Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

[fido123]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

idk why but I definitely went straight for this word and disregarded your entire post

Disregarding posts over typos makes your points valid.

we're bringing up points as to why cs is better in our opinion, no need to get all butthurt. if you look at big gaming tournaments, the main fps has consistently been cs 1.6 (eswc, wcg, cpl, esl, esea, etc) and the largest prizes are usually in the same game.

I just have a problem when people say stuff like "X is better than Y and if you believe anything else you're a retarded noob". I really don't like elitism.

[LJRoX]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

Get real, Black Ops is a casual user friendly FPS.
ADS makes everything so much easier.

Sure the graphics are better, but that doesn't mean anything in the world of competition. TBH, it's the skill involved. Bet you didn't know that?
That's the reason why people love 1.6 more than Black Ops.
too much variety in a FPS is an FPS killer.



Less variety = good, simple, map. 4 - 6 weapons mostly used (Famas and Galil are included since it's like sorta saving)
Lessens the counters, you can kill everyone with a deagle one hit, so it's really up to skill if you can nail 5 1deags in a row.
Also, it tightens the play down to strategies. M4 is the best wallbanger and AK rapes long distances with tapping the button down. Glocks are amazing with stopping power and awps are momentum busters (kill one person with awp, ppl get fucced). Grenades are like heaven in Eco rounds. You get the nade down right, you got yourself at least 2-3 kills tops, no less... If you shoot right.

Can I do this with black ops? NO BCUZ THERES a FUCCEN CLAYMORE in my way or a motion sensor that ruins my plan.
We don't need a HUD telling us where the enemies are when we got sound, the most important aspect in ANY FPS. Don't argue with me on this one.

[LJRoX]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

We don't need equipment to do the job for us. That's why we save up and buy guns to fight with. Money is a very important aspect in CS 1.6 as it really dims down to getting the right guns. You don't call spots in Black Ops like 1.6 because everyone runs like a pubstar wannabe in a random S&D as opposed to a PUG lol which is kinda equivalent.

Also, 1.6 does require mad reflexes because you're already firing rather than bringing up ADS to shoot em unless you're camping.
Especially with the AWP, hard gun to master if you don't have good reflexes, especially with flicking your mouse.
Also, I don't think anyone practices recoil reduction on any Call of Duty, it's ridiculous. You die in 2-3 hits anywhere you shoot so the head doesn't really matter.

It matters so much on 1.6 because one spray can eliminate one whole team in front of you.
If you don't believe me, a proper spray will guarantee ALL headshots or perhaps at least 3/5 headshots on a team because depending on the area hit, the chest and head are mostly affected.
Go watch a video like SK SpawN wallbanging inferno or like dust2 A tunnel ace.

A regular spray (noob sprays in pubs) would probably kill one or two if lucky but miss everywhere (if you're in a gay spot). In Black Ops, your bullets are all controlled, it doesn't go everywhere and your aim down sensitivity doesn't move as fast as if you were hipfiring. So all in all, I considered both aspects for spraying down a weapon and I've got to say CS 1.6 has much more of a harder curve to play on (to be able to master spraying). Do you see anyone stopstrafing and bursting in any Call of Duty? no because you can spray them down from a long distance.
Also, it's really hard to relieve the recoil using a controller. You'd need a mouse and to be able to master random patterns of spray takes time. But in reality CoD has it easier and simplified. easier to spray, less recoil... and it tells you that you hit the person.
To be able to tell you are lit (red hp, lower than 25) changes gameplay so much because one bullet to the chest is instadeath and if you peek wrong, you'll die pretty much.

Do you do any fake defuses in Call of Duty? Like ever, the time you let go of the bomb is when you'll get shot regardless.
Do you use smokes? Oh wait you guys were busy using stun grenades instead. Yeah see? You can't use all of your grenades. Instead the army puts a limit on your usage of grenades.
Do you aim for the head? Oh wait no I won't ask this question.
Do you wallbang? Nope u can't do a proper wallbang on Black Ops. Not as well as CS 1.6. Huge gameplay involved in wallbanging. That's why there are well known wallbang spots in CS.
Do you hold spots? In a random pub it's more of "find the other team before they find you"
Idc about GB or MLG because it's a shitty league.


No one comes up with a flashbang smoke nade strat in Call of Duty in any S&D compared to a PUG.

We also have proper servers to play on too.
Ever heard of interpolation? That's basically like the most important setting there is for your config.

Black Ops has the worst interp out of all Call of Duties and shitty hit registry which is why I would never play it competitively.

[LJRoX]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

And in PUGs, you are usually playing with ppl you don't know, basically the same thing in S&D. Usually it's much more strategic because everyone plays their spots.

If I told a random pub S&D whore to call strats, they'll be like "Wtf r u talking about? Strategy? Wut r u... GB?"

and Gamebattles and MLG is pretty shit anyways.

K I'm done owning ur arguments. Repeated once again
everything is true fact. Believe it or ur a retard teeeeheeehehehehehhe. /elite
Call of Duty took me 1 day to start getting 3.00 KDs on lol like every game, be it that we lose badly lol.

[welsh_girl]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

Ahhhhhhh yes. It looks so good, I don't know how Valve continues to constantly amaze me. Have you seen the new advertisements that Valve has made for it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYD7JuRMTFs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VNagjy-oeU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsQQSUEeiFY

Yup! Hilarious
Valve should make some mini-film, it would be amazing.

Valve never dissapoint me, I've never been let down by any of their games. I guess I can now be called a Valve fangirl.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

Some words of objective wisdom:

Valve is amazing.

CS is an extremely high-quality, competitive FPS -- arguably the best one made to date.

Games like CoD/Halo/etc are cool, but IMO cater to a more newbish fanbase. The first-player modes alone are incredibly painful to play through, even on their hardest settings. They're just so linear and boring. The entire time I was playing Black Ops I felt like I was watching a movie more than I was playing a game. I also figured out every single plot twist and mystery miles ahead of schedule. Massive disappointment.

[kommisar]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

Thank you

[fido123]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

I agree with Reincarnate. I'll agree that CS is FAR better for competitive purposes but most of everybody I know who's played CS hardcore in the past plays MW2 now, because casually we find it far more fun.

[ddr_f4n]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

Actually, those who played CS hardcore I'm sure they remained in CS as hardcores :V

Also, games are becoming interactive movies now.

[kommisar]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

I haven't really moved on from cs. I tried source, it sucked dick. I tried cod, it was coo but lacked the same feel/ was too easy/too bs.


Anyone ever try Day of Defeat? I dare you.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

I look at games like Super Mario RPG, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy, Doom I/II, Wolfenstein 3D, Duke Nukem, Mechwarrior, Zelda, Command and Conquer, Riven/Myst, Donkey Kong Country, Super Metroid, SMB, Commander Keen, etc... games I grew up with and look back on fondly... and in all honesty, I notice that new games aren’t as creative and are fairly linear. The old games still had a primary path to take, but there were so many different ways to get there and tons of side-quests, goodies, and secrets. Something like Black Ops is very one-and-done. Once you play it, you’ve pretty much seen everything. The older generation seemed to have a lot of memorable, creative ways to handle things.

That being said, some older games are just ****-hard. I don’t care what you say — Battletoads, Rockman and Forte, etc — they can make ANY gamer of ANY age weep.

But really, the evolution of gaming is business driven. It’s all about figuring out better ways to monetize things.

In large part, things have moved a lot towards online play. Back in the day, I had to tie up my phone line just to play Red Alert or Duke Nukem 3D with someone. Gaming consoles like the SNES/N64/PSX (let alone the limited online capabilities of PC multiplayer) weren’t integrated with the Internet like the PS3, Wii, and XBox 360 are today. Gaming’s so much more accessible now.

Nowadays when you buy games like Black Ops or MW2 or Halo, you breeze through an easy single player mode and then you spend most of your time playing others online. That’s ultimately where the money is, and so that’s how games will be built. There’s less money to be made in making something too hard in single player mode. You don’t want people spending months trying to beat it when they could be online instead. At the same time you don’t want to simply do away with single player altogether (it’s great fun and you’ll experience plenty of spillover effect, and you also don’t neglect your market). The goal is to move people to multiplayer as soon as possible.

When we were young, had time, and were faced with limited online gaming access, we could therefore we could get away with having plenty of insanely hard platformer games that tried to kill us at every turn possible. That sort of dynamic just doesn’t seem to play out as well in today’s gaming climate.

With a broader market, you’re also going to have more unskilled gamers than skilled, so you have to adjust. Usually, MOST people that begin the first level of your game don’t make it to the very end. The return on investment experiences diminishing returns as you start to look at money spent towards the endgame. So in order to make that ROI worth it, you either have to shorten the game or make it easier so more people reach the ending.

The arcades have an influence here, too. Tons of games were also ported to the physical arcades, which were designed to be tough so you’d spend more money to continue. But with the increased access in home gaming, there’s less incentive to pay to play games in the arcade when you can get the same experience at home (while also being able to play others).

So yeah, I find the lack of difficulty depressing. I wouldn’t say that gamers are getting dumber, necessarily. I would say that the frontier of gaming itself has changed to become more profit-minded such that there is less reason to make your single-player game insanely tough. I just get annoyed when I am playing Black Ops and someone is literally telling me "Shoot the lock ahead!" as a lock glows gold and makes my next moves all the more obvious. There's no mystery or headscratching involved when the game is practically its own walkthrough. Black Ops is nice to look at... but I can't explore it very much. It's pretty much "Kill everything here, move into next area, watch scripted event, repeat." Snore.

[Superfreak04]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

Some words of objective wisdom:

Valve is amazing.

CS is an extremely high-quality, competitive FPS -- arguably the best one made to date.

Games like CoD/Halo/etc are cool, but IMO cater to a more newbish fanbase. The first-player modes alone are incredibly painful to play through, even on their hardest settings. They're just so linear and boring. The entire time I was playing Black Ops I felt like I was watching a movie more than I was playing a game. I also figured out every single plot twist and mystery miles ahead of schedule. Massive disappointment.

I agree. My friends argue with my on why I don't buy a better PC so I can play CoD or Battlefield with them. And I just say, because even if I get a better PC, my time playing games is mostly gonna consist of CS. I told them I like simplicity in my games, and I don't like perks. Their argument was always that you have to work to get better guns and better perks. And I always say that it's stupid to play an FPS if the teams aren't equal in fire power. And LJ has said, both CT and T sides have guns that are practically the same, hence why fire fights on maps are usually fair if they are both using a rifle, or if it's a pistol vs. pistol. But in CoD, you have the guy that has a golden Ak vs a noob who just started with an Famas. Odds are that the guy with the AK is going to win. ANd then they complain about the graphics. And I always say that graphics don't mean much when it comes to a video game. I don't care about realism, if I want realism, that's why I go air softing. It's next to the real thing of being in the military, calling real life strats and everything, so why would I want to play it in a video game? ANd also as Rubix/Reincarnate said, it's almost as if you're watching a movie. I entirely agree with this. In most cases when I try and play CoD, they make the graphics so good that it's almost impossible to see anyone if they are camping and proning in a rubble or rocks or some shit. How cheap can you get? Sure there are cheap kills in CS when you camp or wallbang, but at least when you camp the enemy isn't literally blended in with the background. Although they did bring up a valid point too which, "well, the game is just fun, that's way I play it". Really, there is no argument to that. People play video games to have fun, which is 100% correct. I said on how easy CoD is compared to CS which is what made it not fun. They were telling me that they don't want to play a game where you have to practice days on end just to get kills. (Which is actually kind of true in CS. You're aren't going to be good on the first day even if you've played a lot of FPS before CS, because CS has a specific learning curve, due to recoil and stuff). They wanted to play a game, where you can just pick it up, and actually have a chance at killing someone with ease and not having to spend weeks playing to get good at it.

So in conclusion, when it comes down to "This VS. That" it boils down to the persons point of a view. Do you want to play an FPS that you can just pick up and play and handle the gameplay within a couple hours of gameplay? Or do you want a really competitive game where you're forced to play weeks on end to actually obtain skill? It's all personal preference folks.

tl;dr

CS = Competitive game (Not for kids who aren't willing to take time and learn to be good)

CoD = FPS that you can pick up if you're a chill and relaxed gamer who only plans on playing about an hour or two a day, or just want to play 4 player at home with friends. A non-competitive gamer.


EDIT: And yes Kommi, I have tried DoD. That game is actually fun. But if you're good at CS, you will DESTROY people in DoD. One of the rifles in the game is like an AWP, with a 1 hit 1 kill kind of deal. ANd considering that you can run around with it, you don't have to scope in, and it has fast reload, you can be unstoppable with that gun.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

yeah .

[MrGiggles]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

I'd also like to add to Rubix's preposterously informative post by mentioning that DLC has also replaced difficulty in terms of getting dat $. It also happens to tie in really really well with multiplayer, and leads to the current annoying trend of releasing incomplete games and then charging money for the missing content. Actually, that's kind of been Apple's strategy too, except that they make you buy the whole phone all over again each time.

edit: oh, but difficulty and multiplayer aren't all sinister schemes for your money. They both served a double purpose in drastically extending what would otherwise be a really short game. Although the reasons the games are short are a bit more sinister of late. Early games couldn't fit much on a cartridge, but now devs would really just rather not spend all that money on a long game.

edit 2 because I CAN ******s whatcha gonna do:

I look at games like Super Mario RPG, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy, Doom I/II, Wolfenstein 3D, Duke Nukem, Mechwarrior, Zelda, Command and Conquer, Riven/Myst, Donkey Kong Country, Super Metroid, SMB, Commander Keen, etc... games I grew up with and look back on fondly... and in all honesty, I notice that new games aren’t as creative and are fairly linear.

Being new and different is a huge thing right now in the industry (watch any press release or keynote ever and count the number of times you hear the word "innovation"), but generally triple A titles will be fairly cookie cutter compared to ye olde gaymes of lore, because most people like the familiar. However, I would argue that less popular titles and indie creations are at least as creative as older games. Game variety is hundreds of times larger nowadays, you really have to go exploring.

i have now edited this post upwards of twenty times for various reasons let's keep it goin

[Reincarnate]

Re: Is BlackOps Really That Bad To People?

I'd say creativity often comes at the expense of feeling incomplete when it comes to today's market. Mirror's Edge? Really awesome -- short as hell. Portal? Pretty cool, but I felt it was so underutilized. Most of the time when I hear of something being innovative I can call upon like 10 other sources that did it first and did it better. I find it rare to come across something I think is truly cool and utilized to its potential -- something I felt was much more prevalent in older games when other factors weren't detracting so much.

To elaborate on what I mean: Most indie stuff is usually just novelty and nothing more. Indie games, which are usually framed to be the main pushers of creativity and experimentation, are usually full of shitty ideas and/or hodgepodges of stuff we've seen before (but perhaps dressed up differently). Sometimes you'll get something solid, but for the most part, creativity has shown itself to be more of a "oh cool game well that was a fun 10 minutes" eventuality.