Review: Call of Duty: Black Ops
- Thread starter Russ Pitts
- Start date
Solo is garbage, anyone who thinks otherwise has no clue how a real story should unfold.
Multi is meh
Multi is meh
And once again, that point is irrelevant, you can never 'fairly' review something, your inner bias will always come out. As long as someone backs up their arguments for why they dislike the game with solid points, whether they like the genre doesn't matter. Once again, it's their opinion, and they're entitled to it. If you're looking for an objective review, guess what, they don't exist.Sterling|D-Reaver said:
That example of WoW is so arbitrary it follows broken logic. Yes, I can review an MMO without playing WoW, why? Because not all MMOs are WoW, perhaps I don't feel that WoW does gameplay/story/atmosphere/etc. well, or perhaps I feel that this game is so different from WoW that there's no comparison. Points of reference towards WoW are only needed if your audience is filled with morons who believe everything is "like *insert game name here* but...". A decent reviewer can easily explain their opinion (whether good or bad) without having to relate it to other games. If you honestly need a comparison to some other game in a review you're completely missing the point. Every game, of every genre, must be based on its own merits, rather then a comparison to something else. To blindly compare two distinct games, regardless of if they're the same genre, often leads the reviewer to over-simplify the context of both games, which does neither of these games any justice.
TL
R Comparisons of two games within a review is usually just lazy writing.Well, I'd disagree with Russ's review score but agree with many of his points.
The graphics are uneven rather than just 'bad'. Weapons, objects, particles - all of these are nicely done. However, character models of anyone except 'main' characters are sorely lacking. Generally the game has a lack of polish in this regard.
The story isn't bad. Certainly at least it *tries* to do something new. This is COD - remember the awesome story from the first two games where ... oh, right, they were just an ordered series of action scenes. This is an improvement on that formula. Black Ops has a more cohesive story than Modern Warfare 2, even if it doesn't deliver such huge-awesome battle scenes.
I'd rate this as a 'better than average' title thus far, at least with the single player campaign. My personal enjoyment level puts it somewhere more than WAW, somewhere under Modern Warfare.
The graphics are uneven rather than just 'bad'. Weapons, objects, particles - all of these are nicely done. However, character models of anyone except 'main' characters are sorely lacking. Generally the game has a lack of polish in this regard.
The story isn't bad. Certainly at least it *tries* to do something new. This is COD - remember the awesome story from the first two games where ... oh, right, they were just an ordered series of action scenes. This is an improvement on that formula. Black Ops has a more cohesive story than Modern Warfare 2, even if it doesn't deliver such huge-awesome battle scenes.
I'd rate this as a 'better than average' title thus far, at least with the single player campaign. My personal enjoyment level puts it somewhere more than WAW, somewhere under Modern Warfare.
People hardly play CoD for the single player, MW2 failed on both single and multi, this game at least succeeds on multi.
Warning: The following response contains multiple spoilers to the Story of Black Ops. It is also directed at Mr. Pitts, but is an open statement.
Black Op's isn't the piece of crap that it's being made out to be. I thoroughly enjoyed the single player and am in the process of going through again. While I'm not saying Russ is wrong, I am saying that there's more to it than Russ is giving the game acknowledgement for and some of those things need to be brought to light.
To Russ Pitts:
I believe you may be misunderstanding the game somewhat. See, while I do agree with you on some points, your overall thesis on whether or not this game is good is something that I have to contend with. Especially when you compare the blinding flashes and visual filters to games that have done it before, like Assassin's Creed 2, which was given a rather exemplary score from the site.
What's more, is that there are a number of false claims in your review. For example, how you state that there is no logical progression of missions: There is. You're reliving the events of Mason's career that matter specifically to the interrogation, in order, which gives Hudson and Weaver an idea as to what was really happening. As they state during the "Cutscene" in the Pentagon, "I was there Mason. Watching you."
The whole point of the flashes, the noise, the breaks, is to remind the player that you're reliving an experience, specifically an altered experience due to being brainwashed. It's not so much a tactic to distract the player as it is to keep the player from becoming confused as to what's the past as opposed to the present. Not to mention the fact that they're using Electroshock Therapy on you in combination with an unnamed drug while you're in that chair, so it's likely that these flashes would occur as well. Treyarch wanted, from what I can see, to make you feel as if you were Mason. The points where you're being sneaky are there for a purpose: In that final scene you mention where you're looking at the Helicopter, you HAVE to sneak into the base. Then the base goes on full alert while you blast your way through the entire thing and then launch a guided rocket at the missile. It's intense, but it needs the set up and having the player there ingrains the idea that the player is completing a mission, not just "Shoot this. Watch scene. Now you're over here, go shoot these." Things.
As far as Graphics are concerned, I found no issues with them. I played the game on my PC, which uses an ATI Radeon 5700 and AMD Athlon Quad Core processor. The game ran smoothly, the facial expressions were keen, and the way they fused the graphics with the controls made me feel as if I was there. I was immersed, only breaking a few specific times: When clipping errors during custscenes occurred, like when a belt pouch goes through shirt fabric, or a gun messes up, or when the HUD appears in a situation where it shouldn't, such as when you take enemy mortar fire while carrying Hudson in Vietnam which prompts the little "Taking damage from this direction" blip to show up.
This also brings me to the point of the immersion in total. I felt distraught when I didn't have ammo in my gun after coming out of the crashed plane with the Nova-6. I was angry and horrified as to what I'd done when I realized that I was brainwashed. Note that I say I, not Mason. I felt as if I was that character, living his experiences.
I do respect and understand your opinion, I just feel that many of your grievances are actually solved within the game. What's more, is that I believe this is the closest a game has come to seeming like a movie: I honestly felt that this was what "The Expendables" should have been. The cinematic effect that was portrayed in MW2 was amplified here. The pretense of Realism is gone from this series: It's crafted with a cinematic rule set now.
I believe you may be misunderstanding the game somewhat. See, while I do agree with you on some points, your overall thesis on whether or not this game is good is something that I have to contend with. Especially when you compare the blinding flashes and visual filters to games that have done it before, like Assassin's Creed 2, which was given a rather exemplary score from the site.
What's more, is that there are a number of false claims in your review. For example, how you state that there is no logical progression of missions: There is. You're reliving the events of Mason's career that matter specifically to the interrogation, in order, which gives Hudson and Weaver an idea as to what was really happening. As they state during the "Cutscene" in the Pentagon, "I was there Mason. Watching you."
The whole point of the flashes, the noise, the breaks, is to remind the player that you're reliving an experience, specifically an altered experience due to being brainwashed. It's not so much a tactic to distract the player as it is to keep the player from becoming confused as to what's the past as opposed to the present. Not to mention the fact that they're using Electroshock Therapy on you in combination with an unnamed drug while you're in that chair, so it's likely that these flashes would occur as well. Treyarch wanted, from what I can see, to make you feel as if you were Mason. The points where you're being sneaky are there for a purpose: In that final scene you mention where you're looking at the Helicopter, you HAVE to sneak into the base. Then the base goes on full alert while you blast your way through the entire thing and then launch a guided rocket at the missile. It's intense, but it needs the set up and having the player there ingrains the idea that the player is completing a mission, not just "Shoot this. Watch scene. Now you're over here, go shoot these." Things.
As far as Graphics are concerned, I found no issues with them. I played the game on my PC, which uses an ATI Radeon 5700 and AMD Athlon Quad Core processor. The game ran smoothly, the facial expressions were keen, and the way they fused the graphics with the controls made me feel as if I was there. I was immersed, only breaking a few specific times: When clipping errors during custscenes occurred, like when a belt pouch goes through shirt fabric, or a gun messes up, or when the HUD appears in a situation where it shouldn't, such as when you take enemy mortar fire while carrying Hudson in Vietnam which prompts the little "Taking damage from this direction" blip to show up.
This also brings me to the point of the immersion in total. I felt distraught when I didn't have ammo in my gun after coming out of the crashed plane with the Nova-6. I was angry and horrified as to what I'd done when I realized that I was brainwashed. Note that I say I, not Mason. I felt as if I was that character, living his experiences.
I do respect and understand your opinion, I just feel that many of your grievances are actually solved within the game. What's more, is that I believe this is the closest a game has come to seeming like a movie: I honestly felt that this was what "The Expendables" should have been. The cinematic effect that was portrayed in MW2 was amplified here. The pretense of Realism is gone from this series: It's crafted with a cinematic rule set now.
Black Op's isn't the piece of crap that it's being made out to be. I thoroughly enjoyed the single player and am in the process of going through again. While I'm not saying Russ is wrong, I am saying that there's more to it than Russ is giving the game acknowledgement for and some of those things need to be brought to light.
So, this person gives 007 Blood Stone a 4/5, and somehow BLOPS is 2/5? I've played both, and I'd say that he got his scores backwards. His reasoning for the game being bad is something that I completely disagree with, personally. This is, to me, the DEFINITION of a sensationalist review, the sole purpose of which is to garner attention and nothing more. Being different for the sake of being different is just stupid.
EDIT:
I just want to add also, that I disagree with the choice to review the two parts of the game separately. The consumer is paying 60-70 bucks for the whole thing. Not just campaign, not just multiplayer, not just zombie mode or any of the extra hidden arcade games. Let's say the campaign is 2/5. Let's take the multiplayer review (which has no score, but praise it as though it is 5/5, so lets take that) that's an average score of 3.5, which should be your final stamp on the game. You're getting a complete package, not just single player or multiplayer.
EDIT:
I just want to add also, that I disagree with the choice to review the two parts of the game separately. The consumer is paying 60-70 bucks for the whole thing. Not just campaign, not just multiplayer, not just zombie mode or any of the extra hidden arcade games. Let's say the campaign is 2/5. Let's take the multiplayer review (which has no score, but praise it as though it is 5/5, so lets take that) that's an average score of 3.5, which should be your final stamp on the game. You're getting a complete package, not just single player or multiplayer.
i can't believe I'm going to say this but...
wow..
I agree. I literally have no idea what happened here but this review literally tore the game to pieces for reasons that are nowhere near as bad as Russ made them sound in his review.
Blood Stone got a 4/5 and this got a 2? What the hell? I seriously want to know what really went down here.
Even Rock, Paper, Shotgun gave it a better review and they're not really known for praising these kinds of games.
wow..
I agree. I literally have no idea what happened here but this review literally tore the game to pieces for reasons that are nowhere near as bad as Russ made them sound in his review.
Blood Stone got a 4/5 and this got a 2? What the hell? I seriously want to know what really went down here.
Even Rock, Paper, Shotgun gave it a better review and they're not really known for praising these kinds of games.
Its the problem that occurs in all games based on real life events. Nothing important happens.
If the game is trying to provide a behind the scenes look at major battles or undercover operations the gunfights themselves might be fun, but there's no closure, everything has to end with things back to normal and without any real difference made in the grand scheme. This is why COD4 was so much more effective than Black Ops, it took place is a sort of pocket dimension where things panned out differently than in the real world.
Its why WW2 games usually have boring campaigns, because we know how everything ends.
If the game is trying to provide a behind the scenes look at major battles or undercover operations the gunfights themselves might be fun, but there's no closure, everything has to end with things back to normal and without any real difference made in the grand scheme. This is why COD4 was so much more effective than Black Ops, it took place is a sort of pocket dimension where things panned out differently than in the real world.
Its why WW2 games usually have boring campaigns, because we know how everything ends.
What a pile of trash this review was, kinda find it funny the way you'l dig at Call of Duty's writing, have you watched Gamer Dogz at all, you aint winning no awards for that "gem".
Its clearly obvious your in that stupid mindset of "Franchise's are WRONG!!!!" and that all long running game series should be scrutinised because it detracts attention from some stupid ass indie game.
These games are made by professionally trained people, who have worked hard to make this game feel cinematic, and it really does, it feels like a bad action film or a dumbed down James Bond, and sometimes something being bad is fun.
And bad graphics, I hardly think so. So called classics such as Half life 2 and portal have horrendous graphics but those are prised up the ass. As Mr Plinkett might say "This clearly doesn't make any sense!"
You didn't mention any of the extras such as the Zombies (which in my opinion is better then the series as a whole) or dead ops. Just tried to emulate Yahtzee and do the whole "I hate this thing, look at me hating this thing ARENT I FUNNY!!!!!
Its clearly obvious your in that stupid mindset of "Franchise's are WRONG!!!!" and that all long running game series should be scrutinised because it detracts attention from some stupid ass indie game.
These games are made by professionally trained people, who have worked hard to make this game feel cinematic, and it really does, it feels like a bad action film or a dumbed down James Bond, and sometimes something being bad is fun.
And bad graphics, I hardly think so. So called classics such as Half life 2 and portal have horrendous graphics but those are prised up the ass. As Mr Plinkett might say "This clearly doesn't make any sense!"
You didn't mention any of the extras such as the Zombies (which in my opinion is better then the series as a whole) or dead ops. Just tried to emulate Yahtzee and do the whole "I hate this thing, look at me hating this thing ARENT I FUNNY!!!!!
THIS. FOR ALL THAT IS GOOD, THIS.Soyokaze said:
Reznov had probably the most natural voice of them all. It comes out as you expect it to, but it flows naturally and doesn't seem stressed at all. It's one of the best voice-acting jobs I've seen in a while.
I liked the story and the Fight Club twist in the end. As a game in itself, its pretty good. But not as good as its brothers.
So, Black ops sucks... Then again, CoD has sucked since... Wait a minute, CoD has pretty much always sucked, except for the brief moment of shining glory that was CoD 4: Modern Warfare.
Then they got a little stunned by their own accident, and made that abortion that was MW2... Black ops seems better than MW2 though... But then again, so does a car accident.
Still giving it a Pass.
Then they got a little stunned by their own accident, and made that abortion that was MW2... Black ops seems better than MW2 though... But then again, so does a car accident.
Still giving it a Pass.
In my very own opinion, I found the single-player campaign layout was far more interesting than the franchise has done to date. Having a mind's eye theater set of flashbacks from someone who suffered the Russian equivalent of MKUltra (look it up!) was a fresh change. I did find it cumbersome at times to go from the interrogation room to a prologned cut scene/mission start-up as if the game didn't trust me to take the wheel. The devs, probably, assumed the effect was cinematic and built tension, in reality, it just became annoying. In general,the graphics were fine, I didn't really notice anything out of place. The twists and turns and the sense of "what in the fuck is going on here?" kept me engaged right up to the James-bond esque over the top final mission, like a underwater rendition of Moonraker. The phrase of "we won" at the end-scene given the time period this was set in and what was eluded to prior to the credits had a twisted sense of irony to it. It was little things like this, I could appreciate.
Finally, zombies are fun as always especially with JFK,McNamara,Castro and Tricky Dick Nixon standing in their best Left 4 Dead group pose! I haven't ventured into MP yet but I've heard good things so far regarding how balanced it is relative to MW2. We'll see how long that holds up.
TLDR: To each their own.
Finally, zombies are fun as always especially with JFK,McNamara,Castro and Tricky Dick Nixon standing in their best Left 4 Dead group pose! I haven't ventured into MP yet but I've heard good things so far regarding how balanced it is relative to MW2. We'll see how long that holds up.
TLDR: To each their own.
Spot on! Wish I has read this review prior to buying the game. I was looking for a single player FPS with decent multiplayer. I played the first two missions and pretty much lost interest during the extended cut scenes. Horrible...
Movies are good at what they do. Video games are not movies and shouldn't try to be. And if I want a good story line I'll read a book. I wanted a FPS shooter that I could plop down and play for 20+ min then go do whatever else. A FPS shouldn't feel like a time commitment.
Good review. Poor game.
Movies are good at what they do. Video games are not movies and shouldn't try to be. And if I want a good story line I'll read a book. I wanted a FPS shooter that I could plop down and play for 20+ min then go do whatever else. A FPS shouldn't feel like a time commitment.
Good review. Poor game.
This is why I generally dislike professional reviews. They tend to be biased one way or another, either like or dislike. I much prefer gathering my opinion from my close friends, or from reading forums on various gaming sites about a game. It is a much more natural way of deciding if a game is good or not anyway, since casual discussion will bring up both the good and the bad and one can form an intelligent weighted decision on their own based on what you've heard/read.
I'm not going to bash this guy in particular, since his opinion is just that, his opinion, and doesn't mean anything to me. But it sounds like he doesn't like "Call of Duty" in general, rather then disliking Black Ops in particular. Maybe he is just burnt out on the series, which is completely understandable? I avoided MW2 for that very reason, I liked WaW and played it so much that MW2 was not interesting at all.
I feel sorry for the people who read that though, and immediately refuse to try it at all, damning Treyarch for making "another shitty game", or whatever. I personally think that the campaign had me cheering for awesome moments more then the previous CoD games, and the story was pretty interesting, I liked the whole CIA version of events. Multiplayer actually feels balanced, unlike the previous iteration.
This isn't going to change anybody's opinions either way, and it shouldn't. But still, I'm ashamed of calling myself a gamer when I see the avid haters, and avid fanboys going at each other, especially on this site. :/
I'm not going to bash this guy in particular, since his opinion is just that, his opinion, and doesn't mean anything to me. But it sounds like he doesn't like "Call of Duty" in general, rather then disliking Black Ops in particular. Maybe he is just burnt out on the series, which is completely understandable? I avoided MW2 for that very reason, I liked WaW and played it so much that MW2 was not interesting at all.
I feel sorry for the people who read that though, and immediately refuse to try it at all, damning Treyarch for making "another shitty game", or whatever. I personally think that the campaign had me cheering for awesome moments more then the previous CoD games, and the story was pretty interesting, I liked the whole CIA version of events. Multiplayer actually feels balanced, unlike the previous iteration.
This isn't going to change anybody's opinions either way, and it shouldn't. But still, I'm ashamed of calling myself a gamer when I see the avid haters, and avid fanboys going at each other, especially on this site. :/