I think I'm just gonna go with Fallout. I like to be able to play the missions a lot and online play is fun, but I'm not too big into it. So if I ever wanna play online I'll just play MW2
Printable View
I think I'm just gonna go with Fallout. I like to be able to play the missions a lot and online play is fun, but I'm not too big into it. So if I ever wanna play online I'll just play MW2
After about 50 or so matches, I've determined that the multiplayer on Black Ops, in general, is pretty broken.
Spawning in this game is horrendous. I've lost count of how many times I spawned and was killed within the first 2-3 seconds. It's so bad that I've spawned multiple times directly in enemy crosshairs. On the killcam, I can see my guy appearing in front of the opposing player and being shot immediately.
The RDXE is also too powerful -- it's pretty much a free kill, and you can get it after two kills in a row w/ the Hardline perk. It's fun to drive the little car around, but it seems cheap (especially when you consider that you can keep driving after your own player operating the joystick has been killed).
I'll work through the campaign, but I think I'm going back to MW2 for online play until Treyarch gets a patch out to correct the spawning issue.
I'm at level 30 in Black Ops and I agree about the spawning, it's ridiculous at times.
I don't have a problem with the RCXD, it's basically replaced the predator, which you also keep controlling after you die. I do agree that it shouldn't be in the first level of kill streaks though, with the predator you had to get 5 kills (or 4 for hardline).
I do think Treyarch fixed the Aim Down Site issue they had with World At War. It seemed in World at War if you had an automatic weapon you could just hip fire and not miss.
The AK47u is a ridiculous gun and I think it's way too good. When I have used it with the extra grip, Lightweight, Sleight of Hand and Ninja I have not lost a free for all match. I had to stop using it because it's way too easy.
So far I'm not a big fan of the maps either. Usually I like to play Hardcore Team Deathmatch and snipe, but so far I haven't found that these maps lend themselves to sniping, except maybe WMD. It could be that I just don't know the maps well enough yet. On the topic of sniping, I'm also disappointed that the .50 is not back. It was made in 1980 that's close enough to the era that they could have added it. And there isn't a single US made Sniper Rifle in the game, Germany got two. The HK and the Walther.
I know I haven't really said anything good about the game, but I do find that I enjoy playing it. I like the COD Points. I like the Wager Matches. I like the fact that you're not invisible to Air Support until you get Ghost Pro. I can't really compare it to MW2 because Treyarch didn't make that game, I can say that it's a lot better than World at War.
There is no action for snipers in this game b/c the multiplayer maps clearly weren't designed with sniping in mind. Every level seems to focus around corridor mazes or building-to-building action. There aren't any wide-open levels like Afghan or Wasteland to play with, where you can get shots off at long range. Plus, with stopping power gone, it's gotten much more difficult to one-shot kill with the sniper rifle, which definitely hurts class playability.
The other big problem I have with the multiplayer maps is that they're seemingly devoid of any discernable "choke points" where action is funneled during a deathmatch game. In MW2 (and most FPS games I've played), most maps had a clear area that people "fought" to hold -- the house in "Estate," the bunker in Wasteland, the cave in Afghan, etc. Here, the action seems to be in free-form around the map, playing to the advantage of the "run and gun" style players. It leads to the aforementioned lack of sniper action, but it also seriously nerfs the effectiveness of LMG weapons, which don't snap to ADS nearly as quickly as SMGs and Assaults and don't let you move as quickly while running.
They can fix the spawning problem with patching -- but I think the map issue is what'll eventually send me back to MW2 for good.
The one thing Treyarch did get right is the Create-A-Class and Playercard customization. Vastly improved from previous entries into the franchise.
Saw this on a COD forum:
YouTube - Call of Duty Black Ops: Treyarch- Your Spawns Blow
It's actually amusing how broken the spawning is in Black Ops.
Okay, the old Xbox 360 coughed up the red ring of death just a few months after the 3 year rrod warranty expired. Just bought the 250G Xbox Slim with the Kinect. We'll see how it works out.
If anyone is interested, I'd say that, so far, the Kinect is a hit with the kids. Kinect Adventures came with the system and I bought Kinect Sports. Based on my observations of my kids playing (I can't play right now due to back problems), it seems to be a lot easier to pick up than even a Wii. I like it because it really actually got my kids working up a good sweat. They had to work their arms, legs and body to play the games and my youngest could play without worrying me having to remind him to hit this button or pull that trigger. So far, I'd say that the only drawbacks I've encountered are 1) Sometimes you need to recalibrate it if it's not picking you up properly, and 2) It works best if you have plenty of room to play. Our family room isn't the widest room, so we have almost 8' between the TV and the couch. They said you can play at a minimum of 6', but at least 8' is best.
I'm interested to see what impact, if any, Kinect and Move have on their various consoles.
Video gaming history is almost uniform in the idea that specialized controllers and/or hardware ad-ons to existing consoles never reach wide-adoption status.
It seems to me that they are merely marginal upgrades over the Wii. Wii functionality with HD graphics. Sure, the Kinect is different in that you don't use a controller, but it suffers the same issue: Most games require a level of fine motor control and variety of inputs (buttons) that you can simply cannot do absent an input device.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor
It will be able to replicate some first-person things well -- nobody will buy a controller based ping-pong or dance game again! -- but it leaves the vast majority of the games untouched.
It lends itself well to the family market, the same people who bought a Wii and, by and large, got bored with the novelty after a year.
Actually, I think where the Kinect differs from the Wii or the Move is that the camera can detect full body motion. From what I've seen so far, I could see the next move by Microsoft being to introduce the ability to use special controllers together with the Kinect to make games more interactive. For example, Imagine the next Call of Duty release coming with a gun controller optimized to work with the Kinect so that, as you are shooting the bad guys, you actually have to physically duck or go prone to make your on screen avatar duck behind cover or go prone to avoid enemy fire. You would use the controller to aim and fire as if it were a real gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsManRick
Kinect seems dumb to me. Definitely zero interest for me... seems more for kids/casual gamers. I go to the gym 3-4 times a week, I'm not interested in getting a workout when I'm trying to play Black Ops. :lol:
Move is a little more interesting to me... I'm definitely going to pick up one of these: http://www.amazon.com/PlayStation-Mo...0032086&sr=8-2 I'm always doing stuff on my ps3 and having a one-handed controller appeals to me (note this is NOT the Move Controller... Move NAVIGATION Controller... 2 different things)
Old fart question time:
I have two kids who desperately want me to buy a gaming system. I also have an interest in not spending more money, so I'm wondering what capabilities these systems have for allowing me to just connect my TV to the internet and use that for my television viewing. If that works, I'll just dump cable.
XBOX 360 has access to Netflix, PSP3 seems to have some sort of browser...I'd like to know if anyone is using their gaming systems to bring internet video to their TV as an alternative. I know I won't get all the same stuff that cable provides, but for my viewing, it might actually work out better that way.
Alternatively, and a little off topic from this thread, is anyone just using an old laptop to run internet video to their TV. I have one and am wondering if that would work- just using it to grab the wireless signal from my router and sending the video to the television.
PS3 and Wii both have netflix as well. To the best of my knowledge, none of them can do cable, but they maybe able to do Hulu.Quote:
Originally Posted by SunDeck
PS3 Does Hulu +Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsManRick
That might work for us. We don't want "regular" TV, so to speak and not having all the channels offered by cable would be just fine. Instead, we like the idea of having Hulu and Netflix for our viewing.