So I Did A Little Research On Black Ops...

[PlowmanMk]

People are looking into this too much. It's a game, not a history project. I noticed the historical inaccuracy too, doesn't necessarily detract from the game.

Realism is not fun, otherwise our lives would be much, much, more amusing.

 

[shootthebandit]

i also highly doubt that a remote controlled toy car with C4 on it was ever used by the military

also and explosive crossbow with only 3 bolts is a very unpratical weapon

 

[Enkidu88]

EDIT: Looks like I need to makes a few things clear:
- It's not just the poor choice of weapons that made me loose all respect for Treyarch. The screwy story, poor voice acting, the poorly constructed characters and many other factors in Blops (as well as in WaW) led me to despise Treyarch. The mess with the guns was the the last straw.

Poor voice acting? I thought Black Ops voice acting was pretty on par with all the other CoD games. In fact I think Victor Reznov's voice is some of the best I've heard from Call of Duty (it is Gary Oldman after all). Also I thought the characters in Treyarch's games were actually better, or at least more complex, than their Infinity ward counterparts.

But yeah, the story is screwed no matter how you look at it.

 

[MrZ33]

Yes it would be nice if they kept to a time scale but it doesn't bother me that much. i just like using weapons i know a little about.

 

[katsumoto03]

Now, I'm normally not one to complain about these things; but damn Treyarch. You dun goof'd.

 

[LondonBeer]

Agreed, I understand completely its the inherent antagonism towards the suspension of disbelief.

Given the wealth of awesome older firearms its pathetic that the alledgedly accurate & well researched game fails epically.

 

[Aphex Demon]

Is that SPAS-12 supposed to be an Semi-Auto? Doesnt make sense.

 

[The Hive Mind]

Are we forgetting Black Ops has Ray Guns?

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Call of Duty is mostly composed of idiots how will sit on the couch with drool lazily drizzling out their mouth, so the developers will do anything to make some money by adding in content that these people like. Seriously I think that if they didn't add in certain guns, the guns that were left would be crappy and boring and would have little killing power compared to more modern guns.

*twitch*

Funny, I always thought the rule was "If JFK, Nixon, and Castro are fighting off zombies in the Pentagon, historical accuracy comes second to fun and it shouldn't be judged on lack of said accuracy". Did the game ever claim to be accurate? No? Therefore, is it entirely possible that the game in which you slaughter thousands of enemy soldiers in pursuit of a fictional nerve gas took some liberties with history? Or possibly is even set in an alternate universe! Oh fuck no, it was somehow assumed despite all prior indications that this game would be the equivalent of a documentary and I was going to use it to study for my test on the Vietnam war, which I failed because I relied on a game where I break thousands of Russians out of a fictional prison with a shank.

And the thing is, these idiots will probably defend the appearance of those guns. Purely because the bullshit that runs through their minds goes a bit like this...

"OMGFUCK U LUL COD IS RITE AND U RONG NERDRAGEGEGEG"

Because CoD is the only game worth playing, apparentley.

Did CoD kill your family or something? Are the both of you really calling people drooling morons because they bought a popular video-game they can enjoy with their friends?

Someone's enjoyment of a product you dislike does not make them your mortal enemy, nor does it make them a moron. The game has sold seven million copies and I doubt every one of them went to a drooling moron.

Ever been on Call of Duty? seriously, majority of the people on call of duty are like what Noble Cookie described, 10 times in under an hour you will find someone swearing because he got killed, or because he hates shotguns, or because he was sniped, or because he sucks and he thinks people are hackers.

Secondly it is better to have historical accuracy and have fun in a game, after all we do buy games for fun and entertainment. If they go and make an inaccurate shooting game why does it have to be related to something that has already happened? why not just create something entirely different.

Lastly, people might go and buy Call of Duty to play with their friends but when they go online and start being dicks to people by calling them all kinds of vulgar things because they are pissed off, it stops being fun and it starts being a composite of swearing, yelling, gun shots and explosions which no one seriously needs to hear. If you haven't seen someone basically addicted to Call of Duty like I have, and who is what Noble Cookie and I have described, and who has a family, then maybe you shouldn't be saying that they're just normal and respectable people because a lot of them aren't, a lot of them are addicts and do sit on their couches all day playing call of duty screaming into a head set.

That's the same with every game. Just mute them, it's not very difficult.

The game is loosely based on historical events. They said that, it's like alternate history. I'm not really sure what you mean in your second paragraph, could you care to re-explain it?

Again, they are the minority, and you can mute them. You only have to hear them for the second it takes you to reach for the mute button. If you judged every group by the worst examples you'd have a very negative world view.

Yes, I was a bit tired when i wrote it and you have some valid points. What I meant by it was, why do they and other game creators make their story lines around things that have already happened e.g. Afghan war, Cold war, ww2 just so they can go and make it entirely different? why couldn't they go and have the exact same idea but in a war they invented (and hopefully they will leave the Russians alone this time)

Ah, I see. Well, for one thing, inventing a fictional war is hard to do without making it sound, well, stupid. You know, cheesy names for all the countries, and no real reason for a war in the first place.

And a lot of the people that don't want hyper-realism still want somerealism, or some kind of grounding in reality. I'm not saying CoD has any kind of emotional punch, but if the game has actual battles it could give you a greater understanding or appreciation of the battle, without the extreme difficulty of realism. Think of it like you're taking a tour through historical events, it's not like actually being there, but you might learn something while having fun.

 

[Ian Soule]

I'm a Halo fan myself. I just think Reach was done better and is an overall better game than Black Ops. But well...you are supposed to be a Black Ops soldier. So maybe you're getting the prototypes and early versions of these weapons?

 

[Mcface]

Also noticed this.

Oh well, i dont really care. They balanced the weapons (except for the 74-u) much better than infinity ward ever could. Every gun is useful, and can stand toe to toe with any other gun.

also, if they stuck to real timeline, we would be using m16s and AK-47s for the assault rifles, and everything else would be world war 2 esq. not very fun sounding if you ask me.

 

[Mr.Gompers]

As a gun nut the thing that bothers me the most is the fact that the makarov has more stopping power than the colt 1911.

Only thing that bothered me actually. The storyline is a fictional one, about a fictional Vietnam front (the Vietcong did NOT do those large attacks, I mean that was over the top large). And why not just make the production time on the guns fictional, an alternate universe might have gotten the guns sooner or somthing. And it was fun seeing the G11 in a game again, I love that gun for some reason.

It was nice to see the G11 in a game.

 

[Darkhill]

It would of been nice to play as Neil Armstrong duking it out hand to hand with Space Soviet assasins during the Apollo 11 mission moonwalk. Because really, it's about the secret events surrounding the major events. The scene where you impale the would-be assasins with the American flag (several at once, like a sheesh-kebab) while shouting "I hope you get my POINT!" would have been a particularly moving, expose on man's brutal nature, hammering home the game's gritty realism that has made the series so iconic.

The scene where Buzz Aldrin quips "Good, that ties up a lot of loose ends." before pulling a gun on you, would unfortunately fall flat when the gun fails to go off due to the lack of air, so Buzz will just look silly. Same goes for when he tries to set you on fire.

 

[thepj]

not to bothered, just so long as i can have fun with it then they could throw in handheld cannons that shoot lazer beams and i wouldn't care.

Never been one for historical accuracy.

 

[MR T3D]

yeah, its a shame they've said 'fuck it' to looking accurate, to people whom know something about guns, but then, I had given up hope on the whole damn series last year, that they got MP fixed up this time makes up for it to me. I suggest also looking on the light side of this game aswell.


all that is worth being said on this seems to have been said in this thread.
[/thread]

 

[Numb1lp]

Well, since the game is decent, I can forgive these inaccuracies.

 

[Dectomax]

Meh, what do you expect? It's Treyarch...they've never done anything well...

 

[Echo136]

So spec ops in this game get to use weapons 10 years ahead of their time? Not only that but the enemies are all carrying these weapons in the campaign too. I dont buy it. Thats like a wave of the hand saying a wizard did it and expecting everyone to swallow it as truth. Thats stupid.

 

[MarsProbe]

Come on now, seriously, this is a game that features a post end credits sequence where

Spoiler

Castro, JFK, Nixon and...someone else are beseiged by zombies

and you're complaining that some weapons appeared in a game set in a time before they were created? Some people just look into things too much.

Or to keep it brief...who cares?