so i got black ops

FUCK YEAH BITCHES!

Are you going to do campaign mode first, or go straight to the online play?

side by side im doing a little champaining and then a little online back and forth playing with bd and some bots

I'm debating whether or not I'll get Modern Warfare 3.

ill get it simply to finish or hopefully finish the storyline

MW3 is gonna have an optional subscription service for online though... and you just know you're gonna be screwed if you don't get it..

You would get black ops.

Also playing COD for storyline

Eevil-Psycho wrote:

MW3 is gonna have an optional subscription service for online though... and you just know you're gonna be screwed if you don't get it..

At least it will get some people to realise that they're just cash cows for companies like Activison, offering services that have been available on other platforms for free for 10 years is just fucking pathetic.

i dont pay for online services of any kind XDDD i didnt even pay when i played wow i found a private server sub fees on a game you already bought is total bullshit

I took Black Ops off a friend's hands for a few dollars. I think my K/D is above 1 right now. We'll see when I reach a high enough level to be able to tell. I've been doing pretty good on TDM. I also played a game of Gun Game and got third, getting to the crossbow. And I played a single game of One in the Chamber and won it lol.

Black-Ops is the best in the entire franchise in my opinion.
I'm playing it right now. Gotta get dat max prestige.

We'll have to party up some time. My K/D after day 1 is 1.24 which is pretty good to me. Just got the AK74u and FAMAS which are some of the best guns I hear.

Old School wrote:

Black-Ops is the best in the entire franchise in my opinion.

Not that that's much of an achievement.

Count Snoopula wrote:

Old School wrote:

Black-Ops is the best in the entire franchise in my opinion.

Not that that's much of an achievement.

The FPS shooter of the year award begs to differ.
Also being the only CoD game besides 4 to be nominated for GotY(It did win some on smaller sites and shows).


Black-Ops was what MW2 was suppose to be: An improvement on CoD4.
Now that Treyarch is making the sequel, I can only imagine all the ways they can make it better.

Old School wrote:

The FPS shooter of the year award begs to differ.

Awarded by who? And on whose authority?

Quote :

Also being the only CoD game besides 4 to be nominated for GotY(It did win some on smaller sites and shows).

Countless games are nominated for 'Game of the Year' awards by countless publications, websites and individuals every single year, it doesn't even mean anything anymore.

Old School wrote:

Black-Ops was what MW2 was suppose to be: An improvement on CoD4.

except that 4 was better, after that they ruined the online by adding way too much killstreaks/deathstreaks and whatnot which made it generally not all that much fun.

Count Snoopula wrote:

Old School wrote:

Black-Ops is the best in the entire franchise in my opinion.

Not that that's much of an achievement.

It's very easy to hate on CoD. It's a trend to either love or hate on it. Now before I continue, I do understand that most of the CoD games are re-skins with subtle changes. But I have a legitimate question. If they make another CoD game, what should they change about it? The FPS genre doesn't exactly give too many options like many of the other genres. They already have a demographic set up and they're doing well with it. So what should they do to not make it a re-skin?

To me, Black Ops is the most unlike the others. They added more features than any other jump other than possibly 3 to 4. They gave the game more value for a party game. Combat training allows you to have up to four players on the same PS3 in a co-op TDM or something like that. You can add CPUs which no other game did. They also added some kickass game modes like One in the Chamber, Gun Game and Sharpshooter. Along with all that, they listened to a fair amount of the complaints of MW2 where now you have more life and recoil is increased. The cheap version of quick scoping is gone, etc.

Zero wrote:

But I have a legitimate question. If they make another CoD game, what should they change about it? The FPS genre doesn't exactly give too many options like many of the other genres. They already have a demographic set up and they're doing well with it. So what should they do to not make it a re-skin?

They should just not make another game.

If they want to make more maps (which is the most significant change between iterations of the series) they should just keep releasing map packs for the same game. This is a tried and true strategy and has kept various FPS games alive for upwards of 7 years.

There's really no benefit in the current CoD business model to the consumer, I don't know why people support it.

Count Snoopula wrote:

Old School wrote:

The FPS shooter of the year award begs to differ.

Awarded by who? And on whose authority?

Quote :

Also being the only CoD game besides 4 to be nominated for GotY(It did win some on smaller sites and shows).

Countless games are nominated for 'Game of the Year' awards by countless publications, websites and individuals every single year, it doesn't even mean anything anymore.

That's not true at all. Only a handful of noteworthy games are nominated for GotY. CoD 4 and Blops were the only CoD game to be nominated.

Eevil-Psycho wrote:

Old School wrote:

Black-Ops was what MW2 was suppose to be: An improvement on CoD4.

except that 4 was better, after that they ruined the online by adding way too much killstreaks/deathstreaks and whatnot which made it generally not all that much fun.

Well that was MW2's problem that everyone complained about. Black-Ops basically took out a lot of content from MW2 and added it's own small touches.
Blops on the other hand is superior to 4 in every possible way in my opinion.
Longer campaign, improved multiplayer, replayability, co-op, etc.

Zero wrote:

Count Snoopula wrote:

Old School wrote:

Black-Ops is the best in the entire franchise in my opinion.

Not that that's much of an achievement.

It's very easy to hate on CoD. It's a trend to either love or hate on it. Now before I continue, I do understand that most of the CoD games are re-skins with subtle changes. But I have a legitimate question. If they make another CoD game, what should they change about it? The FPS genre doesn't exactly give too many options like many of the other genres. They already have a demographic set up and they're doing well with it. So what should they do to not make it a re-skin?

To me, Black Ops is the most unlike the others. They added more features than any other jump other than possibly 3 to 4. They gave the game more value for a party game. Combat training allows you to have up to four players on the same PS3 in a co-op TDM or something like that. You can add CPUs which no other game did. They also added some kickass game modes like One in the Chamber, Gun Game and Sharpshooter. Along with all that, they listened to a fair amount of the complaints of MW2 where now you have more life and recoil is increased. The cheap version of quick scoping is gone, etc.

I agree. Treyarch actually add innovation to their CoD games.
They do what they can to keep the series fresh.
Infinity Ward on the other hand has been letting me down with everything after 4.

Old School wrote:

Well that was MW2's problem that everyone complained about. Black-Ops basically took out a lot of content from MW2 and added it's own small touches.
Blops on the other hand is superior to 4 in every possible way in my opinion.
Longer campaign, improved multiplayer, replayability, co-op, etc.

still too much killstreaks and deathstreaks... it becomes more and more a game of trying to achieve your killstreaks instead of playing the damn game like it has to be played.. and that's pretty much what ruins it. (and many other games these days)


mind you, I'm not debating about the story cause a story is a story and I don't give a rat's ass about the co-op in these games, so my opinion is purely based on the MP, and then COD4 is still the best one.

Old School wrote:

That's not true at all. Only a handful of noteworthy games are nominated for GotY. CoD 4 and Blops were the only CoD game to be nominated.

You failed to answer the question I posed and failed to provide any reason why arbitrary 'GotY' titles should mean anything to anyone but the person who is 'awarding' them, so to speak.

Should I assume that, considering that and the fact that you've now restricted the discussion to what you personally deem to be 'noteworthy' games, you have nothing of value to say in response?

Eevil-Psycho wrote:

still too much killstreaks and deathstreaks... it becomes more and more a game of trying to achieve your killstreaks instead of playing the damn game like it has to be played.. and that's pretty much what ruins it. (and many other games these days)

Well for the first part, there are no death streaks in Black-Ops and think the number of killsrtreaks are fine seeing that you're only limited to three.

As for the part about trying to achieve your killstreak, isn't that the point of playing the game?
Unless you're talking about those objective based matches where people care more about their K/D than the actual objective, I don't see any problem here.

Count Snoopula wrote:

Old School wrote:

That's not true at all. Only a handful of noteworthy games are nominated for GotY. CoD 4 and Blops were the only CoD game to be nominated.

You failed to answer the question I posed and failed to provide any reason why arbitrary 'GotY' titles should mean anything to anyone but the person who is 'awarding' them, so to speak.

Should I assume that, considering that and the fact that you've now restricted the discussion to what you personally deem to be 'noteworthy' games, you have nothing of value to say in response?

It's self explanatory really, but you're attempting to make it more complex than it seems.
So put it like this, remember at the end of the year during grade school, a student is awarded an honors award for their sticking out the most in x subject? There you go, champ.

Old School wrote:

So put it like this, remember at the end of the year during grade school, a student is awarded an honors award for their sticking out the most in x subject? There you go, champ.

Except in that case the school giving the award has both the knowledge and authority to acknowledge a student for their high achievements. So it's not actually the same at all, buddy.