183 replies to this topic

[Sage]

Warfare in the Middle East would not make for a good game at all.

at all.

[Shikari Zu]

Why do you think so? I actually enjoy it rather than seeing the same old thing done over and over again not to say Black Ops will be what we've seen before, but I am referring to World War 2 and conflicts with Russia. As for the Middle East. Did you ever look into the Battle of Fallujah? Did you ever get interested in the operations to seize back Afghanistan and the hunt for Usama Bin Laden? As for Falluja - Many soldier's said their experiences were terrifying as they broke into house by house searching for insurgents in Fallujah outside of Baghdad in attempt to drive them back and take the town. There were many surprise attacks and traps - experts said the conditions were 'like' Vietnam. (Insurgents came from all over to act as martyrs and take as many soldier's lives as they could) I just feel there are many things to be explored in the middle east. And for extras throw in an EOD missions where you disarm bombs like seen in the Hurt Locker.

[神]

You do realize that there's hardly ANY games out that that even remotely touch the Eastern front of WWII, let alone accurately? That is unless you actually believe Enemy at the Gates was a historically accurate movie. As for making a game of the middle east, if you enjoy "A car just randomly exploded beside you, try again later" then by all means.

[Shikari Zu]

神, on 29 June 2010 - 08:26 PM, said:

You do realize that there's hardly ANY games out that that even remotely touch the Eastern front of WWII, let alone accurately? That is unless you actually believe Enemy at the Gates was a historically accurate movie. As for making a game of the middle east, if you enjoy "A car just randomly exploded beside you, try again later" then by all means.

If that was a problem in every battle then we would have a lot more causalities in the Iraq war, wouldn't we? Watch Hurt Locker, its not all car bombs. You could say the same for a random trip mine killing you in a Vietnam game. Eastern front has been covered in Call of Duty World At War and that was enough for me. And I was entirely referring to conflicts with Russia as seen in the upcoming Ghost Recon game and Modern Warfare 2; not just the eastern front between Germany and Russia.

And what about Red Orchestra? I thought that was accurate according to you.

Edited by Shikari Zu, 29 June 2010 - 08:42 PM.

[神]

Red Orchestra is accurate, but it's also the only game I know that not only covers the Eastern front beyond a touch of Moscow/Stalingrad and does so accurately with realistic gameplay thrown in. And no, I'm not implying they were all car bombings, but a lot of bombings in general. I'd be willing to bet a lot of the injuries are from sneak attacks, bombings, raids concerning demolitions, mines, and acts of martyr ship over gunfights.

Edited by 神, 29 June 2010 - 09:10 PM.

[Fayte]

Multiplayer Trailer:

[Dragon_Tamer15]

i heard this game is a sequel to call of duty world at war bc isn't the cold war after WWII

[Fallen]

Wow that looks amazing.

[神]

No recoil weapons? Check. MW2 gameplay just as Treyarch ripped CoD4's gameplay with WaW? Check. Retarded knife tactics? Check. Skill devoid gameplay and matching killstreaks? Check and check.

Yawn.

[Mike]

神, on 09 August 2010 - 04:04 PM, said:

No recoil weapons? Check. MW2 gameplay just as Treyarch ripped CoD4's gameplay with WaW? Check. Retarded knife tactics? Check. Skill devoid gameplay and matching killstreaks? Check and check.

Yawn.

I was a bit surprised (not really) how much MW2's gameplay is seemingly ripped off.

But they are definitely trying to make these games easy for everyone to play, which is the problem.

[Ken Masters]

Will there be customizable kill streaks to break the game?

[Fallen]

Customizable kill streaks didn't ruin Warfare 2.

[T0nY]

Xero, on 09 August 2010 - 04:52 PM, said:

Customizable kill streaks didn't ruin Warfare 2.

They sure as hell added to it though.

Also, Black-Op's only saving grace will be if the single player is more than 14 hours long. If its not, hi worst game of the year!

[Sage]

Who cares about Single Player, it's fun for a while and then you never touch it again.

[T0nY]

Sage, on 10 August 2010 - 07:43 AM, said:

Who cares about Single Player, it's fun for a while and then you never touch it again.

The single player is the most important part of any game. If your single player sucks and your dependent on your multiplayer, your title is pretty bad. Multiplayer should be something extra, not the main game.

[Ken Masters]

T0nY, on 10 August 2010 - 09:47 AM, said:

The single player is the most important part of any game. If your single player sucks and your dependent on your multiplayer, your title is pretty bad. Multiplayer should be something extra, not the main game.

Ummm, Halo? Not saying the campaign sucks, but it is far from the main highlight for the Halo franchise.

[Sage]

T0nY, on 10 August 2010 - 09:47 AM, said:

The single player is the most important part of any game. If your single player sucks and your dependent on your multiplayer, your title is pretty bad. Multiplayer should be something extra, not the main game.

Not any more it's not, not in a franchise like this. Treyarch realizes this and so they now how 2 full teams; one for single player and one for multiplayer. In games like this, there's not much that can be done to diversify the Single Player to make it different from previous installations; a change in time period is not a change in gameplay. I personally know a large number of people who haven't played through the MW2 campaign and I, for one, didn't finish the World at War campaign and haven't even started the Bad Company 2 campaign. Nowadays, having a bad multiplayer makes a game fall to 'Rent' or 'I'll buy it used/once its price goes down' status.

[Delx]

On XBL (and I guess PSN) you gotta take into account the MP of the game for those consoles man.

Otherwise Halo will KILL you

[T0nY]

Ken Masters, on 10 August 2010 - 10:45 AM, said:

Ummm, Halo? Not saying the campaign sucks, but it is far from the main highlight for the Halo franchise.

The first Halo game got it right in terms of single player. Halo 2's single player was ok. Halo 3's and to a further extent, ODST, was just awful. Its not very hard for a big budget game to make a single player which is over 12 hours long. Its not.

Sage, on 10 August 2010 - 11:02 AM, said:

Not any more it's not, not in a franchise like this. Treyarch realizes this and so they now how 2 full teams; one for single player and one for multiplayer. In games like this, there's not much that can be done to diversify the Single Player to make it different from previous installations; a change in time period is not a change in gameplay. I personally know a large number of people who haven't played through the MW2 campaign and I, for one, didn't finish the World at War campaign and haven't even started the Bad Company 2 campaign. Nowadays, having a bad multiplayer makes a game fall to 'Rent' or 'I'll buy it used/once its price goes down' status.

That is why the very vast majority of FPS games are usually pretty bad. CoD hasn't been good since CoD3 or CoD4. Its been the same plum over and over again.

If they honestly cannot diversify the single player from "go through level, kill a bunch of dudes, complete tasks, repeat process 500,000 times" then they development team really wasn't that great to begin with. Fortunatly, Treyarch has plenty of talent, even if Activision want's Black-Ops to be a carbon copy of MW2.

[Fayte]

T0nY, on 10 August 2010 - 09:47 AM, said:

The single player is the most important part of any game. If your single player sucks and your dependent on your multiplayer, your title is pretty bad. Multiplayer should be something extra, not the main game.

Yeah, I'd much rather have an amazing 15 hour single-player campaign over an addicting multi-player experience that I can accumulate days of playtime with my friends!


oh wait.