# Black Ops Is Dead.



## russb

Well if going on the servers and seeing 98% empty servers on a double XP weekend does not tell you something is not right with the game i dont know what will.I read somewhere and blowed if i can think where i read it that they gave this XP weekend to try and get the intrest back in the game before they
launch the new maps as they dont think people will buy them.


----------



## Russ88765

Maybe the servers are down temporarily?


----------



## russb

No they are not because some of the servers are full.


----------



## Aastii

Russ88765 said:


> Maybe the servers are down temporarily?



Nope, it is just because pretty much everyone realises that the game is both crap, and still not working properly. Try and bring the old "but it has just come out" excuse now. Should have worked from the off, didn't, should have been working a couple weeks after release at most, didn't, should be working months after release...doesn't


----------



## russb

As i said i think they realise it's dead and they want to get us idiots to buy the map pack.Lay money that there will still be loads of idiots who will buy the maps.MOH is dead as well but they have not brought out a map pack yet.


----------



## karma charger

ya this game was a total fail. now im just waiting for mw3 cuz infinity ward isn't lazy, like treyarch. i heard that 300,000 people bought this game for the pc. only 65,000 could play. but they still had the lagging and stuttering problem, and then some quad cores and six cores could play without something going wrong


----------



## Geoff

I played it the day it was released, and I have yet to play it since.  Biggest waste of $60.


----------



## Gooberman

yeah i kinda wish i bought 2-3 games for $20


----------



## Twist86

Gooberman said:


> yeah i kinda wish i bought 2-3 games for $20



I think that with about 95% of the games released anymore. Reason I been scooping the games I do like (but wouldn't pay premium for) off ebay for $5 a piece lol.  Plus if I screw the company over MAYBE they will start making better games once their milking strategy fails.


----------



## Demilich

Agreed. It's probably why Blizzard is doing so much better than all their competitors. It should be quality over quantity in the gaming world. If a game has to be delayed 5 times, so be it. If it's perfect when it is received, I'm happy.


----------



## bvleb96

I really don't like Black Ops because of the worse graphics plus the weapons aren't my favorite. The story line at least made some sense.


----------



## Calibretto

[-0MEGA-];1591980 said:
			
		

> I played it the day it was released, and I have yet to play it since.  Biggest waste of $60.


Same here. I played through the SP player campaign and maybe a few hours of MP. Haven't played it since.


----------



## ScottALot

Victory is mine!


----------



## linkin

[-0MEGA-];1591980 said:
			
		

> I played it the day it was released, and I have yet to play it since.  Biggest waste of $60.



No, I think MOH was. I really only bought it for the BF3 Beta


----------



## Sdot

Demilich said:


> Agreed. It's probably why Blizzard is doing so much better than all their competitors. It should be quality over quantity in the gaming world. If a game has to be delayed 5 times, so be it. If it's perfect when it is received, I'm happy.



No matter how many times a game is delayed it will never be "perfect". There will always be flaw or something someone doesn't like.
Nothing is perfect, especially video games.


----------



## Foodang

Sdot said:


> No matter how many times a game is delayed it will never be "perfect". There will always be flaw or something someone doesn't like.
> Nothing is perfect, especially video games.



thats why theres patches! +1 for blizzard for keeping up on them


----------



## tlarkin

Maybe it is just me, but I don't like shooting games where you have to rank up and get XP.   It just makes it a time sink and imitates a MMO.   If I wanted to grind away XP to level up to unlock new crap, I'd play a MMO.

Whatever happened to playing a game and using actual skill and tactics?  Close quarters, use a shotgun, long range a rifle, stealth knife and silenced handgun, so on and so forth.

I bought COD4 and BC2 and I own a few of the Battlefield games.  The second I realized I had to rank up to unlock items, I got very very bored with it and lost interest.

Where are all the mods?  The reason games like Counter-Strike (which on paper is a crappy game) still has servers filled every day, and it is because it is flexible and doesn't require a time sink to unlock weapons.  There are tons and tons of mods for it too.


----------



## russb

Tlarkin you have helped to make up my mind.I have Counter-Strike and i came away from it because of the graphics but i think i will give it another go.


----------



## Aastii

Demilich said:


> Agreed. It's probably why Blizzard is doing so much better than all their competitors. It should be quality over quantity in the gaming world. If a game has to be delayed 5 times, so be it. If it's perfect when it is received, I'm happy.



Activision and Blizzard are the same thing. Activision is the publisher of CoD, it is part Activision's fault, and that is the same company of Blizzard.

What I think you meant to say was, games made by Blizzard are the same as those made by Valve - they may take years between releases, but the end product is something so polished and something that feels like perfection from the word go. Activision, the other side of Blizzard, who decided to release a CoD game every year, make things feel rushed and not fresh at all



tlarkin said:


> Maybe it is just me, but I don't like shooting games where you have to rank up and get XP.   It just makes it a time sink and imitates a MMO.   If I wanted to grind away XP to level up to unlock new crap, I'd play a MMO.
> 
> Whatever happened to playing a game and using actual skill and tactics?  Close quarters, use a shotgun, long range a rifle, stealth knife and silenced handgun, so on and so forth.
> 
> I bought COD4 and BC2 and I own a few of the Battlefield games.  The second I realized I had to rank up to unlock items, I got very very bored with it and lost interest.
> 
> Where are all the mods?  The reason games like Counter-Strike (which on paper is a crappy game) still has servers filled every day, and it is because it is flexible and doesn't require a time sink to unlock weapons.  There are tons and tons of mods for it too.



I think WaW and all CoD games previous to that are exceptions. It takes so little time to rank up, even if you dislike it, you have everything with in a day or two, which is the same as having everything from the start - it would take you that long to try everything out and to see the merits of some things over others, it just guides you (or forces you depending on how you like the unlock system) through all of the stuff. You don't NEED to grind the camo's, no bugger cares about them

The reason I say pre WaW is because of mods. You look at CoD and the mods that they have, with the exception of surf, are the same as CS. You have your gungame, sniper, zombie, maze/challenges, match mods and servers. There are the mods for it and if you look at how populated they are, you can always get a game of any mod that you want.

MW2 didn't feel right because every weapon was overpowered, anybody of any skill could play it, so it drew it all of the kids, that and because it was a direct console port, and because it didn't have dedicated servers.

BO alleviated one of those problems with dedi servers...but then stopped mods and had an unplayable game. 

CoD is just a money maker now since it became so massive thanks to CoD2 and CoD4, so hardly any time or effort goes in and they try to make it as bad as possible so people don't want to play it by the time the new one comes out


----------



## tlarkin

counter strike is buggy, has crappy hit boxes, but the mods are super fun.  Even to this day it is still played a ton.  The problem with modern games is they are just rehashes of games from the late 90s.   The technology improves so new features get added but no one innovates on them.  

I'd like to see a team based shooter that involves tactics. Combine things like cover fire from Rainbow Six games, with the engine of a quake game, and the fast paced game play of Unreal Tournament.  Then add in a close combat feature where if you get close you can stab or strike with the butt stock of your weapon.

Then make the UI, the HUD, and the controls easy and efficient.


----------



## russb

You want a lot for your money,keep asking father christmas he might come good one year,haha


----------



## vnsmith

I like counter strike better than black ops but I would chose black ops over westwood's renegade based on the strategy game red alert.


----------



## Aastii

tlarkin said:


> counter strike is buggy, has crappy hit boxes, but the mods are super fun.  Even to this day it is still played a ton.  The problem with modern games is they are just rehashes of games from the late 90s.   The technology improves so new features get added but no one innovates on them.
> 
> I'd like to see a team based shooter that involves tactics. Combine things like cover fire from Rainbow Six games, with the engine of a quake game, and the fast paced game play of Unreal Tournament.  Then add in a close combat feature where if you get close you can stab or strike with the butt stock of your weapon.
> 
> Then make the UI, the HUD, and the controls easy and efficient.



I know that you don't mean it literally, but such a game would be awful I think, you can't have tactical cover mixed with the run and gun and hopping of UT.

I think the best sort of shooter you can get is PR, which is a mod rather than a game. You get the tactics and realism, which yes means that you lose the fast pace (unless you are in direct combat), but what you gain is the novelty of skill - rather than everybody being able to pwn you even if they are an awful player, those that are bad can still play, but the bad are obvious. You shouldn't be rewarded for being a "noob" (I have that word), but you should be rewarded for practice, perseverance and your actual game skill. I don't mean earn things through it, I mean by getting a better k/d, leading more often etc etc.


----------



## tlarkin

Aastii said:


> I know that you don't mean it literally, but such a game would be awful I think, you can't have tactical cover mixed with the run and gun and hopping of UT.
> 
> I think the best sort of shooter you can get is PR, which is a mod rather than a game. You get the tactics and realism, which yes means that you lose the fast pace (unless you are in direct combat), but what you gain is the novelty of skill - rather than everybody being able to pwn you even if they are an awful player, those that are bad can still play, but the bad are obvious. You shouldn't be rewarded for being a "noob" (I have that word), but you should be rewarded for practice, perseverance and your actual game skill. I don't mean earn things through it, I mean by getting a better k/d, leading more often etc etc.



Why not?

The problem with cover based shootes is that everyone hides, the problem with run and gun is that you lose a lot of the tactical sense.  Why not combine them?  

The problem with all shooters is that they are the same games rehashed over and over again. All the COD games are the same.  There isn't much difference.  All the warfare games are pretty much the same.

I thought quake wars was decent but it never took off.


----------



## Aastii

tlarkin said:


> Why not?
> 
> The problem with cover based shootes is that everyone hides, the problem with run and gun is that you lose a lot of the tactical sense.  Why not combine them?
> 
> The problem with all shooters is that they are the same games rehashed over and over again. All the COD games are the same.  There isn't much difference.  All the warfare games are pretty much the same.
> 
> I thought quake wars was decent but it never took off.



*looks at MW2* that is why not to combine them.

There are 2 types of players in those games - those that camp, those that run about like a loon. MW2 wasn't what you are on about, but the play style is exactly what would happen, you would have half the people sat in corners waiting for someone to come past, the others would be sprinting about everywhere. The game wouldn't know what it was trying to be and would fall over. Jack of all trades, master of eff all

I was speaking to someone yesterday about an idea - combining a large scale strategy warfare game, for instance a Total War type game, with a large scale first person war game, for instance Arma.

You would control units and tactics and what not from a top down RTS style viewpoint, but could control a specific member of a specific unit. It could be combined with multiplayer too to makes things very interesting too. 

If you see a game where someone is the leader of a squad, even if their tactics are awful, with a good bunch of people with the right amount of communication, they can pull off the bad tactics, and the same would be the case here. What would otherwise be, on paper, a certain loss, would be unpredictable, because it is actual people down on the ground, not AI and number crunching


----------



## Calibretto

I think that the series would’ve been much better off if the release of each game was further apart. CoD2 and CoD4 would have been more than capable to occupy gamers for a few years, both gameplay and graphics wise. It would not only increase anticipation that much more, but it would also get rid of the insane repetition and monotony and give the developers even more time to churn out a solid game without having to take shortcuts due to time. Plus, the series would’ve lasted much longer and there would be less frustrated gamers.


----------



## tlarkin

Aastii said:


> *looks at MW2* that is why not to combine them.
> 
> There are 2 types of players in those games - those that camp, those that run about like a loon. MW2 wasn't what you are on about, but the play style is exactly what would happen, you would have half the people sat in corners waiting for someone to come past, the others would be sprinting about everywhere. The game wouldn't know what it was trying to be and would fall over. Jack of all trades, master of eff all
> 
> I was speaking to someone yesterday about an idea - combining a large scale strategy warfare game, for instance a Total War type game, with a large scale first person war game, for instance Arma.
> 
> You would control units and tactics and what not from a top down RTS style viewpoint, but could control a specific member of a specific unit. It could be combined with multiplayer too to makes things very interesting too.
> 
> If you see a game where someone is the leader of a squad, even if their tactics are awful, with a good bunch of people with the right amount of communication, they can pull off the bad tactics, and the same would be the case here. What would otherwise be, on paper, a certain loss, would be unpredictable, because it is actual people down on the ground, not AI and number crunching



Large scale games only work if everyone does team work.  In pubs it sucks.  I remember the MMO shooter Planet Side, which was like that.  You have idiots running all over the place doing stupid stuff..

I am thinking more like TF2.  There is stealth, camping, charging, hand to hand, etc.  Improve on the TF2 model and add in some more features.  Like taking cover, going prone, etc.  I like the class system too, because when you do team based shooters, you are going to have the support role, the combat role, the specialist, etc.


----------



## Leopold Butters

karma charger said:


> ya this game was a total fail. now im just waiting for mw3 cuz infinity ward isn't lazy, like treyarch. i heard that 300,000 people bought this game for the pc. only 65,000 could play. but they still had the lagging and stuttering problem, and then some quad cores and six cores could play without something going wrong



uhh...I dont' think Infinity ward is around anymore, and if it is well it's crippled as hell. The new MW3 game will probably not be nearly as good as the first one.


----------



## russb

That says alot for MW3 as MW2 was the worst load of crap ever put out for CoD.


----------



## Aastii

tlarkin said:


> Large scale games only work if everyone does team work.  In pubs it sucks.  I remember the MMO shooter Planet Side, which was like that.  You have idiots running all over the place doing stupid stuff..
> 
> I am thinking more like TF2.  There is stealth, camping, charging, hand to hand, etc.  Improve on the TF2 model and add in some more features.  Like taking cover, going prone, etc.  I like the class system too, because when you do team based shooters, you are going to have the support role, the combat role, the specialist, etc.



I don't think that is such a bad idea, but I would prefer it to be more serious. I don't mean realistic as hell, obviously with people sprinting about everywhere it isn't going to be, but I mean less cartoony than TF2, not just graphically, but gameplay wise.



Calibretto said:


> I think that the series would’ve been much better off if the release of each game was further apart. CoD2 and CoD4 would have been more than capable to occupy gamers for a few years, both gameplay and graphics wise. It would not only increase anticipation that much more, but it would also get rid of the insane repetition and monotony and give the developers even more time to churn out a solid game without having to take shortcuts due to time. Plus, the series would’ve lasted much longer and there would be less frustrated gamers.



You are talking about Activision here, they don't care about their customers, just the money that their customers have. They won't be making as much money by throwing them out every 2 or 3 years instead of anually, and their current model is still making them more money than most other developers. So long as they are getting money, their series is doing ell so far as they are concerned because their pockets are being lined. Blame the situation on the people that went and bought the shocking excuse for games that were MW2 and BO


----------



## karma charger

Demilich said:


> Agreed. It's probably why Blizzard is doing so much better than all their competitors. It should be quality over quantity in the gaming world. If a game has to be delayed 5 times, so be it. If it's perfect when it is received, I'm happy.



i agree, but whos actually gonna take less money over more money???

also, just out of the blue, what about metroid prime hunters? they delayed it like 3 times, and the game rocked...at least for a portable gaming system.


----------



## karma charger

Demilich said:


> Agreed. It's probably why Blizzard is doing so much better than all their competitors. It should be quality over quantity in the gaming world. If a game has to be delayed 5 times, so be it. If it's perfect when it is received, I'm happy.



WOW doesn't need quantity over quality, it's already got 5 million players i believe lol. plus, i was playing on the double xp weekend (like wtf? why is there a  double xp weekend? what is this? a crappy free online fps???)
and there was people on, although it was like 10,000 people....mostly everyone is on team deathmatch in nuketown


----------



## tlarkin

karma charger said:


> WOW doesn't need quantity over quality, it's already got 5 million players i believe lol. plus, i was playing on the double xp weekend (like wtf? why is there a  double xp weekend? what is this? a crappy free online fps???)
> and there was people on, although it was like 10,000 people....mostly everyone is on team deathmatch in nuketown



Look at Starcraft II.  It took them a decade to make the sequel, and it came out near perfect.  Challenging, fairly balanced, intuitive, and game play is superb.  I suspect Diablo 3 will be an epic win for Blizzard as well.

They take their time.  WoW, is a different beast all together.  MMOs strive on new content because MMO games are designed for the grind and time sinks.   However, Blizzard also made WoW a single player game.  There is tons of solo content.  This is what I have read, I actually don't play WoW nor will I ever touch another MMO ever again.  I had my fill back in the late 90s early 2000s with Everquest and that was all I needed with MMOs.

Now look at the CoD franchise.  A new game every 8 months to a year?  The game is saturated, boring, and just rehashes of everything you have already played.


----------



## tlarkin

Aastii said:


> I don't think that is such a bad idea, but I would prefer it to be more serious. I don't mean realistic as hell, obviously with people sprinting about everywhere it isn't going to be, but I mean less cartoony than TF2, not just graphically, but gameplay wise.



The graphics are moot on this topic.  You can graphically have it look like whatever you want.  What I want is adaptive game play.  So, some people are camping, then equip smoke and flash grenades and take them out.  Some people are running around and over powering you, get a shotgun, use cover to cover fire in their direction.   Some people are camped up in cover, toss some grenades and rush them.

For every type of situation there is a solution.  This is what adds tactical aspects and strategy into a first person shooter.  Someone is camping in a too powerful of spot, send a stealth unit after them.  Booby trap it with explosives, etc.

TF2 has great game play.  There really isn't any imbalance between classes and each class has it's place.  If you take that model, add in say the cover fire of Rainbow Six Vegas, and the run and gun style of Unreal or Quake, and add in some really cool weapons you could have yourself an awesome team based very dynamic game.

I remember when CS first added shields.  Go ahead and camp in that corner with the AWP, I will just walk towards you with my shield and kill you.  As long as the developer takes the rock-paper-scissors approach, you should be able to handle any situation as long as you can adapt and improvise.


----------



## Dystopia

tlarkin said:


> Look at Starcraft II.  It took them a decade to make the sequel, and it came out near perfect.  Challenging, fairly balanced, intuitive, and game play is superb.  I suspect Diablo 3 will be an epic win for Blizzard as well.
> 
> They take their time.  WoW, is a different beast all together.  MMOs strive on new content because MMO games are designed for the grind and time sinks.   However, Blizzard also made WoW a single player game.  There is tons of solo content.  This is what I have read, I actually don't play WoW nor will I ever touch another MMO ever again. * I had my fill back in the late 90s early 2000s with Everquest and that was all I needed with MMOs*.
> 
> Now look at the CoD franchise.  A new game every 8 months to a year?  The game is saturated, boring, and just rehashes of everything you have already played.



A year or two of runescape took care of my MMO for a very long time. And yes, I know, runescape is hardly even an MMO.


----------



## Aastii

tlarkin said:


> The graphics are moot on this topic.  You can graphically have it look like whatever you want.  What I want is adaptive game play.  So, some people are camping, then equip smoke and flash grenades and take them out.  Some people are running around and over powering you, get a shotgun, use cover to cover fire in their direction.   Some people are camped up in cover, toss some grenades and rush them.
> 
> For every type of situation there is a solution.  This is what adds tactical aspects and strategy into a first person shooter.  Someone is camping in a too powerful of spot, send a stealth unit after them.  Booby trap it with explosives, etc.
> 
> TF2 has great game play.  There really isn't any imbalance between classes and each class has it's place.  If you take that model, add in say the cover fire of Rainbow Six Vegas, and the run and gun style of Unreal or Quake, and add in some really cool weapons you could have yourself an awesome team based very dynamic game.
> 
> I remember when CS first added shields.  Go ahead and camp in that corner with the AWP, I will just walk towards you with my shield and kill you.  As long as the developer takes the rock-paper-scissors approach, you should be able to handle any situation as long as you can adapt and improvise.



It isn't graphics I was on about, it was gameplay. Take the scout as an example, running about at light speed, jumping and double jumping would completely take away from the experience when you are trying to make it a little realistic.

I think we are talking about the same thing, but saying it differently


----------



## tlarkin

Aastii said:


> It isn't graphics I was on about, it was gameplay. Take the scout as an example, running about at light speed, jumping and double jumping would completely take away from the experience when you are trying to make it a little realistic.
> 
> I think we are talking about the same thing, but saying it differently



I see what you are saying. I am OK with class differences, or things like heavy body armor makes you move slow.   However, the pay off is you get more protection.  If you choose to opt out of wearing body armor you are a lot faster, but also subjected to take more damage per a hit.

Things like blind fire will have way more recoil and be way less accurate since you are firing blind.  I think if you tweak it enough it would work, be different, and innovate some and borrow from other existing successful titles.


----------



## russb

I play blops mainly because there is nothing else that intrests me.I play on my clans servers which is tdm hc but whats giving me hump is the teamkill.When you are against another team you are going to lob grannies. How many times has one or more of your so called team gone and run into the spot where you have put a granny.Then you get penalized for a team kill and lose points.I think i will give up playing games as it is doing my brain in.


----------



## tlarkin

31!m!n80r said:


> A year or two of runescape took care of my MMO for a very long time. And yes, I know, runescape is hardly even an MMO.



Sucks your life away.....that is why I don't play them anymore.  Plus back then they were hard, now they are super easy and they encourage people to play more because it is about time spent playing rather than skill.



> I play blops mainly because there is nothing else that intrests me.I play on my clans servers which is tdm hc but whats giving me hump is the teamkill.When you are against another team you are going to lob grannies. How many times has one or more of your so called team gone and run into the spot where you have put a granny.Then you get penalized for a team kill and lose points.I think i will give up playing games as it is doing my brain in.



Dude, you throw grannies in this game?  What the heck?


----------



## Aastii

russb said:


> I play blops mainly because there is nothing else that intrests me.I play on my clans servers which is tdm hc but whats giving me hump is the teamkill.When you are against another team you are going to lob grannies. How many times has one or more of your so called team gone and run into the spot where you have put a granny.Then you get penalized for a team kill and lose points.I think i will give up playing games as it is doing my brain in.



Can tk not be turned off, or have they made it like MW2 where they couldn't be arsed to put the options in to have it off on hardcore? If the latter, that is just plain stupid. The majority of hardcore servers on the other CoD games had no tk on, so what made Activision think that hardcore immediately mean you must have teamkilling is beyond me. Goes to show exactly how much they listen to and care about their community


----------



## russb

I dont know if it can be turned off but if you tk 5 times in the match you are
 kicked and i think it is built into the game.


----------



## ModernMind

Twist86 said:


> I think that with about 95% of the games released anymore. Reason I been scooping the games I do like (but wouldn't pay premium for) off ebay for $5 a piece lol.  Plus if I screw the company over MAYBE they will start making better games once their milking strategy fails.




I am afraid that milking strategies will not fail so easily. Also the above poster about blizzard does not realise that he is too a victim of blizzard's milking strategy


----------



## Okedokey

Aastii said:


> Can tk not be turned off, or have they made it like MW2 where they couldn't be arsed to put the options in to have it off on hardcore? If the latter, that is just plain stupid. The majority of hardcore servers on the other CoD games had no tk on, so what made Activision think that hardcore immediately mean you must have teamkilling is beyond me. Goes to show exactly how much they listen to and care about their community



Of course you can turn friendly fire on or off.

The game is beating every record in the book, its quality although most issues are due to insufficient computing hardware.  Yes there were bugs, but do you remember how many other games, and verisons of COD had bugs.  Not a big deal.

I always laugh at people who make a comment about a game they don't own and probably rarely (if at all) have played.


----------



## russb

If TK can be turned then its down to the people who rent the server so i have no chance.Never mind as i'm getting very bored with the game and looking for something else.


----------



## Okedokey

russb said:


> If TK can be turned then its down to the people who rent the server so i have no chance.Never mind as i'm getting very bored with the game and looking for something else.



Again, have you played it?  It appears not.

The game servers can be filtred to show FF in the following states, ON, OFF, SHARED, REFLECT.  What more could you want?  Non issue.


----------



## russb

I have put in 246 hours for this game so yes i have played it.I only play on my clans servers and they have TK so i cannot turn it off.I am just passing on my opinion of the game which i am entittled to do.How many hours have you put in.

 Bigfella you want to read all the posts not just the recent ones.


----------



## Aastii

bigfellla said:


> Of course you can turn friendly fire on or off.
> 
> The game is beating every record in the book, its quality although most issues are due to insufficient computing hardware.  Yes there were bugs, but do you remember how many other games, and verisons of COD had bugs.  Not a big deal.
> 
> I always laugh at people who make a comment about a game they don't own and probably rarely (if at all) have played.



I agree with the majority that it is an awful rehash of every other CoD game. I do not own the game, I wasn't going to because from the past CoD games, it is obvious it would just be a remake with input from the community ignored and so many jokes of decisions just to make money (and look what happened ), but that does not mean I haven't played it. I have put in a hell of a lot of hours with friends and at competitions, and my opinion hasn't changed in the slightest.

When it was released and people with what would be regarded as high end systems were getting lag, it wasn't insufficient hardware, it was insufficient time into making a game playable, that for a fair number of people, still isn't playable


----------



## Troncoso

Aastii said:


> I agree with the majority that it is an awful rehash of every other CoD game. I do not own the game, I wasn't going to because from the past CoD games, it is obvious it would just be a remake with input from the community ignored and so many jokes of decisions just to make money (and look what happened ), but that does not mean I haven't played it. I have put in a hell of a lot of hours with friends and at competitions, and my opinion hasn't changed in the slightest.
> 
> When it was released and people with what would be regarded as high end systems were getting lag, it wasn't insufficient hardware, it was insufficient time into making a game playable, that for a fair number of people, still isn't playable



tell me aastii, are you looking forward to modern warefare 3?


----------



## Aastii

Troncoso said:


> tell me aastii, are you looking forward to modern warefare 3?



Not particularly. 

If there are dedicated servers with the server files readily available so you aren't forced to use a single provider, if they support the mod community, if they put pb back in so you don't have to have it bound to your Steam account and aren't stuck with VAC, if they get rid of the arcadey-ness of it, if they make the single player less far-fetched, if they make the sounds half decent and not like they are in blops, if they focus more on gameplay rather than customisability, if they get rid of ridiculous perks such as marathon where you can sprint non-stop (and they claim it is realistic ), I may show a bit of interest, but even so, won't buy it until I know what it is like from other people's comments. Even then though, if the general consensus is it is a good game, but the same as CoD4/MW2, I won't be buying it, I already have both, I still like CoD4, so what is the point in buying a game that I have already, just in a different form, that is still played by thousands every day?

Most importantly though, not from a gameplay standpoint, but from principles - if it is more expensive than most other games, just because it is CoD, and if Activision continue their trend of treating their customers like crap, I won't be buying it even if it is the best game ever. The only way I would buy it then is preowned.


----------



## Dystopia

I don't get what everyone's gripe about the game is. Campaign is OK. Nothing special I guess. I really like zombie mode, but of course, I never played WaW. Split-screen multi-player is more MW/MW2.  But I love the online gaming. Love it.


----------



## Dystopia

tlarkin said:


> Sucks your life away.....that is why I don't play them anymore.  Plus back then they were hard, now they are super easy and they encourage people to play more because it is about time spent playing rather than skill.



Agreed, for example, my friend who played 36 hours straight when the last expansion came out, just to get to the top level...


----------



## Okedokey

Seriously people, if you don't like it don't play it.  But, at present it plays like a dream.  Smooth not bugs, not glitches, not lag (ping of 50 mostly) and no network issues and now 5 new maps for a measly amount of money.  What do you want?  

I mean shit, are you guys that tight ass that 100 bucks is make or break.  How many of you smoke, drink etc  I bet you spend WAY more than that a week.  Ive spent over 300 hrs on it during weekends etc, that about 30c an hour and diminishing. you guys a cheap little mofos eh

But back to the OP, black ops is certainly not dead.  Way more players than any other game.  Those who dis, are in the minority.


----------



## russb

Thats why they have given this weekend as double XP because they are trying to get people to play the game as so many have given up and gone onto better games.My opinion which i am entitled to express,thank you.


----------



## Aastii

bigfellla said:


> But back to the OP, black ops is certainly not dead.  Way more players than any other game.  Those who dis, are in the minority.



http://www.xfire.com/games/#

More than any other game eh . For the first couple of weeks it was hundreds of thousands of hours a day played and that number sharply dropped because the majority realised how awful the game is

You are the only person I know that has actually enjoyed the game. Everyone I know that has it all have the same opinion - biggest mistake buy ever, the rest that didn't buy it (who have at least tried it) all express the same opinion as well - thank god I didn't buy it.

It is just churning out the same old crap, only worse than before. Whether it is actually worse or whether people are finally realising that the CoD franchise, in the way it is now, is a one trick pony that is showing its age, I don't know, but either way, you are in the minority in liking the game


----------



## russb

Thanks for that Aastii maybe people will begin to see the reason i started this post.


----------



## Aastii

russb said:


> Thanks for that Aastii maybe people will begin to see the reason i started this post.



honestly mate, if people like it, good for them, but hopefully, after this sham of a game the majority of people that bought it will realise, as they should have after MW2, that CoD has gone down the hole and not get it because getting it is just saying "I'm happy for you to carry on making games like this" and it is dropping the quality of games even further


----------



## Okedokey

What?  I also have an opinion and try and back it up with facts.  You started this thread with an intention RUs, but unfortunately only emotion is on your side.  Only yesterday it was declared the highest selling game on PS3 ever.  



Aastii said:


> http://www.xfire.com/games/#
> You are the only person I know that has actually enjoyed the game.



Thats just opinion mate.  Im not sure why you posted that link Aasati.  The call of duty franchie takes 4 of the top 10 spots at 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th in terms of hours played.  The only differnce between BLOPS (6th) and BBC2 (5th) is less than 200 hours total essentially 1 person (probably you).  I mean thats your evidence of an abandoned game?  LOL  the only games above COD at all is WOW, Starcraft II and Leauge of Legends. Not exactly great games, and if you think any of those are better than BLOPS you should uninstall windows now.  And for their genre, COD franchines clearly owns the FPS>



> Shattering its own day-one sales record, Activision Publishing, Inc.  (Nasdaq: ATVI) announced that Treyarch’s highly-anticipated Call of Duty®: Black Ops has become the biggest entertainment launch ever with an estimated sell-through of approximately $360 million in North America and the United Kingdom alone in the first 24 hours of its release, as compared to last year’s estimated day-one sell-through of $310 million for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare® 2 in North America and the United Kingdom, according to internal Activision estimates.
> 
> http://www.redmondpie.com/call-of-d...les-records-is-the-fastest-selling-game-ever/



If there was a big drop off Aasati, prove it.  I don't see empty servers, in fact many are full 24/7.  The DLC will break more records i am sure, and this will prove my point.

Again, if you don't like COD, don't buy it.  But making rediculous threads about it is stupid.  Especially when the facts don't support your views.  I am not saying the game is perfect, but a few months after release with patches (like all other games) it is fine.  It runs freakin sweet on my machine as does other games that I enjoy.
Keep to facts boys, the rest is subjective emotion.


----------



## Aastii

bigfellla said:


> What?  This is not opinon.  Only yesterday it was declared the highest selling game on PS3 ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats just opinion mate.  Im not sure why you posted that link Aasati.  The call of duty franchie takes 4 of the top 10 spots at 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th in terms of hours played.  The only differnce between BLOPS (6th) and BBC2 (8th) is less than 200 hours total essentially 1 person (probably you).  I mean thats your evidence of an abandoned game?  LOL  the only games above COD at all is WOW, Starcraft II and Leauge of Legends. Not exactly great games, and if you think any of those are better than BLOPS you should uninstall windows now.  And for their genre, COD franchines clearly owns the FPS>
> 
> Keep to facts boys, the rest is subjective emotion.



Highest in money made, not highest in units. Activision pulled this before with MW2 claiming that it was the highest selling game ever on Xbox and PS3, when no, it isn't, it just made more money because they charged more per unit. I should point out, I am aware of the statement Activision made (which they did not back up with figures, they may as well have said the sky is pink because they have no proof), it is the same one they made with MW2, which, as I said, referred to income, not units, but they worded it to seem like they meant otherwise.

And I didn't say the CoD franchise is dieing. The 2 games in the top 5, CoD2 and CoD4 are good games, MW2 and BLOPs just aren't, again, so say the majority of PC gamers (Xfire is a measure of PC before you say I am missing out console gamers in that statement).

And in case you hadn't noticed, that isn't a full time played, that is at the latest refresh. The trend stays the same in positions, however BLOPs is usually tens of thousands behind the next above, not a few hundred by the end of the day. 

My evidence is that (And I believe somewhere, not in this thread, I called this before release) for the first month or two, BLOPs took second place from CoD4, and since then has been dropping further and further down because the gamers have been saying "sack wasting my time playing this" and reverted to good ol' CoD4 and 2.

I don't disagree that, for now, CoD holds the FPS market pretty strongly, but that is set to change vey soon because people are already getting annoyed at Activisions lack of passion and awful, money grabbing business model.

Finally, you said "Keep to facts boys, the rest is subjective emotion.", but just before that said



> the only games above COD at all is WOW, Starcraft II and Leauge of Legends. Not exactly great games, and if you think any of those are better than BLOPS you should uninstall windows now



You can't just miss out games and massage the results to suit what you are saying. Some gamers dropped off those games for a short period to try CoD, even though they are a different type of gamer that play those fantasy/tactic sort of games generally, but quickly reverted back because it was more of the same old crap.


----------



## Okedokey

The PS3 selling record is on units not sales.  NOthing above supports the title of this thread.   So you are suggesting the highest selling entertainment release (not just games, but movies and everything), is only becuase they sold it for i higher cost.  LOL  Show me empirical data - else it didn't happen.  I have shown you some facts, you can deny them however you like, and yes, you proabably have a point about sales figures vs units, but hey, its not like their selling it for anything above market price.  This thread is nonsense.


----------



## russb

Bigfellla ( But making rediculous threads about it is stupid. Especially when the facts don't support your views ) if you look at the servers anytime of the day 99% are empty that is a fact you cannot get away from why because no one is playing the game.


----------



## Okedokey

russb said:


> Bigfellla ( But making rediculous threads about it is stupid. Especially when the facts don't support your views ) if you look at the servers anytime of the day 99% are empty that is a fact you cannot get away from why because no one is playing the game.



Dude we know your view, now get some facts.  pff  So you're honestly saying 99% are empty?  Really?  You're a joke.


----------



## Aastii

bigfellla said:


> NOthing above supports the title of this thread.   So you are suggesting the highest selling entertainment release (not just games, but movies and everything), is only becuase they sold it for i higher cost.  LOL



No, I am not. I am saying everybody hears "highest selling <thing>" and you assume "wow, they have sold more of <thing> than anyone else".

Go and look up Halo 3 sales on the 360, then think back to just over a year ago when Activision stated MW2 is the best selling game ever on the Xbox. MW2 did NOT sell more units than Halo 3, but it grossed more, that is what Activision meant by the statement, and you have just agreed with me by mocking what I implied, which is what Activision implied back then, and what they (probably) are now with PS3 sales.

Oh, and I dug up my post saying exactly what has happened from just after BLOPs was released:

http://www.computerforum.com/182237-call-duty-black-ops-thread-8.html#post1552962


----------



## Okedokey

PS3 sales were based on units. Highest selling game of all time.  Highest selling game of all time.  I mean, what planet are you guys on?  This is rediculous.  I give up.  You're seriously referencing yourself.  YOu guys have an axe to grind, no evidence.  PRetty weak.


----------



## Aastii

bigfellla said:


> PS3 sales were based on units. Highest selling game of all time.  Highest selling game of all time.  I mean, what planet are you guys on?  This is rediculous.  I give up.  You're seriously referencing yourself.  YOu guys have an axe to grind, no evidence.  PRetty weak.



No, it isn't based on units. Activision have said it is the most sold, but haven't included any facts or figures to back up the statement. Your guess it is based on units is as good as my guess saying it is based on income, I am only saying it is based on income because Activision have pulled this before because saying something is the biggest and the best is good publicity

So far as evidence goes, Xfire, one of the most used socialising/game tracking software used by PC gamers, was no evidence?

If you want a decent figure for server population, ~18.3% of servers are populated at this time:

http://www.gametracker.com/search/b...archpge=1&sort=c_numplayers&order=DESC#search

You have to work it out yourself, count the number of servers populated, divide it by the total servers, * 100, eh voila, 18.3% population

And my post to reference myself wasn't meant to be evidence, it was more of a "I told you so", not in the argument, but in the thread, that is why I put it as an extra at the end.

=EDIT=

to see what I mean by they claim sales = money made:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/modern-warfare-2-moves-to-second-best-selling-game-of-all-time/

=EDIT EDIT=

And to see that they have no actual sales figures to back up the PS3 claim:

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/43340/Activision-Black-Ops-is-biggest-PS3-title

evidence enough now?


----------



## russb

bigfellla i think you only play on one server(maybe its your own)thats why you dont notice that the other servers are empty.


----------



## Shane

I thought i would give Blops another go as its just sitting on my desk, and omg its a pile of crap compared to BC2.

Everyone...and i mean EVERYONE just bunnyhopped....or jumped to the floor...no skill whatsoever.

And is it me...but you dont even have to Aim in black ops?...i hardly moved the damn mouse and got a headshot? lol whats with that.

I think COD has gone down downhill ever since COD:MW2...i would sell Blops if it was not tied to my damn steam account!


----------



## Okedokey

Aastii said:


> No, I am not. I am saying everybody hears "highest selling <thing>" and you assume "wow, they have sold more of <thing> than anyone else".





Aastii said:


> ...but haven't included any facts or figures to back up the statement.
> 
> ...evidence enough now?




Released yesterday:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/11/call-of-duty-black-ops-is-the-best-selling-game-in-history/

Biggest selling game (in units) ever, and I quote:



> Activision have shifted *13.7 million units in the US alone*, and has now overtaken Wii play as the *biggest selling game ever*.



And again here: http://gamerant.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-best-selling-game-ever-seb-72846/



> NPD Anylist Anita Frazer recently revealed that Black Ops hasn’t just performed well, it’s reigned supreme:
> 
> “Call of Duty:  Black Ops was the best-selling game in February, retaining the top selling spot since launch in November.  It has now become the best-selling game in history, topping Wii Play.”
> 
> *It achieved this feat by selling an incredible 13.7 million units in the US alone*.



And again here:



> According to NPD figures, the title moved 4.9 million units on Xbox 360 and 3.1 million on PS3 during the month of November 2010, topped the charts again in December, and sold an additional 750,000 units in January 2011. The game has stayed on top of the NPD software charts since launch, *making it not only the best selling-game of 2010, but as of February 2011, the best-selling game of all time*.


 http://www.gbgamer.net/2011/03/11/black-ops-top-selling-game-ever-13-7m-us-units-sold/

Evidence enough for you?

So as you can see guys, even the US units sold make it the biggest selling game ever.  *Not dollars, units*.



russb said:


> bigfellla i think you only play on one server(maybe its your own)thats why you dont notice that the other servers are empty.



Again, lets not let facts get in the way of a good story hey?



> As of February 2, 2011, more than 27 million gamers have played Call of Duty games online, logging more than 2 billion hours, or the equivalent of more than 229,000 years of gameplay.




So getting back to the original point of this thread, is Black Ops dead?  Certainly not.


----------



## Aastii

Since posting saying BLOPs was in 5th on Xfire, it is now in 8th and has been for the last few days. Also, on the links that you posted, look at the comments, then try to continue to say that those that like it are in the majority.

They sold most units, well done, Activision, they told the truth this time about what they actually meant by "best selling", but does best selling mean it is good? Of course not, just look at charts music, it just means a load of kids got their parents to buy it for them.

If you enjoy it, that is fine, but as I said, you are in a minority, and the comments and numbers playing shows that


----------



## Okedokey

Mate, you can just say you were wrong.  If I were in the minority, how is it that it is the best sellig game in history?  The game is uber successful on all measures.  Time to concede.  Your claims around taste, is something altogether differnt and subjective.  And in terms of the comments, only people with an axe to grind generally comment, like reviews on hardware, hardly reputable.  A bit like the point of this whole thread...


----------



## Aastii

bigfellla said:


> Mate, you can just say you were wrong.  If I were in the minority, how is it that it is the best sellig game in history?  The game is uber successful on all measures.  Time to concede.  Your claims around taste, is something altogether differnt and subjective.  And in terms of the comments, only people with an axe to grind generally comment, like reviews on hardware, hardly reputable.  A bit like the point of this whole thread...



I speculated what was actually meant based on how the company acted in the past whilst there was no evidence for what they were saying, but now that they have some sort of figures, I was incorrect and it is based on units. Does that mean I change my mind because numbers = better? Of course not, anyone can buy something, but it takes the product to be good to enjoy it.

For how it is the best selling game, this sort of sums it up:



> Dont think it is really an achievement for Treyarch. Think we all knew it would sell well. Slap “Call of Duty” on anything, and anyone could sell it!



As for the comments, what you are saying is "if your opinion is negative or different to mine it doesn't count for jack"?

I think the game is a joke, I think it is a remake of every other CoD game, I think that people bought it on the hope that it would be good as most of the previous games had been, but realised that the gameplay was stale, the maps were unoriginal, the sounds were appalling, the single player was just an interactive movie unless they played on veteran, and even then it wasn't much of a challenge, it was buggy, and overall, it was just the same old stuff as last time, but done worse.

You harp on about facts, and the facts about opinions are there, plain and simple, if everywhere you look the majority are saying it was bad, guess what that generally means - the majority think that it is bad. You can't just selectively pick what evidence you want to use, unless there is a good reason, and saying people only post negative things, clearly isn't true when you have people commenting on certain things saying this is the best ever or I can't wait for this

=EDIT=

oh, and you might want to check out the user score on metacritic too, just like everything else on the net from the people that actually play the game, it backs up exactly what I am saying

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-black-ops


----------



## russb

bigfellla (So getting back to the original point of this thread, is Black Ops dead? Certainly not. ) your opinion which you are intitled to as it is in the minority,look at all the servers not just the one you play on.


----------



## Okedokey

Russb, you're a sh&t stirer ant that is fine- cant spell though.

Assati, i appreciate that you have your opinion and I think that 99% of your post are spot on.  On this one, we will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## russb

I do love you still but only as a brother.


----------



## Okedokey

russb said:


> I do love you still but only as a brother.



Mate you're a good dude clearly, i think this post has had its day.

Assati, you have my respect and will continue to do so.  Russb, you suck.


----------



## linkin

bigfellla said:


> Mate you're a good dude clearly, i think this post has had its day.'
> 
> *Aastii*, you have my respect and will continue to do so.  Russb, I'll bend over for you



Fixed that for you


----------



## russb

linkin said:


> Fixed that for you



Aastii, you have my respect and will continue to do so. linkin, I'll bend over for you


----------



## Aastii

I think this thread has run it's course. There is enough information here and evidence both for and against the initial argument, everyone seems to have had their opinions heard and discussed


----------

