Why the Hatred for Black Ops?

[ablac]

Its the 3rd time they've released it, save for a new campaign its the same mechanics, levels, and modes. Also the sheer amount of gibbering insane 10 year olds online threatening to lay your mother thrice.

BArely ever encountered them, you must just be unlucky because I play a lot and most people I knwo/spoke to have my experience rather than yours. The rest is accurate to a degree, they aren copies but they are pretty similar though ops did some cool things and is a pretty enjoysble game plus by Cod standars it is pretty innovative, which is pretty tragic, not sure why it gets all the hate.

 

[Hazzard]

So far I think good points have been made, but this hasn't answered by question. This because I worded it wrong.
Here is a more revised version:
Why have long-time CoD fans who buy the same rubbish every year hate black ops but love all of the other games?

 

[Evilpigeon]

Also, the people saying everything after CoD4 should've been DLC are clearly talking out of their arse, perfect example of mindless hate. There are changes to every title that you would have to actually play to understand (which as you can tell, most people who ***** about it don't actually play it).

All in all, it's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.

They add a short new story campaign, tweak the multiplayer, add new maps and maybe expand upon the coop a bit, depending on the game.

Look at Modern warfare and now look at Modern Warfare 2, are yu seriously trying to tell me there's enough of a difference there to warrant two separate games?

I own both, what has changed that makes MW:2 not a total waste of my money?

Hell it's actually worse than an update because to keep up the facade of it being a new game they reset all my progress and got rid of the maps I enjoyed before they proceeded to make no noticeable changes to the gameplay beyond killstreaks, a change so small I'd have been annoyed if they'd tried to sell it as an addition to the original game. The spec ops and story, that's legitimate DLC territory. Maybe even an expansion. Enough change for being two iterations down the line from Cod4? Not in the slightest.

They don't add anywhere near enough new content to be considered new games. I believe they added even less to Modern Warfare 3, however I've only played with other peoplebecause I refuse to waste more money than I have already.

 

[Emiscary]

Only CoD game I've ever owned. Shitty, generic, overpriced, and I hate Sam Worthington.

 

[Evilpigeon]

Also, the people saying everything after CoD4 should've been DLC are clearly talking out of their arse, perfect example of mindless hate. There are changes to every title that you would have to actually play to understand (which as you can tell, most people who ***** about it don't actually play it).

All in all, it's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.

They add a short new story campaign, tweak the multiplayer, add new maps and maybe expand upon the coop a bit, depending on the game.

Look at Modern warfare and now look at Modern Warfare 2, are yu seriously trying to tell me there's enough of a difference there to warrant two separate games?

I own both, what has changed that makes MW:2 not a total waste of my money?

Hell it's actually worse than an update because to keep up the facade of it being a new game they reset all my progress and got rid of the maps I enjoyed before they proceeded to make no noticeable changes to the gameplay beyond killstreaks, a change so small I'd have been annoyed if they'd tried to sell it as an addition to the original game. The spec ops and story, that's legitimate DLC territory. Maybe even an expansion. Enough change for being two iterations down the line from Cod4? Not in the slightest.

They don't add anywhere near enough new content to be considered new games. I believe they added even less to Modern Warfare 3, however I've only played with other peoplebecause I refuse to waste more money than I have already.

You must not play very many sequels or Add-Ons if you think that's insubstantial in comparison to almost all the other ones. Most sequels do little more then put on a new coat of paint, a new feature or two and a new story.

Most sequels offer much more substantial changes that's my issue, I don't play anything that actually offers less. Modern warfare shortchanges you on content. Categories don't matter, when your changes to the multiplayer of a multiplayer focused game amount to
"we changed the perk system and let you guys pick what killstreaks you got"
Why are you releasing a new game? It's a rip-off and that annoys me to no end.

A short story campaign and some coop missions are not enough of a change to warrant a new game and that's pretty much all there is.

Call of Duty isn't the only game doing this, I don't buy any game that I percieve to be doing this, CoD is just the biggest and most obvious offender.

 

[Starke]

Black Ops only takes place in the 60's and 70's. It never branches into the 80's or 50's.

I thought it was 60s only, but some of the armament you get your hands on does originate from later, like the Styer, CZ75 and G11. (And utterly fails to explain why a CIA officer would be carrying a Czech handgun FROM THE FUTURE.)

For reference, Operation 40 was 1962 (at least in our world), and IIRC the final mission takes place in 1968, but I could be mistaken there.

The game is complete non-sense. Apparently Mason participated in the assassination of J. F. Kennedy but it was Lyndon B. Johnson who escalated the Vietnam war.

That means that Mason would have to kill JFK before he went on those missions on Vietnam. It didn't make any sense to me.

The Vietnam stuff happens in '68. The key here is it's built around the Tet Offensive. That much is more or less coherent. Though it requires that he was able to assassinate Kennedy undetected, which, apparently he did. Though, IIRC, some of the email on the computer suggests that he was in fact outed sometime after '68.

Let's face it, the CZ75 is regarded as one of the best handguns in the world and the CIA used whatever the hell they want before lobbying became so widespread.

Also, if killed/captured having an American pistol would identify him.

It's not my preference, but I'll agree about it. The only problems are, of course, he's carrying a gun FROM THE FUTURE, and a carrying a Warsaw Bloc weapon in Hong Kong in 1968 would have been a very bad idea. If captured he wouldn't be identified as CIA, true, he would most likely be identified as a Soviet allied agent. A Browning HP, would have been a much better choice, given the location and time frame, though, of course the HP isn't available in full auto (to my knowledge).

The part with the G11 makes the least sense. It has a ridiculously complex mechanism that makes it unsuitable to be sent to combat unless you train every soldier to become a watchmaker.

It also uses caseless ammunition which is a stupid idea. The casing helps cooling down the weapon because most of the heat is transferred to the brass, and ejecting it allows that energy to dissipate into the air instead of into the firearm itself.

I think the G11 making an appearance on the game is more unrealistic than the CZ75.

Given that the first G11s didn't enter production until 1990? (I checked, I thought it was 80s) Yeah, quite a bit.

Caseless ammo itself, isn't actually a stupid idea, but the technology to actually support the concept isn't there yet.

The CZ75 makes sense as something a CIA op would carry anytime after 1989, but in 1968, when the weapon wouldn't even be designed for another 7 years, and would have been verboten under common sense in NATO territories for a few years after that, it's a bit strange.

 

[miketehmage]

For me, it was a variety of reasons. But I will admit it is a high quality game before I start. Okay, here goes: I played cod4 on the PC, with a clan, using a tactical mod, and we played very seriously, but always as a team. It was great fun. I skipped cod5 but decided to buy mw2, however I bought it for xbox instead. The first thing I noticed was that the community sucked, so I made the connection to the game. I noticed my friends didn't play as a team at all, everyone just competed for kills and didn't care about the win. I disliked this and made the connection to the game. BlackOps then was the last chance I gave the series. I hated the campaign. Flashbacks IMO are for talentless writers. The twist at the end sucked IMO. And the game mechanics weren't changed. So I essentially paid for a shit campaign and the same multiplayer on different maps.

So it was the last game in the series I bought. I also don't like the idea of throwing my money at a company to buy something that is almost the same as something I already own.

 

[gim73]

I don't hate it. If anything, I love the CoD franchise. I think this comes from the fact that I have yet to pay more than a 6 dollar rental fee for one since Call Of Duty 2.

Six dollars? It took you more than a weekend to beat? I pretty much had all the play value done with in a single redbox rental. It's not like the game could have helped it. It's a crap game with a short story and horrid interface. People rag on ODST all the time, but I'd put that game ABOVE Black ops, MW2, MW3 and WaW. I'd probably put CoD4 above it, but only back when it was sold for 39.99, back before it got popular.

 

[Evilpigeon]

Go ahead and name a few games where you consider the changes more substantial. Oh, but let's keep things remotely fair and stick to games that have about the same dev time.

I'm going to quote my last post at you because I feel it's easier than responding properly.

Call of Duty isn't the only game doing this, I don't buy any game that I percieve to be doing this, CoD is just the biggest and most obvious offender.

No, most games are not yearly franchises, they're simply the ones with the most iterations.

I have several games with expansions that added more to the original game than CoD sequels do. I don't play all that many fps game so I can't really give you like for like but I can expand on that if you like.

See below for a much better answer, full of games I have not played

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Well, I'm not sure if it's been said already but...

I dropped out of the CoD series after World at War (which was also my first foray). But it's not because "COD IS SHIIIIT" like strongly opinionated say, I just don't gel with these kind of games. I was never a big fan of the Medal of Honour series either, and the Battlefield games I like are 1942 and 2, but not the story based off-shoot series (haven't played 3 yet).

I liked blops, not loved it. I played a friends copy and even dabbled in the multiplayer until the first level of prestige. I found it a bit hit and miss, a little vanilla, a small bit plain... decidedly average. But not bad. I thought the story was quirky, but in a good way... I hate it when games that can't hold a serious note without shooting themselves in the foot try to play a plot straight. Blops went crazy, and I think it worked for it.

The gunplay has always been the highlight to the series. It just feels tight and well refined... though in MP, I find that the devs spend little time going over balance. I dread the day they try micro transaction schemes as it will be DEFINITELY a pay to win scenario.

 

[Evilpigeon]

Go ahead and name a few games where you consider the changes more substantial. Oh, but let's keep things remotely fair and stick to games that have about the same dev time.

I'm going to quote my last post at you because I feel it's easier than responding properly.

Call of Duty isn't the only game doing this, I don't buy any game that I percieve to be doing this, CoD is just the biggest and most obvious offender.

Yearly franchises are almost all rip-offs. CoD is simply the biggest offender.

No, most games are not yearly franchises, they're simply the ones with the most iterations.

I have several games with expansions that added more to the original game than CoD sequels do. I don't play all that many fps game so I can't really give you like for like but I can expand on that if you like.

I'm just trying to make you into a example as to point out that it's silly that this is the go to complaint about CoD when it could be said for nearly all sequels. It's strange because there are better, more befitting complaints. I was hoping that you could become my jumping off point to say, that it appears to me, that it isn't the substance of the sequels but the substance in comparison to it's popularity or in other words ''I think people just expect more from it because it is so popular, they are holding it to higher standards.'' Sadly you didn't indulge my wish xD

Anywho, yes, go ahead and elaborate, I am honestly curious if these unnamed games really have more substance or if you are just biased. But do know, seeing as I have no dea what games you are talking about, I don't know if I will actually be able to comment, it depending on me having played them or atleast having substantial information in order to comment.

Alright, it's nothing rare, I just mostly play rpgs and rts games. Speaking of which:

The Shivering Isles adds as much to Oblivion as MW:2 does to CoD4, 30+ hours of new single player content, plus new items, areas voiced characters etc... Probably some of the best content in the game as well.

Company of heroes opposing fronts doubles the number of playable sides in the muliplayer whilst adding a a longer campaign than Modern Warfare:2

The sins of a solar empire expansions really change up the game, also they did a major, major patch fairly soon after release that probably changed the gameplay more than Mw -> MW:2.

The fallout 3 DLC adds more content to the game than modern warfare sequels.

I guess it depends how you value it as well, it could be argued that you get 100s of hours from the minor changes from each CoD sequel but in that case is it realyl the new content that's making you play or is it simply that you enjoy the gameplay?

I did really enjoy Cod4, it's just that the sequels haven't changed anything so after being thoroughly dissapointed by Modern Warfare:2 I stopped buying them. I really hate people calling things sequels unless they're definite on the game and CoD just feels like an ever growing series of cash-ins.

 

[mjc0961]

The campaign was very poor. Lots of places with endlessly respawning enemies. It's also completely unfair that enemies can use cover and all you can do is stand behind it and get shot because there's no way to properly hide. There's also no way to properly peek out of cover, again because you can't even go into cover in the first place. You can just stand behind a wall or crouch behind a desk and hope that part of you isn't sticking out for the enemies to get shot (usually there is, though). Yeah, that game fucking sucked on Insanity or whatever they called the hardest difficulty.

Also, the story was god-damn stupid with a really bad ending.

I suppose the only redeeming feature would be the multiplayer, but I didn't find that interesting enough to keep the game.

Yearly franchises are almost all rip-offs. CoD is simply the biggest offender.

No, most games are not yearly franchises, they're simply the ones with the most iterations.

I have several games with expansions that added more to the original game than CoD sequels do. I don't play all that many fps game so I can't really give you like for like but I can expand on that if you like.

Except each CoD game is in development for about two years. Activision has multiple developers making the games so a new one can come out each year, but each game gets about two years to be made. Just like a lot of other games.

You "I hate CoD because it's popular" people always love to rattle on about that yearly release schedule while ignoring the facts, don't you?

 

[Evilpigeon]

Yearly franchises are almost all rip-offs. CoD is simply the biggest offender.

No, most games are not yearly franchises, they're simply the ones with the most iterations.

I have several games with expansions that added more to the original game than CoD sequels do. I don't play all that many fps game so I can't really give you like for like but I can expand on that if you like.

Except each CoD game is in development for about two years. Activision has multiple developers making the games so a new one can come out each year, but each game gets about two years to be made. Just like a lot of other games.

You "I hate CoD because it's popular" people always love to rattle on about that yearly release schedule while ignoring the facts, don't you?

Doesn't that just make the lack of change between iterations worse? I don't see your point. I don't hate it because it's popular I dislike what they're doing with the series because I hold it up to the same standards as I do other games.

 

[Yopaz]

Well, in part it's because it's popular. Very popular. Almost everything popular gets almost equal amounts of hate. Take Justin Bieber, Twilight and Harry Potter. A lot of people love something, a lot of people either don't care or dislike it. However those people have to hear about it to no end. They get sick of living with something that they don't want to hear about.

You'll see the same when it comes to people being bullied. Sometimes they just snap and go berserk. Call of Duty and anything else that is popular works the same way with a few exceptions. This is something that it's completely acceptable to vent your feelings about. It also occurs from several channels, sometimes at the same time. People react by starting to hate something they didn't have strong feelings about in the start.

I'm sure there's tons of other reasons, but I think what I just say may be a part of it.

 

[ElPatron]

HATE it? Who da funk are you kidding? I reviewed it, and I gave it an 8.5! That game was AWESOME! The first Call of Duty game I ever played too.

That explains it. Playing a Black Ops without the "downward spiral" feeling makes it more enjoyable. Unlike other players, you didn't expect Black Ops to solve the problems IW created.

I expected Black Ops to solve critical mistakes. I know that people whine about "BUT A GAME SHOULD BE REVIEWED AS IT IS", but guess what? This last decade reviewers have compared games to their predecessors as a way of judging innovation and progress.

I had quite a good time with it, and despite what many haters say I liked it how Black Ops wasn't one of those "shitbrown shooters" people rile against these days. I also liked the fact that they picked a different setting for once. The Cold War era is pretty under-used.

I have to say that BlOps let me down because I really wanted another jungle shooter. Sadly there wasn't a lot of jungle in it. I have been spoiled by Crysis...

The Cold-War era has been used in a load of games, books and movies.

The plot was also completely predictable.

Before playing BlOps I had been reading some Len Deighton and Frederick Forsyth books - anyone who had watched or read any spy story set in the Cold War could see it coming from miles away.

 

[Evilpigeon]

I have only played Fallout 3 out of those titles and to be fair, I had asked for sequels, not DLC, because I didn't play any of it's DLC either. For that reason I'll just use New Vegas.

New Vegas added a new story, a new map, survival features that are entirely optional and thus, don't really count for much if you ask me. Did I forget anything substantial? In comparison to CoD 4, MW2 added Spec Ops of which the majority could be played in SP or MP, it added a new Story which, in contrast to News Vegas, builds upon it's predecessor, added new Perks, new Maps, secondary weapons that are not pistols (which is a Game-Changer in MP) a abundancy of new Killstreaks and it also generally added new weapons. In list form:

New Vegas:

- New Map
- New Story
- Survival Features

Modern Warfare 2:

- New Map(s, although the size differences should be noted)
- New Story (albeit a continuation)
- A Co-Op/SP Hybred Mode
- Substantial changes to the Multiplayer formula

So, I summed up the MP differences (which I personally don't consider a necessity, that's nice of me considering CoD is mainly a MP game) and it still has one point more on the list. Now all you could really bring up are things that I may have potentially forgotten about New Vegas or the effort around making the singular featuresm which would probably be very debateable considering that we (I assume) both have no formal education or experience in Game Developement.

I agree that CoD is a cash-in, I just don't find this particular argument to be all that fitting. I would like people to get the right arguments out there, then maybe I'd have a chance at seeing another CoD I'd consider worthy of full-price, currently I wouldn't pay more then 20 bucks on release, which consequently is what I do and is also barely over typical expansion price.

Immediate reaction: A 6 hour story campaign and the Spec Ops, a nice addition but it still comes nowhere close in terms of playable content versus ~ 100-150 odd hours of New vegas content. I also disagree that the multiplayer changes were substantial, there really are patches for games that do more to change the multiplayer modes than iterations of CoD do.

Listing the features like that doesn't examine how much content is added, it simplyu lists the areas where content was added.

I'm intrigued as to what you think the right arguments are though

 

[Hazy992]

I noticed some of the weapons didn't fit the time period either. The final mission might take place in 1968.

They don't? Which one's? I'm not saying you're wrong I just thought they were all from that period.

 

[Britisheagle]

I don't hate it, I just think that I have had enough of being screwed over for being a fan.

I want a game with a new engine rather than them sticking to the formula they know will sell. Mario of the FPS world if you will.

Personally I enjoyed Black Ops. I think that they put effort in to entice players to return to the single player with a complicated story that probably made more sense second time around and there was a reason to return with little hidden extras. Okay it was still the same non-stop set pieces but after I saw screens for the next cod and saw more of the same I thought not for me.

Haven't played one since.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Because it's not an improvement.

See you might like eating pizza once and even if it's a little burnt around the edges and the cheese isn't quite melted and the pizza is maybe a little cold you're okay with that because damn pizza is good right?
Then the next day you have pizza again and it's exactly the same. You wonder why they didn't change anything but along with the other pizza eaters (stretchin' ma metaphor) you raise a bit of a fuss, you just point out where it's wrong and what you think a good idea is. Sure you think your one voice is pointless and it is, personal opinion is silly and the pizza is mass produced, not everyone is going to like the same thing as you. Still though the consensus is pretty tight, people agree on what's wrong and what's good.

Then they send out a new pizza again, this time with a few slices of pepperoni but the pizza is still the same, same quality, same problems, they're just trying to cover up the taste with some cheap meat.

That's my issue with CoD and specifically Blops. It has made some progress but as a whole it's weak sauce. I don't agree with taking a game on its own merit because that's silly, you compare games, you need to, the easiest scale is to compare two things. Taken on its own it's a fine game, it's enjoyable, sure the SP is short but the MP is a good laugh, there are issues (hit detection, poor maps) but overall it's not terrible by any means and zombies is a neat feature. Taken with WaW and CoD4 and MW2 in the mix it's apparent just how little is changed and what is being changed is for the worse (compare CoD4 story).

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I have played the CoD series for nearly 1,000 hours excluding MW 2 as I will never play that thing due to boycott reasons. Between CoD 2 and 4 I can vouch for a counted 700 hours rounded up off my xfire profile which is not 100% accurate on play time. I played BO for around 40ish hours.

I have to be honest a lot of that time was spent tweaking settings to get the game to work respectably and sorting out campaign bugs. The rest was spent trying to get my money's worth.

There have things that have been wrong with multiplayer since at least CoD 2 days that should have been fixed. The example I want to use is a bit strange as they actually managed to make it worse in BO. The Spawn points. They have always been awful but I just want to say I am aware WaW and BO are made by Treyarch.

There has been a massive power creep in the multiplayer in terms of what weapons do and they seem to have the mentality that if everything is imbalanced it will become balanced again. That is what it feels like when I play BO. In CoD 4 the only thing that was unbalanced was the P90 and even then it was manageable. Some say the M16 was OP but that seems to be a console centric complaint.

I do know a bit of what I am talking about as I was in clans in CoD up until WaW and then I just lost interest in the series as it wasn't moving forward but just stepping to the side. I used to do a bit on clan base and scrims here and there so I know what people thought was balanced and what was most used by competitive players. Well for CoDs 2 and 4

If people like the series and still buy it that is fine I don't care any more but it is a bastardised version of what it once was. You can say things like Lean and Dedicated servers are insignificant as much as the haters that hate for no reason hate it but it doesn't make it any more right.

Maps not balanced for Lean. Really that is the best you got?

I may give the series another try if it ever decides to stop doing spin offs and make a CoD 5 but until then because of BO I won't ever touch it again.

EDIT: I came back after I remember the horrid map design in BO which were all awful and for some reason everyone wants to fucking play Nuketown 24/7. Probably the worst map I have ever played.

EDIT 2: I realised some people think the M16 comment might be a bit PC elitist but it isn't. I've never heard anyone complain about it being OP before a console user did on this forum. I looked into a bit and due to complaints that were made I think it is a more a problem with the aim assist on consoles.