Call of Duty: Black Ops

[Rash]

If you're after competition settings wait for promod. The vanilla game is all about Arcade style fun and giggles, as was mw1, mw2 and waw. Given that, I totally resent complaints about an rc toy car rigged withexplosives. If you can't see the humour and fun in that then you have no soul!

You can't advertise serious and competitive gameplay when you add RC cars with bombs attached to them in multiplayer. It's also retarded that treyarch is completely relying on the community to balance their game for them, it seems like they want to take no responsibility into trying to make THEIR game an e-sport

[Kawe / Dave]

If you're after competition settings wait for promod. The vanilla game is all about Arcade style fun and giggles, as was mw1, mw2 and waw. Given that, I totally resent complaints about an rc toy car rigged withexplosives. If you can't see the humour and fun in that then you have no soul!

You can't advertise serious and competitive gameplay when you add RC cars with bombs attached to them in multiplayer. It's also retarded that treyarch is completely relying on the community to balance their game for them, it seems like they want to take no responsibility into trying to make THEIR game an e-sport

I don't recall treyarch or activision ever marketing cod as a game for esports O_o

And complaining specifically about treyarch not making promod? IW never made promod for cod4. For either of these devs (or pretty much any dev really), doing anything past making stuff like options to switch stuff on or off (perks etc) and providing a console would be a colossal waste of manpower, money and time. It's a teensy tiny, itsy-bitsy little group of people that are actually after radical enough changes to the game's balancing etc. that it requires a mod. As it is they already spend a disproportionate amount of time on porting to PC and all that goes with it.

Regarding 'not wanting to take responsibility to make the game an esport'... why on earth would they want to make their yearly release game that they want people to get the new version of each year an esport? Why would they want to even if it wasn't a yearly release? There is zero reason for them to do this. What's with this bizarre thing where people somehow now feel it's a divine duty of someone making a cod game to put it out as a game balanced for competitive play? Or heck, any developer of any fps game for that matter. Why do people expect devs to do this for these small communities now in the first place? 'The' competitive shooter, CS, was a community made mod originally, right?

Gotta remember that the CoD PC competitive community is like... a niche within a niche within a niche. Expecting a dev to alter their (stupifyingly big brand) game that's made for mass-popularity and mainstream consumption in order to tailor it for this tiny, miniscule group of users is frankly absurd. When you further consider that this tiny group is a bunch that generally stick to originals over switching to a new game far more often than most gamers, and that their attention is already rather kept with cod4 promod, cs, quakelive, and for RTS naturally SC2, there are so, so many reasons that it would be profoundly foolish of them to try beyond an absolute bare-minimum to cater to said group.

I hate to acknowledge it since it seemed to crazy when I first heard it but there's this bizarre thing a noisy minority of PC gamers have going on with strange entitlement issues ("Why isn't the game tailored to us, the tiny minority, instead of the vast majority?! What the hell devs?!").

I should maybe temper my wall o' text by also stating (incase it isn't screamingly obvious by the fact I do 99% of my gaming on a PC and whenever possible get a PC version of a game) I love PC gaming. But I'm just not seeing any logic in some of the complaints made against developers/games for their design choices not being inline with their demands. Stuff like serious crashing problems, technical issues, widescreen mode gaffes and all that nasty stuff is naturally something really understandable to be annoyed at, since at that point it's a broken product.

tl;dr - ugh pc gamer entitlement issues

[Devlin]

What's with this bizarre thing where people somehow now feel it's a divine duty of someone making a cod game to put it out as a game balanced for competitive play?

It's called common sense. People expect the biggest actors on the market to cater to them, and that's healthy for the market.

Expecting a balanced game should be fairly given though. I don't see why you have such a defensive position when it comes to CoD, would almost call it unhealthy. Looking at it from the producers viewpoint, your customers should never be fully satisfied, and the things to improve on should only be positive, especially if you're releasing a game per year. One downside of that is that you actually get customers who put pressure on you to actually improve!

If people stop making demands and having expectations you'll end up playing a stupid game.

[Rash]

If people stop making demands and having expectations you'll end up playing a stupid game.

Which is exactly what is happening to CoD. Nobody even cares how good the game is, even after MW2 being completely shit, every casual in the world still bought black ops.

I completely understand what they're doing from an economical point of view like you described kawe, but that simply doesn't justify making a shitty game.

Also, balancing the game for this "small group" of PC gamers, will also almost automatically balance the game for console gamers. I haven't done the marketresearch I should have to make this statement; but I really think console gamers would appreciate it aswell if they wouldn't get raped by some grenade launcher or random helicopter and try to kill their friends with a normal machine gun, and still have a chance at beating them


http://www.callofduty.com/game

[Kawe / Dave]

You're working on this faulty assumption that the majority want a game that plays the same as this tiny group who make up the competitive pc cod playerbase wants it. There's nothing 'common sense' whatsoever about throwing what is successful and popular amongst the massive majority of customers out of the window to, as you say, cater to their own small group.

Again, the same faulty assumption also then confuses what is good for this small group with what is good for the producers. They could well simply make a game that's basically perfectly balanced, e.g. Unreal Tournament in Instagib CTF game mode, and please those looking for impeccable balance, but that's simply not what their target audience is; it's the FPS equivalent of Smash Bros. Perfected game balance is not the goal for them, and neither would seeking it give them a better financial return. Your average guy who has only an xbox and is hyped about this game doesn't care about the same things an esports proponent cares about. Stuff like nade launchers? Helis? This is stuff Mr.Xbox enjoys about the game. MW2 didn't outsell MW1 because people didn't want more of what MW1 had that other shooters didn't, and Black Ops isn't outselling MW2 because people didn't want more of the ramp up and continuation of those gameplay features MW2 emphasized.

Therash, you said MW2 was completely shit. Sure, for someone looking for an esports platform. But that's not what the majority are after (I'll keep saying this until it's driven home). Most of the people who bought it enjoyed it so much, and enthused about it to others enough that even more people picked up the next one and the sales records are again broken. It's just the same with Black Ops.

The basic problem you're going through is you're taking Smash Brothers off the shelf and complaining that it's not Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo, and that's a very understated analogy. Or to try and put it more elegantly, you are not the target demographic.

A lot of the people who play CoD aren't very skilled gamers nor do they aspire to be very skilled. They turn on their console, and want to be able to hop into a game where they can take part and get to blow things up, splatter people, and so on even without being all that skilled. This is what the game is targeted at achieving, and were it entirely balanced or even designed with that in mind it simply wouldn't fit that purpose. Smash Brothers was designed in the same way, with the rationale that with a very balanced game you get the comparatively few people who are consistently at or near the top who enjoy the game, and keep playing it but where everyone else, those lacking either the desire, time and/or drive to improve at a game (or straight up lack of ability) quickly losing interest and not having much fun.

With something like Smash Brothers or CoD, there's stuff in there intentionally unbalanced, that require little to no skill to see some success with, for example Smash Bros' randomised items that can win or lose games and characters with wildly varying strengths. In MW2 there are things like Deathstreaks, powerups for players who are faring particularly badly, very similarly to Mario Kart's items which are skewed to providing players further behind with very strong items that punish those in front whilst giving the person leading the race very weak items. Infact there's also just a straight-up passive speed boost given to players further behind. In both MW2 and Blops the care package is another great example; for a couple of kills, you could get a super powerful power-up reward at random. The idea is that while those dedicated and with a strong desire to be great at the game will probably still place top frequently and generally feel like they're performing very well, even those at the bottom of the pile for skill can still feel like they're getting to win and score some points too. As a design methodology it's hard to find fault in when it comes to the goal of securing and maintaining the largest number of potential customers, and indeed it continues to prove itself with sales figures.

In short, that which is good for the esports demographic is not necessarily, as you've incorrectly assumed, good for the (for lack of a better phrase) casual demographic.

And because it seems like I need to reinforce this too, my FPS gaming on PC consisted a great deal of UT99iCTF clan matches and I'm a really big fan of that style of perfectly balanced entirely skill-based play; and currently I still enjoy listening to the bashcast to keep up with the competitive cod scene. I wish it was hugely popular, but it just isn't. What's coming off as defensive over cod to you is just objectivity. No matter how much we might wish that CoD were a game tailored precisely to our own tastes, it isn't and wasn't intended to be; if it were I also suspect it would not be setting the meteoric sales records it has been.

tl;dr (of sorts)

• 'Good for esports players = good for all players' is not necessarily true generally, and demonstrably not true in the case of a game seeking or primarily for a mass-market, such as CoD.
• eSports types are not the target demographic (yes it uses the word competitive in its sales blurb, I think it's safe to say that given it's also claiming to be more of the same with new stuff that it's more couch/friend/etc competitive than anything else)
• Given how tiny the minority that makes up those seeking an esports experience from CoD:BO is in relation to the rest of the customer base, the amount of time/money devoted to catering to said minority is actually disproportionately high.
• You are not the main target demographic. In Activision's eyes, if esports types decide to take it and run with it, well that's great, but it's a drop in the ocean either way.

Simply put, it does not make any kind of sense for them to go to any real lengths to accommodate esports proponent cod fans, and most certainly not to tailor the game to them. The only thing that building around the esports community for cod would do that might sound like a benefit would be to provide it with longevity, but that's not actually a trait that is good for publisher when they are seeking to sell a sequel to the series each year.

Welp, I think that about covers it... I think. Then again, it's been a long 36 hours of wakefulness, I hope you enjoy textwall though \o/

[Lycanus]

The wall of text! it burns my eyes!

[Devlin]

You're working on this faulty assumption that the majority want a game that plays the same as this tiny group who make up the competitive pc cod playerbase wants it. There's nothing 'common sense' whatsoever about throwing what is successful and popular amongst the massive majority of customers out of the window to, as you say, cater to their own small group.

I don't understand your fixation on the idea that competitive play and pleasing the general masses are mutually exclusive.

• Given how tiny the minority that makes up those seeking an esports experience from CoD:BO is in relation to the rest of the customer base, the amount of time/money devoted to catering to said minority is actually disproportionately high.

I can tell you why I think CoD has a small competitive scene. Here's a hint; it's not because people don't play games competitively.

Look at Counter-Strike for example.

[Daekesh]

CoD:BO is clearly not a game designed for competitive play.  If you think helicopters and remote control cars with bombs on aren't the thing for competitive play then, perhaps, you are playing the wrong game.  You don't see people who play driving sims competitively complain about the random shit in mario cart, do u?

[Kawe / Dave]

It's like you've actually only read the two paragraphs you quoted devlin I explained at some length why design for masses is at odds with design for esports players... and you in the bit you quoted please note I specified that the number of people seeking a competitive scene n cod is small, before you even get to actual people involved in such a thing. Even if you look at the entire competitive scene for cs which is considered, I think, thriving, it's a mind-bogglingly minscule number of potential customers compadres to the casual player, and this also brings me back to the point I made about such players being rather attached to their game as it is.  Aaaaaaand lorry I dislike typing on iPhone past smallish messages so I'll have to finish this post once I'm
Home

[Cinn]

TOO MUCH TEXTTTT

on a side note, treyarch rly did a poor job with the PC version, all around the internets theres an endless stream of people complaining about bugs/glitches/dcs/complete connection stops for ~5 seconds and frame drops

i personally only downloaded the single player, but am getting the most annoying small frame drops aswell, while i'm sure a core2duo @ 3.8ghz with a GTX275 should be able to run the game (with his 2007 engine) without any real problem

[Goza]

Regarding the SP campaign: Boooooooooooooooring.

All the reviews I read on the net kinda said "multiplayer is a bit meh, but hey, it's the best singleplayer campaign CoD ever had". Wtf??? How much bribe money did Activision throw into the masses?

From a technical standpoint, some stuff is just embarrasing. The total lack of physics is on par with Quake2. Destructable world objects just instachange from "OK"-state to "wrecked"-state, and they cover it up with some overlay explosions. Look at the prison break map, when the helicopter crashes into the silo thing. /facepalm
Also, the world is incredible static: you can shoot rockets at objects like barrels etc and they don't even move (unless it's the big bad "red barrel" which actually DOES EXPLODE! OMG!). It's all just static world mesh, not real object entities.

Anyway, gameplay is even worse. WHERE IS THE FKN AI? Enemies either just stand behind corners or they kamikaze-charge into you. Yeah, that's totally interesting!
I also had problems identifying my squad/friends and the enemy. There are a lot of levels where they are indistinguishable.
Maps are also boring 08/15 stuff, there were maybe ~3 of them which at least had some nice idea (surveillance plane/ground combat mix, some late jungle map, the poison gas attack), the rest is just run-of-the-mill or plain ridiculous and boring.

The game also needs to take itself less fkn serious. And less voice actors that constascream in my ear with their ridiculous Russian accent (at least here it's less bad than in Halo:Reach).

From the whole singeplayer experience, I kinda enjoyed the after credits zombie attack the most.

Compared to this year's Medal of Honor, MoH single player clearly wins. While MoH itself is basically just a copy of Modern Warfare 1 and is not that good, it still has the better tech (gfx and sound), better maps, better gameplay.

[Kawe / Dave]

Playercarrrrdd hoooooooo

Gonna clean me some toast

[Cinn]

Compared to this year's Medal of Honor, MoH single player clearly wins. While MoH itself is basically just a copy of Modern Warfare 1 and is not that good, it still has the better tech (gfx and sound), better maps, better gameplay.

just finished Medal Of Honor and I can't agree more. Disregarding the multiplayers (i havent played either of em) Medal Of Honor delivers a well designed singleplayer, where fights, unlike Black Ops, do feel like you have to do atleast something (at higher dificulties), doesnt try to hide technical failures with cheap effects and does offer you SOME choices. Both are on rails shooters, don't get me wrong, but Black Ops brought limiting freedom in a game to a whole new level with this episode, where even when you fly a helicopter you're going left and right on a rail (pretty much like racegames back in the beginning of the 90s)

the MoH singleplayer isnt perfect btw, especially the earlier missions could use some flair and excitement level design wise, but the chain of mountain missions combined with the solid graphics, videos and excellent audio did bring a better gaming experience for me than Black Ops, where in some missions i just couldnt help but pause out of annoyance.

[shankski]

[Kawe / Dave]

Ahahaha

That's brilliant Shanks... though I was hoping for some freeze-frame look at the line of people or something :3