competent protagonists in MW1, MW2 turned into unabashed hero-worship of them, with each level basically the set-up for them doing something incredibly badass.

There are certain individuals in the MW community, such as myself, who had no problem with this. I can still respect other people's distaste for the new direction.
 
Modern Warfare 1 was a first person shooter set in the modern day/near future with a plot that had a few gaps in logic but was for the most part fairly plausible and made the player feel like he was fighting on the frontlines of tomorrow's battlefield.

What.

Modern Warfare 2 was an absurdly over the top and jingoistic first person shooter that felt like a film by Michael Bay. Storytelling logic was sacrificed for cinematic effect and drama, best exemplified in the Washington levels, and while Soap and Price were likeable and competent protagonists in MW1, MW2 turned into unabashed hero-worship of them, with each level basically the set-up for them doing something incredibly badass.

There are certain individuals in the MW community, such as myself, who had no problem with this. I can still respect other people's distaste for the new direction.

How dare this action game have action.
 
Yeah, that did come across wrong. Fixed.

Also, people claim that "Haters gonna hate" is used to defuse all argument. This is incorrect. The proper way of negating any MW2 criticism is "KNIIIIIFE EYYYYYE ATAAAAACK!" or, for the more eloquent among us, what is is in my signature, followed by "Your argument is invalid."
 
I was thinking today how cool it would be to have a game that's essentially a collection of war short stories across history. Then I realized that I was kind of thinking about this game and realized how badly that premise is going to be messed up.

How dare this action game have action.
How dare an action game have repetitive and boring action.

Oh, and I resent the idea that a 'plausible plot' indicates any sort of quality at all.
 
Half-Life 2 manages to stay (mostly) fresh and not boring for the whole game. It's also not an action game.
 
Half-Life 2 manages to stay (mostly) fresh and not boring for the whole game. It's also not an action game.

:LOL:

If I said this I would have been infracted to infinite.
 
sheepo, stating opinions as fact since april 2007.
 
Because every one on this forum doesn't do that all the time. You can say IMO if you want, it just makes your stance sound weaker. Also, loving your arguments so far:

a) Yeah well this other game I'm guessing you like sucks
b) Yeah well I've noticed some patterns in how you express yourself
 
following the flock really does justice to your game

don't take my nip and bite at you in this thread too seriously, though. i myself think the COD action is dull and repetitive, but yeah, the way you express it is the problem. i don't see how adding something like ''IMO'' would ''weaken'' the argument - rather your own opinion then trying to come across as the judge of how the game plays to others. some folk like that repetitive action, there's no real reason as to why you need to get up in this thread and get above those folk.

leave them to their COD.
 
I don't know a single person who qualifies all their opinions with IMO. It's self evident that something's an opinion, whether the person expressing it realizes it or not. And yes, saying IMO does weaken your point. It makes you sound unsure of whether you actually believe in what you're saying (and in some cases, that's actually appropriate, so go for it).

...

I did come in here to express a little hope for what this game could be, but then y'know... I reserve my right to harrass other people for what they enjoy.
 
I don't know a single person who qualifies all their opinions with IMO. It's self evident that something's an opinion, whether the person expressing it realizes it or not. And yes, saying IMO does weaken your point. It makes you sound unsure of whether you actually believe in what you're saying (and in some cases, that's actually appropriate, so go for it).

...

I did come in here to express a little hope for what this game could be, but then y'know... I reserve my right to harrass other people for what they enjoy.

IMO, this is my opinion, i think, in my eyes... yeah, you do. i mean i'm one for a start. it's just the blunt stuff that annoys me, and it's the fact people go about threads on a high-horse looking down on people whilst they state these opinions like they are fact that bother me.

i could of done the same to you in a transformers thread, but i don't really see the need. enjoy it, for all i care. if you're going to harass, at least add a deal of intelligence and depth to your opinions so that a proper discussion of it may come about.

anyway, let's get this back on track. what interests me most about this new title is how they're going to tackle the recent onslaught of praise bad company 2 has been getting as the ''COD killer'' - or will they simply roll over and wait for a the ''proper'' COD title in 2-3 years to do that, and instead this will be merely what world at war was to COD4.

edit: i do not know how that winking smiley face got there. what is that
 
It's the face of death.

People always criticize my criticism. Sure, I could come in here with an essay about why CoD is boring, gimmicky, dumb, repetitive, and bland, but then I'd just be criticized for going out of my way to insult other peoples' taste and it would mostly go ignored by people who will like it whether I give my input or not. On the other hand, if I come into a thread, watch a trailer and read the premise for a game, and then go about criticizing it and questioning why others like it, then I'm just nitpicking at other people for liking something I don't. And truly, I am. Arguments don't have to be pointless mud flinging. Both parties can leave understanding the other side of things better and have a slightly clearer view. Go ahead and call me out for watching Transformers. Just like CoD is to others, it's a guilty pleasure of mine (atleast the good parts).
 
hey on my part, i'd prefer the essays. it beats the blunt. it makes for interesting reading and it has a little substance behind it. if someone wants to rag on the game i'd rather they made a conversation out of it and not just a ''this sucks'' or whatever.
 
Well I've posted rambling, multi-quote posts about games before, but as I said, people go boo hoo. And I don't typically go 'It sucks' (I don't think I've done it in this thread atleast), I usually say why it sucks and why people are dumb for getting excited about it. Why does this game look dumb? Because the trailer is nothing but a series of random explosions and the series doesn't have a track record for being much else.
 
Why does this game look dumb? Because the trailer is nothing but a series of random explosions and the series doesn't have a track record for being much else.

Why are you faulting something for being true to what it is?

If anything, say "it looks like Call of Duty" instead of "dumb".
 
I've been disappointed at the direction CoD has been heading ever since the first one. The series started out with a sort of Band of Brothers sort of feel to it, where the player was sort of an 'everyman'. The guy who parachuted into Normandy, or the guy with the ammo in Stalingrad. Obviously there was plenty of Hollywood flair and embellishment, but it always felt somewhat grounded in the story of a soldier. In the MW games it's less about being a soldier and more of an action hero. You go on snowmobile chases, you dual-wield submachine guns, you have heartbeat sensors on your guns, and you're inevitably responsible for saving the world. It worked pretty well in the original MW, but I feel like it went way too far in MW2 to the point of making the whole thing ridiculous. The old CoD games (and MoH games that came before) had way more impact.
 
Normandy Beach level in MoH Frontline was boss.
 
Why are you faulting something for being true to what it is?

If anything, say "it looks like Call of Duty" instead of "dumb".

Because "what is is" is terrible. And Call of Duty hasn't always been and doesn't have to be synonymous with badness.
 
Big who cares? CoD is so lame these days.

Red Dead Redemption & Portal 2 are what I'm looking out for this year.
 
I've been disappointed at the direction CoD has been heading ever since the first one. The series started out with a sort of Band of Brothers sort of feel to it, where the player was sort of an 'everyman'. The guy who parachuted into Normandy, or the guy with the ammo in Stalingrad. Obviously there was plenty of Hollywood flair and embellishment, but it always felt somewhat grounded in the story of a soldier. In the MW games it's less about being a soldier and more of an action hero. You go on snowmobile chases, you dual-wield submachine guns, you have heartbeat sensors on your guns, and you're inevitably responsible for saving the world. It worked pretty well in the original MW, but I feel like it went way too far in MW2 to the point of making the whole thing ridiculous. The old CoD games (and MoH games that came before) had way more impact.

QFT dude.
 
Hey, game designers. STOP MAKING HOLLYWOOD MOVIE TRAILERS. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

****ing christ, are they serious? "In a worrrrrrld... where everything you know is a lie." You mean like the fact that this game looks like every other phoned-in engine hijack Treyarch has gotten away with since they were let into the CoD fold? Welp I guess I'll go pre-order a copy then a hurf-de-derp-de-durr.
 
Hey, game designers. STOP MAKING HOLLYWOOD MOVIE TRAILERS. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

****ing christ, are they serious? "In a worrrrrrld... where everything you know is a lie." You mean like the fact that this game looks like every other phoned-in engine hijack Treyarch has gotten away with since they were let into the CoD fold? Welp I guess I'll go pre-order a copy then a hurf-de-derp-de-durr.

The designers don't make the trailer, the producers and marketing people do.

Pre-ordered.
 
Back
Top