It appears the world has not had enough of Call of Duty. With close to 7 Millions Copies sold in a single day, Black Ops is all but assured that it's beaten the previous Call of Duty title, Modern Warfare 2, as the fastest selling game of all time.Considering how much negativity Modern Warfare 2, Activision Blizzard and Robert Kotick, CEO of Activision Blizzard, generate in the gaming world, I can't help but feel surprised that so many people are interested in a new Call of Duty title. We'll see another release next year, and obviously Activision Blizzard's policy of charging for iteration rather than innovation will continue to be the industry standard. Raven Software are working exclusively on DLC for Call of Duty titles and will have the first round of $15.00 Map Packs available soon.Discuss?
Black Ops is a really good game.
Is singleplayer longer then 8-10h this time?
No, they never will be longer than a few hours. It was fun though - still a tightly scripted, hold my hand and follow the waypoint game of coruse.
The Gamespot XBOX 360 review here says that the single player clocks in at a "mere six hours long." What a shame.
Discuss?
Because the vast majority of gamers don't give a damn about Kotick or Activision Blizzard. They just want to play a game. Black Ops basically keeps everything MW2 did right, and fixes everything it did wrong. There are dedicated servers (limited to a specific provider, but still), there's more balance of weapons/kill streaks, there are new game modes, a better class/customization system, zombie/horde mode, full-featured hidden games..
For people who like the shooting mechanics of the CoD series, buying Black Ops is a no-brainer: it's better than MW2 in every conceivable way, and that's why it's selling like wildfire.
Good games sell well, regardless of publisher.
i suppose i dont understant what it is that people want from their single player experience.
FPS games have traditionally be playable in a few hours. Even if you go back to Wolf3d and Doom. i played CoD:MW in an afternoon. MW2 in a day. CoD2 in two days. actual game time on all of these was probably less than 8hrs per title.
So far, I am loving the single player in Black Ops. Its extreamly dark. Its being told from an interesting perspective. And its obvious the devs didnt screw around and waste our time with a training level.
If people want long drawn out single player modes, then they need to stop playing multiplayer. Its all comes down to money and resources.
Exactly... fps games aren't rpg games. They don't have 100+ hours of single player content because they are primarily meant to be multiplayer. Complaining that Black Ops only has 6 hours of single player content is like complaining that Dragon Age: Origins is absolutely terrible because it has 0 multiplayer features.
People buy computer games for their own reasons. They have every right to complain about flaws in products.
And the companies have every right to ignore those complaints and focus the game elsewhere.
Not every game is made for every player. Personally I think complaints are just as important to read as reading a feature list of the game. That way, I can find out if the game actually matches something I want to play.
Consumers vote with wallets. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Perhaps my analogy wasn't as good as it could have been. Sure they can complain about flaws.. but when the flaws aren't there at all, it's hard to see the validity of complaining about them.
Here's hopefully a better comparison: Does a scooter work as a form of transportation? Yes.. but was that the main focus of the product? No... so why complain that it doesn't get you from town A to town B as fast as your car?
I don't think either analogy has any relevance to black ops having a short singleplayer campaign. I don't see why you have to argue by analogy at all, those kinds of comparisons will always fall short.
It took me eight hours to beat Black Ops on Heroic, and assuming I do not jump out the window attempting it, I imagine the top difficulty will take me ten or more, most of it spent crying as I die over and over.
Also, I agree that the multiplayer is excellent. The best way I can sum it up is as WaW and MW combined, with a lot of MW2 touch ups. So, you know, the best of the best combined.
Also, a little bit of homework for anyone who is interested; let us know about any primarily FPS games that have campaigns longer than ten hours. Please note that Fallout 3 (Blech) and New Vegas do not count, being RPGs with an FPS touch stretched over them.
As stated by a friend of mine. "It doesn't TOTALLY suck, it just KINDA sucks."
I haven't played it in a while, but I think the original Crysis campaign might be getting to that mark. Something like BioShock is also longer - it's also a bit of an RPG/FPS blend, but more heavily on FPS than RPG.
The Halo games (fair since Black Ops is also on console) are also typically longer than 10 hours to beat, especially on the Legendary difficulty.
Some stealth games have longer campaigns too, like MGS or Splinter Cell, or the old Rainbow 6 games...
All in all, though, these differences aren't dramatic, and the length is still in the 10s of hours rather than 20+. Pure FPS games just aren't built for long drawn out stories, in most cases.
Are the game sites making real reviews for this game, with it's real strengths and weaknesses, and not just buying into the hype? Or will this be like MW2, where at launch date and the several weeks after it was 10/10 reviews everywhere from your stock mainstream game review sites, and then several months later, they ran articles saying, "The game wasn't that good, honestly, it didnt deserve all that praise."
I've seen plenty of reviews with critique I agree with. I think
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/reviews/2010/11/call-of-duty-black-ops-pc-review-fun-game-with-a-broken-leg.ars
gave the best view of the game.
So you're saying that because it's a game designed specifically for multiplayer it's okay to bitch about the small single player aspect? I'm not arguing by analogy.. I'm just trying to help you see what everyone else already understands. There are certainly flaws in the game, but the short single player campaign isn't one of them.
Perhaps flaws was a poorly chosen word. I should have said "shortcomings". Personally I agree with you, and I also think that a short GOOD singleplayer experience is far better than a long boring one (ie - length is not the only factor).
All I'm saying is, people have a right to complain about it. It's a fair assessment that the single player is short. If you're looking for a long (or even medium length), good single player experience, this is not the game for you.
Clearly they've put considerable resources behind the single player campaign, so I absolutely do NOT agree with you that the game was "designed specifically for multiplayer". Saying that is simply a cop-out, an excuse for a poor part of the game.
Again, it seems like you wish people who think the storydriven parts were too short should just go away. But I, on the other hand, prefer to read such comments just as much as I like reading about features in a game. Together, they'll give me a good picture of what's actually in a product.
i never liked the flow of multiplayer. no vehicles and killing/dying is too quick. Shame too. They deliver to their fans. too bad im not a fan.
I like Bad Company more. ALOT more.
The fact that single players seems to get shorter and shorter could be an indication that FPS makers might consider making 2 versions of a game, one specifically for multiplayer and one specifically for single player. To be honest I think this could be a good idea. I jumped into multiplayer first as soon as I installed the game. I tried the single player for a round or 2 but eventually went back to multiplayer. Heck, I haven't even tried zombie mode yet.
Are people actually able to play online with the PC version? I'm reading lots of people's complaints on getting disconnected often while waiting to join a game and lagfests in game.
There was a patch today or yesterday (forgot the time stamp on the post on Kotaku), and folks are claiming much improved performance in general on PC. Don't know about disconnects.
Medal of Honor was just that, in fact. The singleplayer was made by Electronic Arts, and the multiplayer was made by DICE. While they installed together, SP and MP were to entirely separate programs made by entirely different designers. You play through the SP campaign, which I thoroughly enjoyed, and then you jump into what I felt was a rather lackluster MP which played completely differently; lean was gone, prone was gone, the tools were different and horribly limited, and everything just felt very different. In essence, it felt like what it was, playing an EA game for a good six or seven hours then switching over to a DICE game.
While I experienced only minor issues the day Black Ops released, since the patch I find that the game runs perfectly for me. Not everyone is as fortunate as I am in this regard, though; it seems there is still some work to be done. Also, my way of summing up Black Ops would be MW/WaW mechanics in a late 60's setting. Best one yet, IMO. It is definitely not just another MW2.
The whole "not playing the game" thing where its a mixture of cutsences and or tightly scripted hallways and waypoints does get annoying for people like me who really enjoy the open feel of Arma2 etc.
Medal of Honour had the same problem and I expect every major FPS from big publishers to go down the same route.
Its still fun, its just I always want to go and try something else rather than follow thier orders "OMG quick pickup that missile and blow up that! QUICK DUDE!!! OMG QUICK! omg you failed omg dude... wtf?".
Its a bit like your some n00b who they brought along to do things for them. Mason, open that door. Mason, blow that up. Mason! Get me a drink. Mason, save the world.
In my opinion Black Ops was just brought out to suck dry the wallets of MW1 and MW2 fanboys.. Nothing against those games, but the fanboys make me homicidal.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
