Black Ops Is Dead.

russb · Feb 6, 2011

You want a lot for your money,keep asking father christmas he might come good one year,haha

vnsmith · Feb 11, 2011

I like counter strike better than black ops but I would chose black ops over westwood's renegade based on the strategy game red alert.

Aastii · Feb 11, 2011

tlarkin said:
counter strike is buggy, has crappy hit boxes, but the mods are super fun. Even to this day it is still played a ton. The problem with modern games is they are just rehashes of games from the late 90s. The technology improves so new features get added but no one innovates on them.

I'd like to see a team based shooter that involves tactics. Combine things like cover fire from Rainbow Six games, with the engine of a quake game, and the fast paced game play of Unreal Tournament. Then add in a close combat feature where if you get close you can stab or strike with the butt stock of your weapon.

Then make the UI, the HUD, and the controls easy and efficient.

I know that you don't mean it literally, but such a game would be awful I think, you can't have tactical cover mixed with the run and gun and hopping of UT.

I think the best sort of shooter you can get is PR, which is a mod rather than a game. You get the tactics and realism, which yes means that you lose the fast pace (unless you are in direct combat), but what you gain is the novelty of skill - rather than everybody being able to pwn you even if they are an awful player, those that are bad can still play, but the bad are obvious. You shouldn't be rewarded for being a "noob" (I have that word), but you should be rewarded for practice, perseverance and your actual game skill. I don't mean earn things through it, I mean by getting a better k/d, leading more often etc etc.

tlarkin · Feb 11, 2011

Aastii said:
I know that you don't mean it literally, but such a game would be awful I think, you can't have tactical cover mixed with the run and gun and hopping of UT.

I think the best sort of shooter you can get is PR, which is a mod rather than a game. You get the tactics and realism, which yes means that you lose the fast pace (unless you are in direct combat), but what you gain is the novelty of skill - rather than everybody being able to pwn you even if they are an awful player, those that are bad can still play, but the bad are obvious. You shouldn't be rewarded for being a "noob" (I have that word), but you should be rewarded for practice, perseverance and your actual game skill. I don't mean earn things through it, I mean by getting a better k/d, leading more often etc etc.

Why not?

The problem with cover based shootes is that everyone hides, the problem with run and gun is that you lose a lot of the tactical sense. Why not combine them?

The problem with all shooters is that they are the same games rehashed over and over again. All the COD games are the same. There isn't much difference. All the warfare games are pretty much the same.

I thought quake wars was decent but it never took off.

Aastii · Feb 12, 2011

tlarkin said:
Why not?

The problem with cover based shootes is that everyone hides, the problem with run and gun is that you lose a lot of the tactical sense. Why not combine them?

The problem with all shooters is that they are the same games rehashed over and over again. All the COD games are the same. There isn't much difference. All the warfare games are pretty much the same.

I thought quake wars was decent but it never took off.

*looks at MW2* that is why not to combine them.

There are 2 types of players in those games - those that camp, those that run about like a loon. MW2 wasn't what you are on about, but the play style is exactly what would happen, you would have half the people sat in corners waiting for someone to come past, the others would be sprinting about everywhere. The game wouldn't know what it was trying to be and would fall over. Jack of all trades, master of eff all

I was speaking to someone yesterday about an idea - combining a large scale strategy warfare game, for instance a Total War type game, with a large scale first person war game, for instance Arma.

You would control units and tactics and what not from a top down RTS style viewpoint, but could control a specific member of a specific unit. It could be combined with multiplayer too to makes things very interesting too.

If you see a game where someone is the leader of a squad, even if their tactics are awful, with a good bunch of people with the right amount of communication, they can pull off the bad tactics, and the same would be the case here. What would otherwise be, on paper, a certain loss, would be unpredictable, because it is actual people down on the ground, not AI and number crunching

Calibretto · Feb 12, 2011

I think that the series would’ve been much better off if the release of each game was further apart. CoD2 and CoD4 would have been more than capable to occupy gamers for a few years, both gameplay and graphics wise. It would not only increase anticipation that much more, but it would also get rid of the insane repetition and monotony and give the developers even more time to churn out a solid game without having to take shortcuts due to time. Plus, the series would’ve lasted much longer and there would be less frustrated gamers.

tlarkin · Feb 12, 2011

Aastii said:
*looks at MW2* that is why not to combine them.

There are 2 types of players in those games - those that camp, those that run about like a loon. MW2 wasn't what you are on about, but the play style is exactly what would happen, you would have half the people sat in corners waiting for someone to come past, the others would be sprinting about everywhere. The game wouldn't know what it was trying to be and would fall over. Jack of all trades, master of eff all

I was speaking to someone yesterday about an idea - combining a large scale strategy warfare game, for instance a Total War type game, with a large scale first person war game, for instance Arma.

You would control units and tactics and what not from a top down RTS style viewpoint, but could control a specific member of a specific unit. It could be combined with multiplayer too to makes things very interesting too.

If you see a game where someone is the leader of a squad, even if their tactics are awful, with a good bunch of people with the right amount of communication, they can pull off the bad tactics, and the same would be the case here. What would otherwise be, on paper, a certain loss, would be unpredictable, because it is actual people down on the ground, not AI and number crunching

Large scale games only work if everyone does team work. In pubs it sucks. I remember the MMO shooter Planet Side, which was like that. You have idiots running all over the place doing stupid stuff..

I am thinking more like TF2. There is stealth, camping, charging, hand to hand, etc. Improve on the TF2 model and add in some more features. Like taking cover, going prone, etc. I like the class system too, because when you do team based shooters, you are going to have the support role, the combat role, the specialist, etc.

Leopold Butters · Feb 13, 2011

karma charger said:
ya this game was a total fail. now im just waiting for mw3 cuz infinity ward isn't lazy, like treyarch. i heard that 300,000 people bought this game for the pc. only 65,000 could play. but they still had the lagging and stuttering problem, and then some quad cores and six cores could play without something going wrong

uhh...I dont' think Infinity ward is around anymore, and if it is well it's crippled as hell. The new MW3 game will probably not be nearly as good as the first one.

russb · Feb 13, 2011

That says alot for MW3 as MW2 was the worst load of crap ever put out for CoD.

Aastii · Feb 13, 2011

tlarkin said:
Large scale games only work if everyone does team work. In pubs it sucks. I remember the MMO shooter Planet Side, which was like that. You have idiots running all over the place doing stupid stuff..

I am thinking more like TF2. There is stealth, camping, charging, hand to hand, etc. Improve on the TF2 model and add in some more features. Like taking cover, going prone, etc. I like the class system too, because when you do team based shooters, you are going to have the support role, the combat role, the specialist, etc.

I don't think that is such a bad idea, but I would prefer it to be more serious. I don't mean realistic as hell, obviously with people sprinting about everywhere it isn't going to be, but I mean less cartoony than TF2, not just graphically, but gameplay wise.

Calibretto said:
I think that the series would’ve been much better off if the release of each game was further apart. CoD2 and CoD4 would have been more than capable to occupy gamers for a few years, both gameplay and graphics wise. It would not only increase anticipation that much more, but it would also get rid of the insane repetition and monotony and give the developers even more time to churn out a solid game without having to take shortcuts due to time. Plus, the series would’ve lasted much longer and there would be less frustrated gamers.

You are talking about Activision here, they don't care about their customers, just the money that their customers have. They won't be making as much money by throwing them out every 2 or 3 years instead of anually, and their current model is still making them more money than most other developers. So long as they are getting money, their series is doing ell so far as they are concerned because their pockets are being lined. Blame the situation on the people that went and bought the shocking excuse for games that were MW2 and BO

karma charger · Feb 14, 2011

Demilich said:
Agreed. It's probably why Blizzard is doing so much better than all their competitors. It should be quality over quantity in the gaming world. If a game has to be delayed 5 times, so be it. If it's perfect when it is received, I'm happy.

i agree, but whos actually gonna take less money over more money???

also, just out of the blue, what about metroid prime hunters? they delayed it like 3 times, and the game rocked...at least for a portable gaming system.

karma charger · Feb 14, 2011

Demilich said:
Agreed. It's probably why Blizzard is doing so much better than all their competitors. It should be quality over quantity in the gaming world. If a game has to be delayed 5 times, so be it. If it's perfect when it is received, I'm happy.

WOW doesn't need quantity over quality, it's already got 5 million players i believe lol. plus, i was playing on the double xp weekend (like wtf? why is there a double xp weekend? what is this? a crappy free online fps???)
and there was people on, although it was like 10,000 people....mostly everyone is on team deathmatch in nuketown

tlarkin · Feb 14, 2011

karma charger said:
WOW doesn't need quantity over quality, it's already got 5 million players i believe lol. plus, i was playing on the double xp weekend (like wtf? why is there a double xp weekend? what is this? a crappy free online fps???)
and there was people on, although it was like 10,000 people....mostly everyone is on team deathmatch in nuketown

Look at Starcraft II. It took them a decade to make the sequel, and it came out near perfect. Challenging, fairly balanced, intuitive, and game play is superb. I suspect Diablo 3 will be an epic win for Blizzard as well.

They take their time. WoW, is a different beast all together. MMOs strive on new content because MMO games are designed for the grind and time sinks. However, Blizzard also made WoW a single player game. There is tons of solo content. This is what I have read, I actually don't play WoW nor will I ever touch another MMO ever again. I had my fill back in the late 90s early 2000s with Everquest and that was all I needed with MMOs.

Now look at the CoD franchise. A new game every 8 months to a year? The game is saturated, boring, and just rehashes of everything you have already played.

tlarkin · Feb 14, 2011

Aastii said:
I don't think that is such a bad idea, but I would prefer it to be more serious. I don't mean realistic as hell, obviously with people sprinting about everywhere it isn't going to be, but I mean less cartoony than TF2, not just graphically, but gameplay wise.

The graphics are moot on this topic. You can graphically have it look like whatever you want. What I want is adaptive game play. So, some people are camping, then equip smoke and flash grenades and take them out. Some people are running around and over powering you, get a shotgun, use cover to cover fire in their direction. Some people are camped up in cover, toss some grenades and rush them.

For every type of situation there is a solution. This is what adds tactical aspects and strategy into a first person shooter. Someone is camping in a too powerful of spot, send a stealth unit after them. Booby trap it with explosives, etc.

TF2 has great game play. There really isn't any imbalance between classes and each class has it's place. If you take that model, add in say the cover fire of Rainbow Six Vegas, and the run and gun style of Unreal or Quake, and add in some really cool weapons you could have yourself an awesome team based very dynamic game.

I remember when CS first added shields. Go ahead and camp in that corner with the AWP, I will just walk towards you with my shield and kill you. As long as the developer takes the rock-paper-scissors approach, you should be able to handle any situation as long as you can adapt and improvise.

Dystopia · Feb 14, 2011

tlarkin said:
Look at Starcraft II. It took them a decade to make the sequel, and it came out near perfect. Challenging, fairly balanced, intuitive, and game play is superb. I suspect Diablo 3 will be an epic win for Blizzard as well.

They take their time. WoW, is a different beast all together. MMOs strive on new content because MMO games are designed for the grind and time sinks. However, Blizzard also made WoW a single player game. There is tons of solo content. This is what I have read, I actually don't play WoW nor will I ever touch another MMO ever again. I had my fill back in the late 90s early 2000s with Everquest and that was all I needed with MMOs.

Now look at the CoD franchise. A new game every 8 months to a year? The game is saturated, boring, and just rehashes of everything you have already played.

A year or two of runescape took care of my MMO for a very long time. And yes, I know, runescape is hardly even an MMO.

Aastii · Feb 14, 2011

tlarkin said:
The graphics are moot on this topic. You can graphically have it look like whatever you want. What I want is adaptive game play. So, some people are camping, then equip smoke and flash grenades and take them out. Some people are running around and over powering you, get a shotgun, use cover to cover fire in their direction. Some people are camped up in cover, toss some grenades and rush them.

For every type of situation there is a solution. This is what adds tactical aspects and strategy into a first person shooter. Someone is camping in a too powerful of spot, send a stealth unit after them. Booby trap it with explosives, etc.

TF2 has great game play. There really isn't any imbalance between classes and each class has it's place. If you take that model, add in say the cover fire of Rainbow Six Vegas, and the run and gun style of Unreal or Quake, and add in some really cool weapons you could have yourself an awesome team based very dynamic game.

I remember when CS first added shields. Go ahead and camp in that corner with the AWP, I will just walk towards you with my shield and kill you. As long as the developer takes the rock-paper-scissors approach, you should be able to handle any situation as long as you can adapt and improvise.

It isn't graphics I was on about, it was gameplay. Take the scout as an example, running about at light speed, jumping and double jumping would completely take away from the experience when you are trying to make it a little realistic.

I think we are talking about the same thing, but saying it differently

tlarkin · Feb 14, 2011

Aastii said:
It isn't graphics I was on about, it was gameplay. Take the scout as an example, running about at light speed, jumping and double jumping would completely take away from the experience when you are trying to make it a little realistic.

I think we are talking about the same thing, but saying it differently

I see what you are saying. I am OK with class differences, or things like heavy body armor makes you move slow. However, the pay off is you get more protection. If you choose to opt out of wearing body armor you are a lot faster, but also subjected to take more damage per a hit.

Things like blind fire will have way more recoil and be way less accurate since you are firing blind. I think if you tweak it enough it would work, be different, and innovate some and borrow from other existing successful titles.

russb · Feb 14, 2011

I play blops mainly because there is nothing else that intrests me.I play on my clans servers which is tdm hc but whats giving me hump is the teamkill.When you are against another team you are going to lob grannies. How many times has one or more of your so called team gone and run into the spot where you have put a granny.Then you get penalized for a team kill and lose points.I think i will give up playing games as it is doing my brain in.

tlarkin · Feb 14, 2011

31!m!n80r said:
A year or two of runescape took care of my MMO for a very long time. And yes, I know, runescape is hardly even an MMO.

Sucks your life away.....that is why I don't play them anymore. Plus back then they were hard, now they are super easy and they encourage people to play more because it is about time spent playing rather than skill.

I play blops mainly because there is nothing else that intrests me.I play on my clans servers which is tdm hc but whats giving me hump is the teamkill.When you are against another team you are going to lob grannies. How many times has one or more of your so called team gone and run into the spot where you have put a granny.Then you get penalized for a team kill and lose points.I think i will give up playing games as it is doing my brain in.

Dude, you throw grannies in this game? What the heck?

Aastii · Feb 15, 2011

russb said:
I play blops mainly because there is nothing else that intrests me.I play on my clans servers which is tdm hc but whats giving me hump is the teamkill.When you are against another team you are going to lob grannies. How many times has one or more of your so called team gone and run into the spot where you have put a granny.Then you get penalized for a team kill and lose points.I think i will give up playing games as it is doing my brain in.

Can tk not be turned off, or have they made it like MW2 where they couldn't be arsed to put the options in to have it off on hardcore? If the latter, that is just plain stupid. The majority of hardcore servers on the other CoD games had no tk on, so what made Activision think that hardcore immediately mean you must have teamkilling is beyond me. Goes to show exactly how much they listen to and care about their community

Black Ops Is Dead.

New Member

banned

VIP Member

VIP Member

VIP Member

VIP Member

VIP Member

New Member

New Member

VIP Member

Member

Member

VIP Member

VIP Member

Active Member

VIP Member

VIP Member

New Member

VIP Member

VIP Member