No Singleplayer Campaign For Black Ops 3 on PS3/Xbox 360

[babinro]

I wish they'd sell the single player campaign ONLY for $10.00. I'm among the minority who could care less about multiplayer first person shooting. I'm in it for the campaign experience.

I still buy CoD games for the campaigns but I'm typically around 4 years behind the releases because the titles rarely go on sale.

I'd gladly drop $10.00 on a day one purchase for campaign only.

 

[Sarge034]

Both times it was ostensibly done to protect ethnic groups within those nations from their nationalist governments. Which is why the Russian public didn't stage a revolt over it.

Sure it was, if you believe the propaganda. I could go into the rational, but this isn't the place. What stands is that they did, in fact, invade and murder people in neighboring countries. How about the topic, what do you have to say about that?

 

[Thyunda]

Both times it was ostensibly done to protect ethnic groups within those nations from their nationalist governments. Which is why the Russian public didn't stage a revolt over it.

Sure it was, if you believe the propaganda. I could go into the rational, but this isn't the place. What stands is that they did, in fact, invade and murder people in neighboring countries. How about the topic, what do you have to say about that?

Google the word 'ostensibly,' mate.

 

[Something Amyss]

In this particular case? Nope.

I mean, do what you want, but trying to define the video game industry on behalf of a population that doesn't agree with you does nobody any good.

 

[Sarge034]

Google the word 'ostensibly,' mate.

Don't need to, I know what it means. But for good measure...
1)outwardly appearing as such; professed; pretended
2)apparent, evident, or conspicuous

So it would only seem to back my statement up as all of the descriptors there fit with my point. So, again, how about the op? Anything to say on that?

 

[Thyunda]

Google the word 'ostensibly,' mate.

Don't need to, I know what it means. But for good measure...
1)outwardly appearing as such; professed; pretended
2)apparent, evident, or conspicuous

So it would only seem to back my statement up as all of the descriptors there fit with my point. So, again, how about the op? Anything to say on that?

So if you knew what 'ostensibly' meant, why did you respond "If you believe the propaganda."? That's the definition of ostensibly. And if you were Russian you'd have a different perspective, so rather than pretend you know exactly what the war was over, or everything that happened - 'cause I have a mate from Donetsk who believes the Georgian war was totally justified, and provided pretty sound rationale to back it up - maybe you should just do what I do and not pass an opinion on it till you've got all the evidence.


And as for the OP, scroll up. You interrupted a discussion halfway through that started with my opinion on the OP.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Soooo, lemme get this straight:
Dev cuts features from all platforms to deliver full experience to last gen users - "Why are our games being crippled to pander to last gen users?!? GAHHH! THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!"
Dev cuts features only from last gen consoles so as not to compromise next gen users - "Why are we only being sold half a game that doesn't match next gen?!? GAHHH! THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!"
Never change, Internet.

OT - I'm quite glad to see that devs aren't holding back the capability of their titles to conform to last gen hardware (indeed, that would invalidate the point of getting a next gen console at all) but it's still got to be a kick in the guts for people who haven't made the switch yet. I think Treyarch have done the right thing, but a $10 price drop is too little compensation for last gen users. Half a game should cost half the price.

 

[RealRT]

In this particular case? Nope.

I mean, do what you want, but trying to define the video game industry on behalf of a population that doesn't agree with you does nobody any good.

Well, hopefully they will realize how wrong they were.

 

[Sarge034]

So if you knew what 'ostensibly' meant, why did you respond "If you believe the propaganda."? That's the definition of ostensibly. And if you were Russian you'd have a different perspective, so rather than pretend you know exactly what the war was over, or everything that happened - 'cause I have a mate from Donetsk who believes the Georgian war was totally justified, and provided pretty sound rationale to back it up - maybe you should just do what I do and not pass an opinion on it till you've got all the evidence.


And as for the OP, scroll up. You interrupted a discussion halfway through that started with my opinion on the OP.

So salty. It would only appear "ostensibly" if you were to believe the propaganda, no? There are those who don't believe the propaganda but still feel the invasions were justified, so if I hadn't said that my statement could have in face been proven false. You assume to have all the evidence? That's cute, and either really naïve or arrogant. Unless you're in Putin's head you'll never know for sure what all the motivations were.

I did, you were commenting on how hard it was for you to follow the story and then said how stupid it was for Russia to invade and kill its' neighbors. Hence this discussion. So instead of saying "I couldn't follow it" or "I couldn't suspend my disbelief for a story" I'm asking about the actual content being cut from the game. Is it only worth $10? Was it the right call to make the game if they had to cut parts out to run? Should they have optimized it and/or cut out set pieces so it would run on last gen?

 

[Thyunda]

So if you knew what 'ostensibly' meant, why did you respond "If you believe the propaganda."? That's the definition of ostensibly. And if you were Russian you'd have a different perspective, so rather than pretend you know exactly what the war was over, or everything that happened - 'cause I have a mate from Donetsk who believes the Georgian war was totally justified, and provided pretty sound rationale to back it up - maybe you should just do what I do and not pass an opinion on it till you've got all the evidence.


And as for the OP, scroll up. You interrupted a discussion halfway through that started with my opinion on the OP.

So salty. It would only appear "ostensibly" if you were to believe the propaganda, no? There are those who don't believe the propaganda but still feel the invasions were justified, so if I hadn't said that my statement could have in face been proven false. You assume to have all the evidence? That's cute, and either really naïve or arrogant. Unless you're in Putin's head you'll never know for sure what all the motivations were.

I did, you were commenting on how hard it was for you to follow the story and then said how stupid it was for Russia to invade and kill its' neighbors. Hence this discussion. So instead of saying "I couldn't follow it" or "I couldn't suspend my disbelief for a story" I'm asking about the actual content being cut from the game. Is it only worth $10? Was it the right call to make the game if they had to cut parts out to run? Should they have optimized it and/or cut out set pieces so it would run on last gen?

Try the first post. The one where I said I only really play the multiplayer. As for suspension of disbelief, I prefer my gritty realism to be gritty and realistic. Now I think you've gotten a bit wound up about very little, so perhaps you've got your shoelaces done too tight or you're a bit dehydrated. Get a drink, put on some comfortable socks and brace yourself for this next bit.

I didn't say I had all the evidence. I actually said I had no evidence and was refraining from passing an opinion. Even if you don't believe the propaganda, the named cause of the invasion was 'to protect ethnic Russians.' Ostensibly refers to the named cause. Acknowledging the existence of the propaganda means you know damn well 'ostensibly' is the correct term here, and you're actually just spoiling for a fight I'm far too lazy to give you.

But since you keep asking, I actually think the series could afford to do away with the singleplayer entirely. I don't think it's a necessary part of the game and I don't think anybody's actually going to miss the mind-numbingly stupid excuses for plot devices that drift about in those storylines. They just have to make the multiplayer worth the price-tag on its own, and continually update it and pad it with content for the foreseeable future to justify the service they're providing.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Are they charging the same for it? If not, then as long as at least a third of the games price is slashed, then that's fine. If not, fuck em, bloody asshats.

 

[Sarge034]

Try the first post. The one where I said I only really play the multiplayer. As for suspension of disbelief, I prefer my gritty realism to be gritty and realistic. Now I think you've gotten a bit wound up about very little, so perhaps you've got your shoelaces done too tight or you're a bit dehydrated. Get a drink, put on some comfortable socks and brace yourself for this next bit.

I didn't say I had all the evidence. I actually said I had no evidence and was refraining from passing an opinion. Even if you don't believe the propaganda, the named cause of the invasion was 'to protect ethnic Russians.' Ostensibly refers to the named cause. Acknowledging the existence of the propaganda means you know damn well 'ostensibly' is the correct term here, and you're actually just spoiling for a fight I'm far too lazy to give you.

But since you keep asking, I actually think the series could afford to do away with the singleplayer entirely. I don't think it's a necessary part of the game and I don't think anybody's actually going to miss the mind-numbingly stupid excuses for plot devices that drift about in those storylines. They just have to make the multiplayer worth the price-tag on its own, and continually update it and pad it with content for the foreseeable future to justify the service they're providing.

Now I get to have fun. You say you will refrain from passing an opinion on the Russian aggression because you don't have the facts then turn around and pass an opinion about no one missing the "mind-numbingly stupid excuses for plot devices that drift about in those storylines". You really should pick one state of mind and run with it.

I happen to enjoy the SP (I haven't played ghosts) if only because no matter how stupid the story is it always brings up some interesting intelligent questions if you're willing to think about it.

 

[Thyunda]

Try the first post. The one where I said I only really play the multiplayer. As for suspension of disbelief, I prefer my gritty realism to be gritty and realistic. Now I think you've gotten a bit wound up about very little, so perhaps you've got your shoelaces done too tight or you're a bit dehydrated. Get a drink, put on some comfortable socks and brace yourself for this next bit.

I didn't say I had all the evidence. I actually said I had no evidence and was refraining from passing an opinion. Even if you don't believe the propaganda, the named cause of the invasion was 'to protect ethnic Russians.' Ostensibly refers to the named cause. Acknowledging the existence of the propaganda means you know damn well 'ostensibly' is the correct term here, and you're actually just spoiling for a fight I'm far too lazy to give you.

But since you keep asking, I actually think the series could afford to do away with the singleplayer entirely. I don't think it's a necessary part of the game and I don't think anybody's actually going to miss the mind-numbingly stupid excuses for plot devices that drift about in those storylines. They just have to make the multiplayer worth the price-tag on its own, and continually update it and pad it with content for the foreseeable future to justify the service they're providing.

Now I get to have fun. You say you will refrain from passing an opinion on the Russian aggression because you don't have the facts then turn around and pass an opinion about no one missing the "mind-numbingly stupid excuses for plot devices that drift about in those storylines". You really should pick one state of mind and run with it.

I happen to enjoy the SP (I haven't played ghosts) if only because no matter how stupid the story is it always brings up some interesting intelligent questions if you're willing to think about it.

If this is your idea of fun, I feel sorry for your girlfriend. I've played every single-player campaign in every Call of Duty since Modern Warfare. I don't much see what that has to do with the Russian annexation of Ossetia and Crimea because...well it has nothing to do with anything, really. The only intelligent questions raised by those storylines are "Do videogame developers underappreciate the value of decent scriptwriting and just accept any old toss from their manager's mates?"

I got the facts on that, mate. The facts are that the developers and publishers aren't really arsed about singleplayer campaigns or storylines.

My evidence? They're cutting it from the fucking game.

Incidentally, Ghosts was the worst offender on the 'bad storyline' thing. They got so stuck for ways to make the US look like the underdog, South America united under the banner of 'Death To (North) America' and hijacked the American doomsday weapon. 'cause obviously the Americans have to be simultaneously the best of the best, and the underdogs, so those dirty Latinos stole from the Americans the objects that gave them superiority over the Americans.

At least, that's how I understood the plot. I spent a fair while being pissed off that one of the characters had a really shitty name that I can't remember now.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Are they charging the same for it? If not, then as long as at least a third of the games price is slashed, then that's fine. If not, fuck em, bloody asshats.

No, they aren't charging the same. They knocked $10 off the price due to the lack of singleplayer.


So, I'd go with "fuck 'em".

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Are they charging the same for it? If not, then as long as at least a third of the games price is slashed, then that's fine. If not, fuck em, bloody asshats.

No, they aren't charging the same. They knocked $10 off the price due to the lack of singleplayer.


So, I'd go with "fuck 'em".

Yep, that's bullshit. I hope no one on those systems buys it, that way they'll see people won't put up with it, but they will... Because Call of Duty.

 

[Dalisclock]

Incidentally, Ghosts was the worst offender on the 'bad storyline' thing. They got so stuck for ways to make the US look like the underdog, South America united under the banner of 'Death To (North) America' and hijacked the American doomsday weapon. 'cause obviously the Americans have to be simultaneously the best of the best, and the underdogs, so those dirty Latinos stole from the Americans the objects that gave them superiority over the Americans.

At least, that's how I understood the plot. I spent a fair while being pissed off that one of the characters had a really shitty name that I can't remember now.[/quote

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head of why I won't buy Ghosts. The not-so-subtle Racism/Xenophobia in the storyline just repulses me(Not to mention the double standard of "Wahhh! They stole our orbiting WMD's and used it on us! We'll show them how horrible they are by DOING THE SAME THING. But it's okay because 'Murica!". I used to laugh at Yathzee when he dissed CoD for being racist, and then Ghosts had to go and prove him right. It'a also way too reminiscent of the right-wring Reconquestia BS I've heard for years.

At least Menendez and Cordis Die from BO2 at least had understandable motivations. Same with Irons and Atlas form AW(though the writers went too far by making them straight out Nazis at the end, because apparently there was too much moral ambiguity in the plot or something).

 

[Sarge034]

Snip your opinion

I know they're stupid little nonsensical romps, but if you're sharp enough to see the underlying themes you can have intelligent conversations about it. Every game brings up at least one intelligent point. The fact you keep trying to attack me only makes your points look weaker, that's impressive actually. And I aint your "mate". We have never had sex.

 

[Thyunda]

Snip your opinion

I know they're stupid little nonsensical romps, but if you're sharp enough to see the underlying themes you can have intelligent conversations about it. Every game brings up at least one intelligent point. The fact you keep trying to attack me only makes your points look weaker, that's impressive actually. And I aint your "mate". We have never had sex.

Alright, mate, I know you're running out of arguments but that last part was a little bit odd. If you're finding intelligent conversations about the 'underlying themes' of Call of Duty games then I can tell you that we're on different standards of 'intelligent conversation.' See, my idea of an intelligent conversation about underlying themes tends to involve original underlying themes.

If you can name three original, thought-provoking themes of Call of Duty, I bet I can name three places they were done better.

 

[Sarge034]

Alright, mate, I know you're running out of arguments but that last part was a little bit odd. If you're finding intelligent conversations about the 'underlying themes' of Call of Duty games then I can tell you that we're on different standards of 'intelligent conversation.' See, my idea of an intelligent conversation about underlying themes tends to involve original underlying themes.

If you can name three original, thought-provoking themes of Call of Duty, I bet I can name three places they were done better.

Then you don't have intelligent conversations. If you're so close minded as to only believe that original themes can be intelligent then you are not in the realm of intelligence you seem to think you are. Relativity was published in parts between 1905-1916, does that mean it's too old to be intelligent conversation? Or if it's not age but "originality" you're truly looking at, relativity was based off of Newtonian Laws (1687). Nuclear arms security, moral ambiguity, ends justify the means, augmentation, drone warfare, morality in war, corruption, the cost of revenge... these are all topics of relative "newness" and "originality" but they're all still relevant and invoke intelligent conversation between intellectuals.

And your continued use of the word "mate" as well as the enunciation you gave it is not unnoticed. If you want to keep implying you're my submissive catcher then fine, I won't stop you.

 

[Thyunda]

Alright, mate, I know you're running out of arguments but that last part was a little bit odd. If you're finding intelligent conversations about the 'underlying themes' of Call of Duty games then I can tell you that we're on different standards of 'intelligent conversation.' See, my idea of an intelligent conversation about underlying themes tends to involve original underlying themes.

If you can name three original, thought-provoking themes of Call of Duty, I bet I can name three places they were done better.

Then you don't have intelligent conversations. If you're so close minded as to only believe that original themes can be intelligent then you are not in the realm of intelligence you seem to think you are. Relativity was published in parts between 1905-1916, does that mean it's too old to be intelligent conversation? Or if it's not age but "originality" you're truly looking at, relativity was based off of Newtonian Laws (1687). Nuclear arms security, moral ambiguity, ends justify the means, augmentation, drone warfare, morality in war, corruption, the cost of revenge... these are all topics of relative "newness" and "originality" but they're all still relevant and invoke intelligent conversation between intellectuals.

And your continued use of the word "mate" as well as the enunciation you gave it is not unnoticed. If you want to keep implying you're my submissive catcher then fine, I won't stop you.

I don't think you've ever met a 'submissive catcher,' mate, I think it's something you read about on the internet one time, noticed a similarity between the British tendency to refer to people as 'mate' and the term for an animal's breeding partner and realised you could get infinite kek from pointing it out. At some point you'll realise it wasn't particularly clever nor witty the first time, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're only trotting out tired and old jokes because you're stuck for a proper argument.

Everything you've listed as 'intelligent conversation' that you can get from Call of Duty is the exact same level of maturity and intelligence you could get from drawing pictures of stick-men soldiers having arguments. It's not done with nearly the level of nuance and subtlety you'd need to even get a reasonably realistic conversation out of it. Take the Modern Warfare 3 example. How would the US fare in total war against Russia, under the proviso that Russia is more powerful than the rest of the Western world combined? You want an intelligent conversation about nuclear arms? Why don't you go join the Trident debate? I assure you, it's lots of fun.

Also the fact you've included 'augmentation' is nothing short of hilarious. And drone warfare! It's like you've been living under some sort of rock for the past decade. Don't you read the news, mate? Or were you too busy playing Call of Duty and getting a pseudo-intellectual hard-on for its 'Baby's First Political Thriller' simplicity?

The reason intellectuals can't have real conversations about CoD's underlying themes is because they're not grounded in any way, shape or form in reality. You're trying to justify it by making it as vague as possible and reducing it to 'concepts referenced by the game's world' but you're not fooling anyone, mate. And I will keep calling you 'mate,' otherwise you might think I'm being hostile and I wouldn't want to upset you. Next you'll be telling me CoD provokes intellectual discussion about the Geneva Convention violations incurred when you're encouraged to shoot to kill and offer no chance for mercy, just because it's in the game for simplicity's sake.
Do you remember the last time you, as the player, took prisoners? Best get discussing that underlying theme, because that's far more telling than the ham-fisted approach CoD takes to modern issues.