PC GAMER: Critical Review of Call of Duty: Black Ops

Is there any difference in the hit detection from pc and ps3? Pretty fed up not getting hit markers when i clearly should. Would the game respond more like CoD4 pc or Mw2 on pc? Thanks, just wanna know before purchasing

i give it a solid suck my **** dick treyarch.... learn how to program a game so it doesnt stutter/freeze constantly and maybe i will enjoy your GD games.

Don't agree with the score or those highlighted points. Its more balanced than MW2 and heres two reasons why - SAM turret and Noob tube nerf. SAM turret only requires 4 kills in a row and decimates the sky. In MW2 I used to have a launcher as secondary for every custom class because there were so many air killstreaks. Now I just use SAM turret and a pistol. Noob tube no longer restocks using scavenge point from every enemy either. Level up is faster, unlocks are better because you earn money and buy the right attachments. Rather than shooting some guy 20 times with a shotgun attachment just to get the next attachment. People who play a lot might by cosmetic things anyway. Yes weapons are locked for certain levels but this is the case for countless games online and encourages progress. This review seems like it has been done just to generate hits for being a rant article. I rarely had problems with the scripting in the campaign, It went smoother for me than MW2 did. Black ops is closer to a 9 than a 6nutcrackr

What good is the SAM in small maps where chopper gunner or gunship will kill you long before you manage to even get 1 kill (let alone out of the house if it's nuke town)? I just have a constant class that has the strela 3 incase someone gets one of those kill streaks. Sucks that the draw time for it is so god damn slow.

[QUOTE="millerlight89"] Then one would expect him to use better adjectives.subyman

What's a more powerful adjective to express frustration than that word :D

The helicopter goes down in two missiles or a bit of sustained fire. Anyone can change his cIass to a launcher carrying cIass and destroy it in 30 seconds.

Baranga

30 seconds is a very long time in this case. If it's anything like the helicopter in CoD4, that's enough for half a dozen kills, perhaps more.

This is one of the only reviews to get it right. And this is exactly the reason I've been a longtime subscriber to PC Gamer. They tell it like it is, and I love their review policy, too.

[QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"][QUOTE="subyman"] It is professional. They are paid to write, which is the definition of professional. I don't understand why using certain words makes it seem "amateur" in your opinion. If he was making fart jokes or something, then yeah but using adult language is standard practice in the adult word, especially when trying to get across frustration. I wouldn't attack the merit of the review on its language, which is what the poster was trying to do. I'm guessing you guys have never read GQ, Wired, or Rolling Stone. All are professional magazines that use adult language.JigglyWiggly_

Their scores are often accurate. They scored Modern Warfare 2 lower than most other reviewers, too. I'm beginning to think they're the only ones left with a decent sense of what's going on and what's worth your time/what isn't.

I have not played the game, but the review seems pretty fair. If I encountered a guy who was invincible with a rocket launcher, I would certainly add it to my review. That is ridiculous scripting right there. The technical problems in his review are echoed on these very forums, so you know he isn't lying about that.

He may be wrong about the multiplayer balance, but everything else seems pretty fair. The gamespot review didn't go over the problems that PC players were having with the game at all.

Ratings don't mean crap to me. Amazing games get often low scores: like MUSHA got an 8.5? YOU KIDDIN ME?! One of the best games evar, needs a 10. (This is IGN I tink) Then like Killing Floor IGN reviewed, 7.5, when it in fact is 1000x better than left4requiresnoskill, or STALKEr. Basically to get a good rating, game needs to be extremely casualized.JigglyWiggly_

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]So they took off points because it's heavily scripted...? Wow, haven't they played a COD game before? A what reviewer uses words like ******ing in a professional magazine review? Elann2008

9 minimum? what about the single player?

black ops is by far the most overly scripted and simplistic cod campaign ive played (and ive played them all). i know the game is mp orientated and its ultimately an arcade shooter but this is the first cod game in which the sp truly felt like an afterthought. very disappointing

9 for me, its miles ahead of MW2, but i could use some tweaking here and there, and LAN support, then it will be good.

[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]So they took off points because it's heavily scripted...? Wow, haven't they played a COD game before? A what reviewer uses words like ******ing in a professional magazine review? Macutchi

9 minimum? what about the single player?

black ops is by far the most overly scripted and simplistic cod campaign ive played (and ive played them all). i know the game is mp orientated and its ultimately an arcade shooter but this is the first cod game in which the sp truly felt like an afterthought. very disappointing

I'm sorry but that review is just stupid, that's like saying Call of Pripyat sucks because there was a game with the same kind of features earlier. Call of Duty 4 was like that (Even though the balance was way way worse there) World at War was like that, Modern Warfare 2.. well lack of dedicated servers and some other obviously stupid things (A game ending killstreak, really?)

I really enjoy it so I'll give it an 8.5/10.

I have not played the game, but the review seems pretty fair. If I encountered a guy who was invincible with a rocket launcher, I would certainly add it to my review. That is ridiculous scripting right there. The technical problems in his review are echoed on these very forums, so you know he isn't lying about that.

He may be wrong about the multiplayer balance, but everything else seems pretty fair. The gamespot review didn't go over the problems that PC players were having with the game at all.

Falconoffury

I used to buy PC Gamer some years ago and I don't think they have a credibility to them. They will just hype any game that's promoted in their zine.

Based purely on the amount of fun this game is I give it a firm 8.5/10!

I love people who now critisize CoD for being scripted. CoD and CoD UO were the most scripted, linear shooting experiances since the Medal of Honor games. They have always been about blockbuster action, and they have always been praised for that.

The online hasn't changed much either. The maps in CoD were a tad bit bigger, but the general gameplay hasn't changed, it has only gotten more robust with the customization, killstreaks, perks, and rewarding the player.

Place a pure CoD server with no upgrades and only the first 5 classes open, the game plays almost identical to the original. It's rather scary how close they are. The only difference is in the size of the maps, and even in CoD 2 days we saw much smaller maps than CoD.

I love people who now critisize CoD for being scripted. CoD and CoD UO were the most scripted, linear shooting experiances since the Medal of Honor games. They have always been about blockbuster action, and they have always been praised for that.

The online hasn't changed much either. The maps in CoD were a tad bit bigger, but the general gameplay hasn't changed, it has only gotten more robust with the customization, killstreaks, perks, and rewarding the player.

Place a pure CoD server with no upgrades and only the first 5 classes open, the game plays almost identical to the original. It's rather scary how close they are. The only difference is in the size of the maps, and even in CoD 2 days we saw much smaller maps than CoD.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I love people who now critisize CoD for being scripted. CoD and CoD UO were the most scripted, linear shooting experiances since the Medal of Honor games. They have always been about blockbuster action, and they have always been praised for that.

The online hasn't changed much either. The maps in CoD were a tad bit bigger, but the general gameplay hasn't changed, it has only gotten more robust with the customization, killstreaks, perks, and rewarding the player.

Place a pure CoD server with no upgrades and only the first 5 classes open, the game plays almost identical to the original. It's rather scary how close they are. The only difference is in the size of the maps, and even in CoD 2 days we saw much smaller maps than CoD.

subyman

I stopped trusting PC Gamer after they gave Far Cry 2 94%. They said it was 'fantastic'. couly

On PC I'd giv it a 7.8 from my experiences. Cons: -Less maps than CoD4 (obviously due to Activisions want to milk DLC) -No mod tool kits released -Seriously poor optimization -Restricted dedicated servers -No console quick connect IP command -Poor general Multiplayer interface, built for consoles, not PC Pros: -Stunning sound -Fantastic fluid physics and animations, players have a good sense of weight to their movement -A vast array of weapons to choose -A stellar leveling system that rewards a player who works hard Indeed. A 7.8 s where I feel this one sits. On release day, the game was unplayable for about the first week, until a patch was released to fix the memory leak issues. On day one, I would have given it around about a 5. No idea how the devil it scored so drastically high on the PC, for what I gather was a game that had little to no bug or performance testing on the PC platform, all resources were spent on the console builds of the game. Such greed, from such a wealthy company. -CheeseEater-

You do realize that most of the stuff you listed wasn't available at the start of World At War either right? The game was just released, most of that stuff doesn't come out immediately.

COD4 shipped with 15 maps, Blops has 14. Omg the milking!

I love people who now critisize CoD for being scripted. CoD and CoD UO were the most scripted, linear shooting experiances since the Medal of Honor games. They have always been about blockbuster action, and they have always been praised for that.

The online hasn't changed much either. The maps in CoD were a tad bit bigger, but the general gameplay hasn't changed, it has only gotten more robust with the customization, killstreaks, perks, and rewarding the player.

Place a pure CoD server with no upgrades and only the first 5 classes open, the game plays almost identical to the original. It's rather scary how close they are. The only difference is in the size of the maps, and even in CoD 2 days we saw much smaller maps than CoD.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I love people who now critisize CoD for being scripted. CoD and CoD UO were the most scripted, linear shooting experiances since the Medal of Honor games. They have always been about blockbuster action, and they have always been praised for that.

The online hasn't changed much either. The maps in CoD were a tad bit bigger, but the general gameplay hasn't changed, it has only gotten more robust with the customization, killstreaks, perks, and rewarding the player.

Place a pure CoD server with no upgrades and only the first 5 classes open, the game plays almost identical to the original. It's rather scary how close they are. The only difference is in the size of the maps, and even in CoD 2 days we saw much smaller maps than CoD.

bonafidetk

It evolved a lot. Go back and play the original and compare it to Blops - the quality of the scripting and the scenarios gets better with every game. A series known and loved for its highly scripted campaigns shouldn't change for the sake of change!

The only problem I had with the game is that , if you aint played the game or are planning to get it soon then don't click the spoiler.

[spoiler] They killed Reznov!!! [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="subyman"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I love people who now critisize CoD for being scripted. CoD and CoD UO were the most scripted, linear shooting experiances since the Medal of Honor games. They have always been about blockbuster action, and they have always been praised for that.

The online hasn't changed much either. The maps in CoD were a tad bit bigger, but the general gameplay hasn't changed, it has only gotten more robust with the customization, killstreaks, perks, and rewarding the player.

Place a pure CoD server with no upgrades and only the first 5 classes open, the game plays almost identical to the original. It's rather scary how close they are. The only difference is in the size of the maps, and even in CoD 2 days we saw much smaller maps than CoD.

Daytona_178

Oh it's on

and just so I don't get modded for hurpa derpa posting. I do agree that the heavily scripted SP in CODs is getting a bit old. I wouldn't mind them trying to create a bit more of an open campaign with multiple ways to go about it.

I'd give it a solid 9.millerlight89

Same here. It's the best CoD ever made IMHO.

I still think BC2 is Better, I enjoy games respectively.

kinda a refreshing change of pace to see a reviewer rip into CoD like that. I'm impressed,Allicrombie

[QUOTE="Allicrombie"]kinda a refreshing change of pace to see a reviewer rip into CoD like that. I'm impressed,wis3boi

Yeah, except it's not the same game.

Gotta love the internets. I went to Youtube to listen some World at War tracks and stumbled upon gigantic Blops spoilers:( I still haven't found time to play the campaign.

I wouldve scored the game a lot higher if there werent so many realtime cutscenes that just compleely remove control from the player.

its like they took those "uh oh jump for the ladder" moments from MW 1 and 2 and went way overboard.

I won't lie though its a damn fun game,just a bit to on rails for the campagin