2010-11-11, 03:08 | Link #81 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NY, USA
Age: 33
|
Quote:
Spoiler for Saving space, Carl of Duty pic:
|
|
2010-11-11, 07:29 | Link #82 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
I am looking for people in SEA region to play zombies with me and a friend tonight. Send me your Steam USN through PM and maybe we can work out a time.
__________________
|
|
2010-11-11, 12:05 | Link #85 |
Secret Society BLANKET
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 3 times the passion of normal flamenco
|
Certain noticeable anachronisms aside (like ACOG scopes in the 60's, and a fully working H&K G11, a highly experimental weapon that only completed development in the 90's ), Black Ops has hands down one of the best narrative structures of the CoD series, though CoD 4: Modern Warfare still has the best story imho. The twist at the end though...
__________________
|
2010-11-11, 12:49 | Link #86 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-11-11, 13:51 | Link #88 |
dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
|
Am I the only one here who loathing this game so far ?
Everything about it just feels tacky and half assed to me especially with what would appear to be a lack of any historical accuracy. Most of the weapons used in the campaign didn't even exist in the time period the games meant to be set in not to mention a section in set in vietnam that has you manning a tow missile launcher on the back of a JEEP(tm) wrangler which was made even worse by the blatantly ad plug when you first get in it. All in all what could have been a interesting dive through some lesser explored periods in history just feels like another slog through modern warfare. This isn't even taking into account some rather broken scripted events and the lack of audio or visual cues at key points that leave you starring a mission failed screen wondering what the hell just happened. In fairness there are some good points and nice touches here and there but not enough to save black ops from being a real chore to play through. I have yet to try out the multiplayer but first impressions are less than stellar.
__________________
|
2010-11-11, 14:30 | Link #89 |
Sleepy Lurker
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nun'yabiznehz
Age: 38
|
Well, another thing to add to the "inconsistency list" is the fact that they're using Steyr-Mannlicher AUGs in the "WMD" mission despite the fact that they were only introduced in 1977 (the AUG is btw called the StG-77 in the Austrian Army)...
I guess that blasts to the past aren't that easy to manage without scorching the face of History, huh... P.S. And while we're still on the subject of weaponry, WTH is with this "Death Machine"? A man-portable minigun...hellooooo...?
__________________
Last edited by Renegade334; 2010-11-11 at 15:07. |
2010-11-11, 20:34 | Link #90 |
Takao Tsundere Cruiser
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Classified
|
I have mixed feelings about this one. On one hand Black Ops, is a good game but if i openly admit i like it, i would be supporting Bobby "Jerkass to Gamers and Destroyer of Infinity Ward" Kotick.
__________________
|
2010-11-11, 21:00 | Link #91 |
Secret Society BLANKET
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 3 times the passion of normal flamenco
|
You know, you can openly like a game without giving a s*** about the top dog of the operation. Treyarch is the one that actually developed the game you know
__________________
|
2010-11-11, 22:11 | Link #92 | |
Know who you are
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Resides within the depths of Ned infested Glasgow
|
Quote:
The big problems are like menus lagging or freezing on me, it should never be that bad for a game made these days. Poorly constructed menus is something I hate, especially if you spend some time on them. Overall not bad, I'm mostly in it for the MP but SP is ok. I like the zombie games, they are good fun
__________________
|
|
2010-11-12, 00:47 | Link #94 |
Kurumada's lost child
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Holy hell... this might just be the most system demanding game I have ever seen for PC. The minimum system requirements for this game in low settings are:
Intel Core2 Duo E6600 or AMD Phenom X3 8750. 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT or ATI Radeon X1950Pro 2gigs of ram This is the first game I can't play on my computer since my processor is an AMD X2 64 5200. I can run any other game on max settings... but this game is just way too much! =( The requirements don't make sense, it is just a DX9 game with a few graphical improvements over MW2, but when I play the game it lags every 4 seconds. How comes I can play Dirt 2, the Witcher, Crysis and MW2 on max settings? I think the game is badly codec. Edit: Ok I found an article that explains it all. I should get fixed soon: Surprise! Game-Breaking Problems Mar PC Launch Of Call Of Duty: Black Ops Last edited by Sugetsu; 2010-11-12 at 02:27. |
2010-11-12, 08:40 | Link #95 |
Secret Society BLANKET
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 3 times the passion of normal flamenco
|
It's strange... the MP for Black Ops is just as fast-paced and as frantic as MW2's, and yet I feel it's less "rabidly chaotic" so to speak, where you're all not just crazed runners knifing each other around and you really do need to use your guns.
__________________
|
2010-11-12, 10:01 | Link #97 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Those Russians are crazy!
__________________
|
|
2010-11-12, 10:31 | Link #98 |
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 39
|
I'm just curious but did the North Vietnamese really ever use French weaponry? Did they have those firefly buckshots in the late 60's? Was that a camera-guided TOW? Those Vietnamese tanks don't really look like Type-59's etc etc etc.
Single player is still a blast though.
__________________
|
Tags |
cod, fps |
|
|