My name is Black-Ops, and I approve this upcoming title.

At 5/13/10 04:33 PM, Brelm wrote: So I heard it's a playstation 3 exclusive?

Fail troll is fail.

http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2010/05 /14/cod-black-ops-full-trailer-on-tuesda y-teaser-now/

At 5/15/10 09:40 PM, SlipperyMooseCakes wrote: http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2010/05 /14/cod-black-ops-full-trailer-on-tuesda y-teaser-now/

My computer/internet can't load that FIFTEEN SECOND teaser for fucks sake.

This will still sell, even if Treyarch make a balls up of it. They'll most likely use the MW2 engine so at least it'll look and sound decent.

So everyone bitches about MW2 and now all the sudden everyone's creaming their pants for a COD game made by an inferior developer?

You people are suckers.

At 5/15/10 09:40 PM, SlipperyMooseCakes wrote: http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2010/05 /14/cod-black-ops-full-trailer-on-tuesda y-teaser-now/

Confirmed: Giant missiles and exploding helicopters.

At 5/15/10 10:40 PM, Gobblemeister wrote: So everyone bitches about MW2 and now all the sudden everyone's creaming their pants for a COD game made by an inferior developer?

You people are suckers.

I liked World At War.
Modern Warfare 2 was fun for me at first.
Pants will cream hard.

MW2's online with only some minor flaws, as well as a possible Spetsnaz Zombies mode? I think this game is very worthy of jizzing over, actually.

At 5/15/10 10:40 PM, Gobblemeister wrote: So everyone bitches about MW2 and now all the sudden everyone's creaming their pants for a COD game made by an inferior developer?

You people are suckers.

Here's something to think about. World at War's multiplayer was better than MW2's multiplayer. It's a fact. Instead of over complicating things with a ton of kill streaks that unbalanced everything, they kept it to a good formula based on Cod4's multiplayer, even if it was copying it to a degree. Now does that mean that the multiplayer for Black Ops will be the same thing? Probably not, because Treyarch is probably going to copy some of the aspects of MW2's multiplayer, but if we're lucky, they'll keep the killstreaks to a minimum or at least make them have less of an impact than the ones in MW2. As for single player, the concept of the game is more interesting than a typical COD game because the idea of "Black Ops" makes it seem like these are missions that actually happened, but were never revealed to the public. It makes it more appealing to check out and based on the trailers, the different environments have enough variety to make it look that much more intriguing. I wouldn't be surprised if this game surprises a lot of people with being a good game.

At 5/16/10 12:04 AM, Gustavos wrote: MW2's online with only some minor flaws, as well as a possible Spetsnaz Zombies mode? I think this game is very worthy of jizzing over, actually.

So you have played the online then? Because I haven't heard about any demo

At 5/16/10 03:28 AM, 36Holla wrote:

At 5/15/10 10:40 PM, Gobblemeister wrote: So everyone bitches about MW2 and now all the sudden everyone's creaming their pants for a COD game made by an inferior developer?

You people are suckers.

Instead of over complicating things with a ton of kill streaks that unbalanced everything, they kept it to a good formula based on Cod4's multiplayer, even if it was copying it to a degree.

Not only did it copy it but it wasn't as good as COD4's multiplayer. What makes you think Treyarch won't just copy MW2? Because apparently after COD3 and the various other shoddy spin offs you people are still willing to believe that Treyarch cares about improving when it can just sell MW2 but in Vietnam.

I wouldn't be surprised if this game surprises a lot of people with being a good game.

I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being a sad rehash of MW that everyone expects to be the second coming of COD4 and falls flat.

Found some info here, here, and here. Overview of three missions: Victor Charlie, Payback, and WMD. Also, a leaked picture of the crossbow here.

At 5/16/10 03:35 AM, Gobblemeister wrote: Not only did it copy it but it wasn't as good as COD4's multiplayer. What makes you think Treyarch won't just copy MW2? Because apparently after COD3 and the various other shoddy spin offs you people are still willing to believe that Treyarch cares about improving when it can just sell MW2 but in Vietnam.

I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being a sad rehash of MW that everyone expects to be the second coming of COD4 and falls flat.

Official Xbox Magazine begs to digger...

OXM reckons, unsurprisingly, that this will be 'one of this year's very biggest, and best' games
# The graphics, as we saw in the teaser trailer, are amazing - in particular buildings are demolished brilliantly and include 'dynamic shadows' that build tension
# 'Black Ops has a different, grubbier vibe to MW2'
# Treyarch is approaching the game as '3 games in one' - single player, co-op, and multiplayer
# There's 'dedicated co-op', suggesting a departure from WaW - Treyarch 'changed the subject' when asked about zombies :)
# Treyarch has taken 'creative risks'
# There are more than 200 people working on Black Ops
# The difference between World at War and Black Ops is similar to the difference between CoD2 and CoD4

So this is going to be Treyarch's COD4, eh?

Come on guys, why all the negative attitudes? If you play it with a neutral tone, you'll have a more natural opinion of it. If you're expecting shit, and you're given a can of awesome, you'll be conflicted. Not knowing if you should think the game is good or not. If you think the game will be great, you'll feel slight pangs of disappointment when some of your hopes are let down about what you wanted or didn't want in the game, which you'll later change to a rant once you join the bandwagon of people who also "think" the game sucked.

But if there's no Spetsnaz zombies, and we're left with NO cooperative modes of any kind, I will truly be pissed. Four consecutive games of Team Deathmatch-only online? I wouldn't know about COD3's online having never played it.

Seriously, I want to team up with other people to meet a certain objective. Nazi Zombies was a brilliant concept loosely based off the many zombie defense games you can find among flash sites like Newgrounds. We were stuck with a team of other guys (some were total noobs, others were gods at the game), and we had to survive as long as possible by any means necessary.

Look, I can eventually get over no more Zombie Defense, but if they can just do MW2's cooperative modes, and give them a matchmaking system (allowing you to pair up with random people online and not just your friends), than I'll tip my hat off to them.

If I really wanted a zombie mode, I'd keep playing Left 4 Dead.

At 5/16/10 09:52 PM, SlipperyMooseCakes wrote:

At 5/16/10 03:35 AM, Gobblemeister wrote: Not only did it copy it but it wasn't as good as COD4's multiplayer. What makes you think Treyarch won't just copy MW2? Because apparently after COD3 and the various other shoddy spin offs you people are still willing to believe that Treyarch cares about improving when it can just sell MW2 but in Vietnam.

I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being a sad rehash of MW that everyone expects to be the second coming of COD4 and falls flat.

# The graphics, as we saw in the teaser trailer, are amazing - in particular buildings are demolished brilliantly and include 'dynamic shadows' that build tension

After all the crap I see on this forum about graphics not mattering, citing them as an improvement over MW2 is kind of pointless.

# 'Black Ops has a different, grubbier vibe to MW2'

If it plays the exact same way why would I even care

# Treyarch has taken 'creative risks'

Doesn't mean it's going to be good, in fact it could just be magazine industry fluff for 'edgier'.

# The difference between World at War and Black Ops is similar to the difference between CoD2 and CoD4

Again, typical magazine industry fluff

The game isn't finished so these are just preliminary press 'buzz words'

# The difference between World at War and Black Ops is similar to the difference between CoD2 and CoD4

Again, typical magazine industry fluff

No, see, Call of Duty 2 was the best Infinity Ward CoD game until Call of Duty 4 came in and tore shit up to an unparalleled degree, and World at War is currently the best Treyarch CoD game. It's a more or less blatant way of saying that Black Ops will be, by far, the best non - IW CoD installment to date.

# 'Black Ops has a different, grubbier vibe to MW2'

If it plays the exact same way why would I even care

It's a Call of Duty game. They all play the same. That's like saying a Ford Pinto is comprable to a Porche on the grounds that they both drive with a steering wheel.

You're a stupid person and your parents would be ashamed of you if they read this.

At 5/17/10 09:10 AM, Jawdyn wrote:

At 5/16/10 03:28 AM, 36Holla wrote: Here's something to think about. World at War's multiplayer was better than MW2's multiplayer. It's a fact.

opinion :x

Agreed. No more unlockable kill streaks. Give me good old CoD 4 multiplayer. No one can hate CoD 4 multiplayer.

The trailer's out! :)
To put it simply, I'm pretty darn stoked.

At 5/17/10 02:22 AM, Samen wrote:

You're a stupid person and your parents would be ashamed of you if they read this.

Yes, I'm stupid for blindly shelling out another 60 dollars for a sad rehash of the same game I already bought and enjoy.

I'm stupid for deciding I'd much rather enjoy a much greater variety of games than just buying the remake of MW2 but in Vietnam and other 'unique' locations.

COD4 was infinitely better than World at War

I expect the exact same from Black Ops

So enjoy your crippling disappointment when you realize that having the same game in a new location with different guns doesn't get rid of campers, hacks, and glitches.

Then you'll all bitch like you did before and whine about how you were stupid enough to spend 60 dollars again for the same game you didn't like before.

At 5/19/10 12:20 AM, RoboJesus wrote:

reposted and edited from other thread

You know the writers for a game are shit if they have to change history just to make a decent plot.

Yeah, kinda like

Wolfenstein
Medal of Honor
All the other Call of Duty's
Shellshock
Half Life
Left 4 Dead
The Conduit
Assassin's Creed
House of The Dead
Resident Evil
Spiderman 2
Mercenaries
Chibi Robo
Destroy All Humans
Stubbs the Zombie
The Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction
Dead Rising
Grand Theft Auto

And every other game ever made with a historical or contemporary setting but isn't classified as non-fiction.
Which is all of them.

Except maybe the History Channel Games

At 5/19/10 01:29 AM, RoboJesus wrote:

At 5/19/10 01:07 AM, Samen wrote: Yeah, kinda like

(long ass list)

And every other game ever made with a historical or contemporary setting but isn't classified as non-fiction.
Which is all of them.

I'm talking about taking an actual historical event or war and twisting it. Zombie games and other alternate reality games don't really count. Think Inglourious Basterds or 300 (except both of those movies are fucking awesome and this will almost certainly be shite.) So by this standard I count 5, and that's a very loose 5 as I counted slight distortions that don't really change much from what happened in the event they're based on.

Well, if we're going to take a stricter approach, then let's say

Wolfenstein
Medal of Honor
All the other Call of Duty's
Shellshock
Assassin's Creed
Mercenaries
Grand Theft Auto

That's seven, I'd say, that fall distinctly under the category of "reworking real world events to serve the game", and not just seven games, mind you, but seven series and franchises, some of which have well over a dozen individual titles to their name.

Note that, of all these, Assassin's Creed is the worst and most direct offender, but also one of the most well - received new IPs of the last decade.

By your logic, anything that takes major historical events and twists them in order to enhance the entertainment value or further the story is taking an inherently flawed viewpoint and a product of lazy or careless writing. However, that viewpoint is disproven by the existence of at least seven wildly popular videogame franchises based upon just such a notion, on top of the fact that you defend two movies that use a similar approach in their own plots.

Now, i'm not saying Black Ops is going to be great, or even good. I'm saying your argument makes no sense. It's like saying, "I love fruits, but I can't stand apples on the grounds that they have seeds in them".

In regards to the trailer, it was pretty epic.

The crossbow with explosive arrows was a win, so was the helicopter segments.

However, this game better have a narrative - Treyarch always fucks that up.

At 5/18/10 10:44 PM, Toki911 wrote: The trailer's out! :)
To put it simply, I'm pretty darn stoked.

Aug, spas 12 and a crossbow with exploding arrows! FUCKING AWESOME!

The SPAS is actually called the Dragon's Breath, I think.

It sets people on fire.

At 5/19/10 04:19 PM, IrishGun wrote: The SPAS is actually called the Dragon's Breath, I think.

It sets people on fire.

Wait, what?

At 5/19/10 04:44 PM, tally1989 wrote:

At 5/19/10 04:19 PM, IrishGun wrote: The SPAS is actually called the Dragon's Breath, I think.

It sets people on fire.

Wait, what?

No, Dragon's Breath is the Incindiary Ammo you can choose to use the the SPAS 12.

Also, flying helicopters?
Crossbows?
Exploding Arrows?
Your character actually talks?

This looks to be shaping out the be the best Call of Duty yet in my opinion.

THIS JUST IN
Pure sex.

http://kotaku.com/5543101/big-beautiful-
call-of-duty-black-ops-screens

At 5/19/10 04:56 PM, ZOMGALIENS wrote: Your character actually talks?

That's not proven. It could have just been that other American soldier we saw occasionally. Who would probably be the Soap Mactavish/Captain Price of the game.

Also, the Franchi Spas 12 was around back then?