Truth...
Truth...
I don't have a problem with the graphics. The developers put enough time into creating an awesome story, that it could be black and white and I'd still enjoy it. That story was epic. As far as online play, I can't get online with my PS3 for some STUPID reason in my dorm, so I'm relegated to playing NZ all the time. Which isn't so bad, but I do have one problem. My biggest complaint so far, and this is going to sound trivial, is that Nazi Zombies may be a little too difficult. Thus far, on Kino der Untoten, I've only managed to turn the power on once. You have to open something like 4 or 5 doors just to get there, and every weapon available has nearly no ammo capacity. I still haven't found a random weapon box on Kino or "5". I'm sure both maps will grow on me, but until then I feel like they're a little messed up. Waaaay too dark, as well.
I'm one mission in on the campaign mode, played 1 game of slaughtering zombies, and have ranked up to about 15 on multiplayer.
Campaign mode: I can't say much since I've just scratched the surface, but so far it's fun. The audio is pretty sweet, the voiceovers are good (Ice Cube could tone back the "badazz" voice just a smidge, though), and the story is alright so far.
Zombies: I didn't care much for the zombie mode in WaW, but after playing some of the "wave defense" Spec Ops in MW2, I kinda like it now in BlOps. Not necessarily for the zombies, just because of the constant invasion of enemies.
Multiplayer: I've really enjoyed myself so far. The upgrades and customizations are a really neat addition. I know some people are upset because it's "copy and paste of MW2", but it's still a CoD game, what do you expect? They've taken what's good with MW2 and made it even better. Friend invites are still annoying, but not as much as MW2. I wish they would bring back the same invite system they had on CoD4. I hate having to "leave" the game in order to look at/accept an invite.
Online seems to have an almost constantly slower frame rate. It's not that it's laggy, because it's not from any game I've experienced so far, things are still responsive, it's just not as smooth as single player or previous CoD games. It's weird to explain, but hopefully it makes sense and hopefully it's something that can be easily patched.
I don't believe I've hit all the maps yet, but so far I really like the ones I have, especially Nuketown. It's a medium size map in comparison to other CoD game maps, but small compared to most of the other BlOps maps I've played.
Wager Matches: I was super pumped when I first heard of this mode, mainly because of "One in the Chamber" and I haven't been let down. It's super fun, teaches you ammo reservation and patience, plus it's just down right fun. 6 players with 3 lives, 1 handgun, 1 round, and 1 knife. Much less intense than playing a free-for-all with guns being constantly shot and grenades constantly exploding, but the added suspense is what makes it fun.
Contracts: These are a neat little addition to the game as well. I'm still not sure how they determine which contracts to offer yet, but I've completed several and try to have 3 going all at once.
Weapons: They shoot, feel, and sound more like BFBC weapons, more realistic and less arcadish than previous CoD games.
Graphics: I was reading reviews yesterday at work and it made me really nervous to come home and play the game for the first time, since it's been so hyped up and I've bought into all the hype. But so far I can't complain about the graphics, I think they look really good. I'm not sure I'd say they're a step back from MW2 because they're more cartoonish, I think they're on par with MW2. I'm playing on a PS3 through HDMI on a 1080p HDTV, though I'm not sure if the game is truly playing in 1080p or not, but I'm still not sure what the complaints are about.
Player speak/gamespeak/whatever you want to call it: Not sure what they did, but all voices come through Lima Charlie. Really excited about this, I hate always having to say "what?.... what?... you broke up, what?".
Campaign mode: I can't say much since I've just scratched the surface, but so far it's fun. The audio is pretty sweet, the voiceovers are good (Ice Cube could tone back the "badazz" voice just a smidge, though), and the story is alright so far.
Zombies: I didn't care much for the zombie mode in WaW, but after playing some of the "wave defense" Spec Ops in MW2, I kinda like it now in BlOps. Not necessarily for the zombies, just because of the constant invasion of enemies.
Multiplayer: I've really enjoyed myself so far. The upgrades and customizations are a really neat addition. I know some people are upset because it's "copy and paste of MW2", but it's still a CoD game, what do you expect? They've taken what's good with MW2 and made it even better. Friend invites are still annoying, but not as much as MW2. I wish they would bring back the same invite system they had on CoD4. I hate having to "leave" the game in order to look at/accept an invite.
Online seems to have an almost constantly slower frame rate. It's not that it's laggy, because it's not from any game I've experienced so far, things are still responsive, it's just not as smooth as single player or previous CoD games. It's weird to explain, but hopefully it makes sense and hopefully it's something that can be easily patched.
I don't believe I've hit all the maps yet, but so far I really like the ones I have, especially Nuketown. It's a medium size map in comparison to other CoD game maps, but small compared to most of the other BlOps maps I've played.
Wager Matches: I was super pumped when I first heard of this mode, mainly because of "One in the Chamber" and I haven't been let down. It's super fun, teaches you ammo reservation and patience, plus it's just down right fun. 6 players with 3 lives, 1 handgun, 1 round, and 1 knife. Much less intense than playing a free-for-all with guns being constantly shot and grenades constantly exploding, but the added suspense is what makes it fun.
Contracts: These are a neat little addition to the game as well. I'm still not sure how they determine which contracts to offer yet, but I've completed several and try to have 3 going all at once.
Weapons: They shoot, feel, and sound more like BFBC weapons, more realistic and less arcadish than previous CoD games.
Graphics: I was reading reviews yesterday at work and it made me really nervous to come home and play the game for the first time, since it's been so hyped up and I've bought into all the hype. But so far I can't complain about the graphics, I think they look really good. I'm not sure I'd say they're a step back from MW2 because they're more cartoonish, I think they're on par with MW2. I'm playing on a PS3 through HDMI on a 1080p HDTV, though I'm not sure if the game is truly playing in 1080p or not, but I'm still not sure what the complaints are about.
Player speak/gamespeak/whatever you want to call it: Not sure what they did, but all voices come through Lima Charlie. Really excited about this, I hate always having to say "what?.... what?... you broke up, what?".
Nice review. Oh wait how can you give an honest review if you've only played it for a couple of hours.
I'm still endlessly entertained by TF2. Someday I will buy another video game.
What is TF2???
When is the next Rainbox Six coming out, any time a programmer makes sure the multi-player version is smoother, faster, and better looking....I am in. Co-op story and co-op terrorist hunt is similar to the zombies, sort of. I am getting ready to crack open Black Ops right now. Medal of Honor was okay...I liked the story line. The online feels like Battlefield, which is really sluggish after MW2.
What is TF2???
When is the next Rainbox Six coming out, any time a programmer makes sure the multi-player version is smoother, faster, and better looking....I am in. Co-op story and co-op terrorist hunt is similar to the zombies, sort of. I am getting ready to crack open Black Ops right now. Medal of Honor was okay...I liked the story line. The online feels like Battlefield, which is really sluggish after MW2.
I don't know of any Rainbow Six games coming out soon, or even in the works, unfortunately, but there's a new Ghost Recon game coming out called "Future Soldier".
http://amzn.com/B0037LVW9M
The trailer on that link is pretty awesome.
I played it last night, and I kind of see what you mean by it being more cartoonish and less realistic looking than MW.
The weapons are cool in ways, but definitely unrealistic in ways too. I was fighting in what was supposed to be Cuba in 1961, and I came across a rifle with something called an "ACOG." One, ACOGs didn't exist then, two, Cubans wouldn't have them if they did, and three, it didn't look anything like an ACOG... just a little straight tube scope (probably like what they would have back then). Are the developers just ignorant, and are calling every combat scope an ACOG? I notice the "ACOG" that's on the AK-47 looks kind of like the little 4x POSP russian scope. Also, I don't think the M203 existed back then... heck, they had just introduced the M-16 that year, IIRC... yet you have one under your default rifle in the first mission. And every other rifle the Russians, Cubans, and NVA fielded didn't have a friggin scope, grenade launcher, or suppressor on it. Also, when you're raiding the Baikonur Cosmodrome, supposedly in the late 60s or early 70s or something like that, you have an MP-5k with a holographic sight (looks like a triji tri-power). I really don't think they had those back then either.
Oh well, we gun guys could point out unrealistic details all day about that kind of stuff... I guess we need to realize that these games are programmed by a bunch of geeks sitting in cubicles, and probably get their info on the weapons by running a google search or something. I dunno though... would it kill them to hire a consultant to make the weapons realistic, like Hollywood does when they make war movies?
I do like how they did the M-14 justice, and it is playable as a battle rifle with iron sights, like it was meant to be, instead of just a scoped sniper rifle with a 10 round mag like it is on the MW games. And they seem to have gotten the damage and knockdown a little more realistic... in other games, sometimes they make the poodle shooters as powerful or more powerful than the .30 cals. The FAL and the M-14 will actually drop somebody with one shot to center mass in this game, as they should.
I played one game of zombies first thing when I got the game, and it seems cool enough. It will at least be good for some new maps and different weapons to play around with. Supposedly you can play zombies with 4 player split screen, which is nice.
I guess I'll see what the split screen is like this weekend, when I have some buddies over to play it.
The weapons are cool in ways, but definitely unrealistic in ways too. I was fighting in what was supposed to be Cuba in 1961, and I came across a rifle with something called an "ACOG." One, ACOGs didn't exist then, two, Cubans wouldn't have them if they did, and three, it didn't look anything like an ACOG... just a little straight tube scope (probably like what they would have back then). Are the developers just ignorant, and are calling every combat scope an ACOG? I notice the "ACOG" that's on the AK-47 looks kind of like the little 4x POSP russian scope. Also, I don't think the M203 existed back then... heck, they had just introduced the M-16 that year, IIRC... yet you have one under your default rifle in the first mission. And every other rifle the Russians, Cubans, and NVA fielded didn't have a friggin scope, grenade launcher, or suppressor on it. Also, when you're raiding the Baikonur Cosmodrome, supposedly in the late 60s or early 70s or something like that, you have an MP-5k with a holographic sight (looks like a triji tri-power). I really don't think they had those back then either.
Oh well, we gun guys could point out unrealistic details all day about that kind of stuff... I guess we need to realize that these games are programmed by a bunch of geeks sitting in cubicles, and probably get their info on the weapons by running a google search or something. I dunno though... would it kill them to hire a consultant to make the weapons realistic, like Hollywood does when they make war movies?
I do like how they did the M-14 justice, and it is playable as a battle rifle with iron sights, like it was meant to be, instead of just a scoped sniper rifle with a 10 round mag like it is on the MW games. And they seem to have gotten the damage and knockdown a little more realistic... in other games, sometimes they make the poodle shooters as powerful or more powerful than the .30 cals. The FAL and the M-14 will actually drop somebody with one shot to center mass in this game, as they should.
I played one game of zombies first thing when I got the game, and it seems cool enough. It will at least be good for some new maps and different weapons to play around with. Supposedly you can play zombies with 4 player split screen, which is nice.
I guess I'll see what the split screen is like this weekend, when I have some buddies over to play it.
Well, is it possible that real Black Ops guys would have things that conventional forces didn't know exist back then?
I can think of a couple..... SR-71 Blackbird, F-117...not hand held weapons or black ops per say, but weapons all the same, that we didn't know existed for many yrs.
I can think of a couple..... SR-71 Blackbird, F-117...not hand held weapons or black ops per say, but weapons all the same, that we didn't know existed for many yrs.
I played the campaign, zombies, and multiplayer for a total close to 10 hours now. I like MW2 better
