Black Ops Out! Kinda Out. Video.

By Quintin Smith on November 9th, 2010 at 10:20 am.

My instruments are giving me mixed reports. Today sees Call of Duty: Black Ops, the year’s biggest release, dropping onto international markets like a continent-spanning commercial panther. Now, I’m hearing that some Steam pre-order customers have had their game unlocked already, but Americans are having to wait until 10am Eastern time, our own Alec is having to wait until between 3pm and 8pm [Alec Update – no I’m not. If you buy it in the UK it seems to unlock just fine; my problem was related to my account apparently having US review code applied], and apparently although shop copies go through Steam, they’ll work right away. Buh. Are you playing it, readers? Any impressions?

If you can’t yet play Black Ops, and you’re livid, and your existence has shrunk to a world containing only, Black Ops and sharp objects, I have a temporary solution. Below, courtesy of VG247 you can watch the first 13 minutes of the game. Spoilers, obv, but I will say this: It looks like a somewhat different beast from Modern Warfare.

Come to think of it, Call of Duty is pretty linear. You could probably just put your hands on the keyboard and pretend you’re playing.

, , .

122 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. Chris says:

    The problem at the moment is a bug that makes it run like absolute shit no matter what kind of system you’re running it on.

    • pakoito says:

      What I hear? Activision?

    • b4dmash says:

      Could be a mutant tick

    • Shane says:

      Runs fine on AMD graphic cards after using the updated drivers released today. Nvidia cards are still running it like shit. Im sure nvidia or black ops will fix it all soon.

  2. Meat Circus says:

    Oh great. Another mediocre four hour long console shooter for £40? MONSIEUR KOTICK YOU ARE REALLY SPOILING US.

    • Chris says:

      SRSLY. when ME2 gave 40hrs+ and rewarded multiple playthroughs, having less than 6 hours for the same money does not look like good value.

    • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

      Except it’s far more than that;

      The single-player campaign, which while conventional is still extremely polished.
      An incredibly comprehensible multi-player with dozens of permutations (the various gametypes, hardcore versions, barebone versions (without killstreaks and other aids)), that you could play for hundreds of hours. Player customisation options second-to-none.
      Co-operative A.I training.
      At least three distinct zombie co-operative maps/eras.
      Four different wager-matches.
      In-depth theatre and video-editing.
      {MODEST SPOILER}
      A TOP-DOWN ZOMBIE SHOOTER LIKE ALIEN SWARM.
      Oh yes and MOD-SUPPORT.

      That’s actually incredible value for money, but you could’ve at least known about what you’re commenting on rather than just having a knee-jerk reaction.

    • ScubaMonster says:

      I never really bought any of the CoD games for singleplayer campaign. I don’t think I’ve hardly even played any of the campaigns at all. I only buy it for multiplayer. Same thing with Bad Company 2. I haven’t even loaded up the single player even once.

    • basil says:

      May I recomend Tetris?
      At $0 and infinite replay value I don’t know why you would want to play anything else, ever.

    • Howard says:

      @Tyrone
      Good lord – what crap.
      So to repost your post without the fapping hype:

      -A dull single player experience that will be over in a few hours, make no sense and be at least 65% non-interactive cut-scenes with gun play designed for pre-pubescent kiddies who lack any kind of skill.
      -A tedious, repetitive, child-friendly, achievement heavy multiplayer that recycles the tired death-match premise under a dozen different names and presents no innovation what so ever.
      -A whole slew of pointless “features” that add no value for money and are nothing to do with the actual game.

      The CoD franchise is a pointless waste of space that died after WaW. I am still utterly astonished as to how unutterably poor both the MW games were and hearing supposedly intelligent PC gamers call these games anything other than the dross they are is just depressing.

    • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

      What can I say Howard? Your entirely subjective and almost entirely baseless marginalisation of the game isn’t a refutation of my point that the game was filled with content. You may like that content or not, but you cannot claim it’s not worth the money if you’ve enjoyed previous games in the series.

      I do appreciate the stupidity of how you just gloss-over highly substantive features as worthless and ‘hav[ing] nothing to do with the actual game’ because you can’t argue their existence, (I guess? Help me out here, it’s not really a cogent argument that you’ve presented) without knowing anything about them let alone playing or experiencing them. Also my adjectives are pretty mild in my previous description; for instance, I’m not aware of another multi-player shooter with more personalisation than what is in Black Ops.

      The old meme adage proves true; haters gonna hate.

    • DrGonzo says:

      I agree with you points about multiplayer, it is truly awful. However, the first MW has some of the best scripted moments in any shooter I’ve ever played, MW 2 fell down as it was just bigger, louder and so far less impressive.

      I will nick CODBLOPS off my flatmate and play the story through probably, and the zombie stuff. But it will be nothing more than mindless fun, and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s just a shame that it outsells some amazing and innovative games by so much.

  3. Premium User Badge

    Rinox says:

    Can’t say it looks like my cup of tea. Seems to suffer from the typical ‘press button X to perform incredibly spectacular action sequence which you actually do not control at all’ syndrome of the CoD series after CoD 2. Looks like it could be fun on a budget sale though.

    • Cradok says:

      Which will be in about three years if prior experience is anything to go by. For some reason, someone at Activision holds the belief that downmarket sales contribute nothing…

    • noobnob says:

      Activision seems to be less sensible when it comes to cutting down the price of old titles (surprise!). Plus, if this game keeps selling at release price, it’ll stick to that price. It took almost a year for MW2 to be knocked out of the Steam Top 10, and it’s still selling at $59,99.

    • Clovis says:

      Or, more importantly, plenty of people continue to buy the game at a very high price.

    • Mark Raymond says:

      If you ever see this game on sale at £25 then snap it up while you can. There’s a trend of CoD titles keeping their price on all platforms for years

  4. Mike says:

    An unmanned… firehose?

    Anyway, I don’t get everyone’s problem. It’s a perfectly good single-player campaign, linear but well-orchestrated. I’m looking forward to watching my little brother play it and chipping in with co-op whenever I’m around. It’s not groundbreaking, but they’re really well-made games.

    • Baka says:

      There is no co-op, is there?
      Besides of the Zombie Mod.
      Because that would be a buy reason for me.

    • Archonsod says:

      Problem is, if I wanted a linear but well orchestrated experience, I’d watch Where Eagles Dare again instead.

    • mavvvy says:

      Thats funny, only last night I downloaded the theme tune to “Where Eagles Dare” to play through on ts when doing a paradrop with Fallschirmjäger’s in WW2 online.

      Well said sir!

    • Ted says:

      @baka
      YEs, campaign is 4 online, 2 splitscreen co-op

  5. Premium User Badge

    Lars Westergren says:

    So a covert assassination operation of Castro means running down an open (yet curiously linear) street and shooting cars with rocket launchers while screaming at team mates to cover you? Talk about missing an opportunity to build up tension. I think I’ll replay Alpha Protocol instead.

    >Come to think of it, Call of Duty is pretty linear. You could probably just put your hands on the keyboard and pretend you’re playing.

    “FPS map design, then and now”
    http://i.imgur.com/BITmX.jpg

    • Alexander Norris says:

      That image is so idiotic it’s laughable.

    • jon_hill987 says:

      I don’t recognise that 1993 map. I’m assuming doom but I can’t work out which level…

    • jon_hill987 says:

      Wait, it is Central Processing isn’t it. Brilliant level. Containment Area is still my favourite, the UAC warehouse full of imps is brilliant.

    • Mechorpheus says:

      /me dons his Doom Fanatic hat.

      If memory serves me that is Central Processing, Map E1M6 from Doom 1!

      Am I right? What do I win??

    • Premium User Badge

      Lars Westergren says:

      @Alexander

      Glad you find it laughable, it made me laugh.
      ;)

      It’s exaggerating for comedic effect of course. A lot of shooters today (especially those who have cross-bred with the RPG genre) are more non-linear. But with regards to the “cinematic war shooter” it felt rather apt to me. But my experience of them tend to be limited to an hour or two of demos, perhaps they focus more on the action, and in the real game the levels if not the plots open up a little more?

      The reason they do it linear is because they spend all their dev budget on doing jaw dropping set pieces, so by necessity they have to do the story more cinema like in that it is a more passive and more linear experience. That might be ok if they were inspired by good films. But as Monchberter mentioned, it’s all seems to be Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay material.

    • Urael says:

      Talking of Michael Bay…Transformers: War for Cybertron definitely fell into the Linear & Cinematic camp. I can’t imagine a sequel would deviate all that much, either, sadly.

    • subedii says:

      Heh, I remember that map. I thought I’d seen it somewhere before then I noticed the distinct diamond shaped rooms on the left, and it hit me, Doom.

      Anyway, Crysis actually did a really good job on some of its levels promoting an “action movie” style whilst allowing you freedom of level traversal.

      Whereas in the CoD games, I just feel so cold. After a certain stage you start easily recognising just how scripted everything is, and it’s hard not to notice after that. When it all feels scripted, it’s hard to feel involved in the proceedings. You’re not the one making cinematic things happen, the game’s doing that. You’re just watching and occasionally face-shooting, never really thinking about what plan of action to take next because the next step is always signposted and obvious in bright neon colours, and there’s no real option for deviation from that.

      Crysis Warhead actually captured that feel of a summer blockbuster movie really well for me, though granted it was slightly more linear than Crysis. Still more non-linear than the rest of the stuff released today. CW is genuinely one of the few games where I didn’t feel like I was simply watching the cutscenes of this stuff going by.

      I find that a good test for whether an action game is awesome is whether you start surreptitiously spouting action-hero reject one liners in your head. Gunning your jeep onwards, there’s a roadblock ahead blocked off by two big troop transports. The guys at the post look up in shock as you simple don’t stop, “Surprise Mutha-truckers!”, as you bail out amidst scattered gunfire, the jeep hits home and explodes in a satisfying heatwave taking out the trucks with it. But the enemies are regrouping and there’s a chopper overhead, you quickly duck inside a nearby house and take it down with a couple of deft missiles. They’re closing in, you jump back out and hop up a sniper tower next door. Much to the surprise of the sniper still in there when you pull yourself up, “Pardon me a moment mate.”, shotgun blast, grab his rifle and start picking off the remaining troops as their fire pings against the metal sheets of the crows nest.

      All that happened in the space of maybe a minute or less, and what makes it awesome is that you’re the one writing this script (no matter how corny). Things like that are something I can actually feel involved in.

      It’s like playing X-Com. The action may not be scripted for big, bespoke set pieces , but it matters more to you because you’re the one making those decisions and watching them play out.

      Grief, now I want to re-install Crysis and Warhead again.

    • DrGonzo says:

      You’ve made me want to play the Crysis games through again. Now I know what I’ll be up to this weekend.

      This idea that scripted games are trying to be ‘cinematic’ is a bit annoying. I can see how that’s what COD is doing and I’m not a huge fan. Half Life is equally as scripted, but it’s not trying to be like a film, it’s trying to be immersive. I can’t believe that COD is so critically acclaimed yet it still has to come up with objective icons and arrows pointing you where to go. It’s a linear game with only one route open for you to take, it really shouldn’t be necessary to give pointers like that.

      I suppose I’m just trying to say (badly) that linear games in themselves aren’t necessarily a bad thing.

    • subedii says:

      I think it depends what the linearity is being used towards.

      If it’s being used towards showing “hey, look at this exhilarating and daring sequence that the player finds himself if” then really, I’d much rather just play it. It can’t give the impression of being daring or exhilarating because you already know the events are happening regardless of your input, you can’t affect how they play out except for failing to hit your mark. It all just becomes part of the rest of the level design, not the interactive “game” part.

      Sometimes breaks like that are a good thing for the pacing, but if that’s the summation of the gameplay experience then you’re effectively just cutting player agency out of the best bits.

      If the reason for such scenes if it was primarily to tell the story and immerse you in the game and atmosphere, it can work quite well, but if you make it what the majority of the game is bar the headshotting, then I can’t really feel all that more impressed with it then I can with some nice texture work. It looks good, but it’s not exactly a big deciding factor in my feeling as if I’m taking part in the proceedings.

      I mean, when I played the demo of Crysis I was expecting a tech demo. But I was genuinely hooked when I did, ended up playing it several times between then and getting the game. And each playthrough was almost completely different, and it was all down to me and how I chose to play it. I felt involved and I was having fun.

      Watching the first 15 minutes of this? It looks just like the first 15 of MW1, only set in another country. Playing that left me feeling distinctly “meh”, and whilst I was genuinely hoping otherwise (given the hype about how Treyarch have done it “right” this time), this footage leaves me feeling the same way.

    • DrGonzo says:

      You pretty much summed it up there. I suppose Half Life’s scripted moments are often a situation out of your own hands, with you trying to survive during it. Whereas COD is, like you say, the best bits of the game playing out with you having no control.

    • Lars Westergren says:

      @subedii, DrGonzo

      Great posts, thanks guys.

    • subedii says:

      I am also sincerely glad that someone other than me enjoyed Alpha Protocol. :P

  6. Kevin says:

    Friend of mine invited me over to take a look at the game when he bought it from a store that broke street date. Yes, it’s the same game as IW’s efforts, but the massively more coherent story makes it up for me, plus the fact that the game has absolutely no illusions of what it’s trying to be: an over-the-top action film-turned video game.

    Trying not to spoil anything here, but the entire second mission is probably the most glorious thing I’ve ever seen in a Call of Duty game.

  7. Monchberter says:

    “Come to think of it, Call of Duty is pretty linear. You could probably just put your hands on the keyboard and pretend you’re playing.”

    Ouch!

    All the positive reviews these games get make me think; ok, they’re aimed at the kind of person who enjoys Jerry Bruckheimer films (and not on a camp level), but when did Con Air or Armageddon ever get 90% or five out of five at review?

    It’s frustrating as they seem such Tom Clancy-lite fodder, all reliant on the whizzbangs and looking for an enemy that’s ‘safe’ to include.
    “The public has had enough of Nazi’s so lets stick the Russkies in!”

    “We did that in MW2!!”

    “And look how many that sold!”

    :(

    • The Hammer says:

      That speaks more of a difference between the game and film press more than anything else.

    • Premium User Badge

      AndrewC says:

      God damn Con Air and Armageddon are awesome. They’re also comedies, which the COD games aren’t, so 1-0 to movies there in terms of narrative and tone.

      Then again, games do carnage=punchline so much better than movies ever could (Mercenaries or Just Cause for explosions, GTA for human based atroci-fun, Serious Sam for scale and so on), so we’re at least at a score draw at the moment.

    • Rich says:

      Con Air is good. Armageddon isn’t. Except the “Russian” and guy who goes crazy.

    • Rich says:

      Oh, you might enjoy reading this too. It mentions Armageddon but is mostly about Battlestar Galactica, or rather the NASA man they had as advisor.

    • Premium User Badge

      AndrewC says:

      No, they’re both terrible.

  8. hoppipolla says:

    I am extremely disappointed by the lack of Ice-T in this article.

  9. KillahMate says:

    Looks pretty.

  10. apsaps says:

    Come on. Who buys this for the single-player anyway?

    I bought it for one reason. To kill zombies while playing as Richard Nixon. I loved Nazi Zombies in WaW and didn’t touch the rest of the MP or SP, but I could probably throw in a couple of Gun Game rounds in this.

    If the zombie mode is as good as Nazi Zombies in WaW, it’s well worth my 370SEK.

    • poop says:

      buy killing floor

    • BooleanBob says:

      Wait wait wait. Is Gun Game a sort-of generic modding term now? For mods like the Counter Strike GG, but available in other FPSs?

    • Rich says:

      If I were to buy this at all, it would be for the single-player. I have next to no interest in noob pooning.

    • Rich says:

      Also, it’s a pretty sad day for gaming when zombie Nazis is the highlight.

  11. Lacero says:

    Come to think of it, Call of Duty is pretty linear. You could probably just put your hands on the keyboard and pretend you’re playing.

    That old school arcade feeling in my own home. Fabulous.

  12. Fwiffo says:

    I liked the crossover showing TF2’s Announcer in her second job as a bingo caller.

  13. fuggles says:

    Looks a lot more fun to play than watch. Owing to the pacing I imagine the poor design on driving straight at a firing squad, no windshield, and being fine or watching the AI get all the zipline kills are something you go along with as by the time it’s registered another enemy has appeared.

    I don’t get it, reviews seem to be along the lines of it’s copying the second one but we’ll still give it 9/10. I like the idea of recalling things in interrogation, although you could have a really messed up level when you get OD’d on truth serum and go a bit jeff minter!

    @lars
    http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/File:E3M2_map.png

  14. Snall says:

    You know how you can tell someone is a console player? They move around like robots….ew

    • Tomm says:

      And the hideous amount of auto-aim. I swear the game is doing the majority of the work.

    • Rich says:

      I find myself shouting (in my head, I am at work) “what the hell do you think you’re doing?!?” when the idiot playing these things runs out into the middle of a room or street with no cover and just stands there. Get behind something you moron, and just lean around… oh wait.

    • Tomm says:

      I found that just as annoying, all the AI friendly characters were doing the same, saw one run thro a corridor and past a load of enemies shooting him point blank. He just soaked up the bullets and took cover at the end. Now I’m not saying that the damage system should be different (he was on easy after all), but at least the AI could be less immersion breaking.

    • Rich says:

      Also, are you playing this on PC? Can you lean in this one? I think you could in World at War.

  15. mondomau says:

    Hmm, so:

    -4-6 Hours (by all accounts somewhat linear) Single Player
    -No Co-Op or spec ops mode.
    -Early (unverified) reports PC version is fucked.
    -Early (verified – 1up) reports the MP is glitchy.
    -MP is not substantially different from all the other COD / BF titles out at the moment.
    -£40

    Not feeling it so far.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      What “other CoD/BF titles?” Battlefield (even BC2) and CoD have next to nothing in common other than being FPSes and featuring guns, MW2 is absolutely atrocious and both CoD4 and WaW have a) different settings; b) not aged well; c) not much of a playerbase anymore, especially if you’re not the kind of idiot who plays 50-man hardcore TDM; and c) their own balance issues.

      It’s about as different as you’d expect the next game in a series to look, really. It’s got a new setting, new weapons/perks/stuff, and the core gameplay is otherwise the same as previous games in the series. Justifiably so, since it’s a sequel.

    • Bluebreaker says:

      shhh you are too loud.

    • DrGonzo says:

      I would say it has features justified of an add on pack. Not a sequel.

    • subedii says:

      I don’t know. I mean to me, a completely new and full campaign in itself is enough to warrant a “sequel” label as opposed to merely “addon”.

      I mean, I consider Halo 2 an appropriate sequel to Halo 1. Left 4 Dead 2 a sequel to Left 4 Dead 1. Gears of War 2, Bioshock 2…

      That’s at first however, assuming you’re actually interested in the style of the gameplay espoused in those games. Which if you are, then a refinement of the formula and just as much all new content seems pretty apt for a sequel.

  16. Hmm-Hmm. says:

    Saw the first seconds of that clip (after the unrelated bit) and that was enough. Only for manly men, I see? Especially teenaged manly men.

    But seriously, the macho cliche is ridiculous. Thankfully I never did have any interest in the game.

  17. Helios_Five says:

    I like the fact that they complain that castro uses a human shield after they have gunned down her , even though castro was already out of the way. So the moral is – Human Shield – Bad. Killing Civilians – Alright. Or am I taking it too seriously, should it just be America – Good. Everyone else – Utter bastards?

    • fuggles says:

      They were complaining that even though he used her as a human shield she tried to kill them. With the ak47. The one she was shooting at them with…

    • Premium User Badge

      Rinox says:

      On a sidenote, that scene didn’t make any sense at all. A girl in a nightie is used as a human shield and put a gun to her head by Mr. Cliché Villain, only to be rescued by the good aim of 2 undercover agents who just blew up half the city and killed a small army to get there. Then she proceeds to grab an AK and tries to shoot them?

      Major WTF. Completely bonkers.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      Because human shields are never on the same side as their captors (see: basically guerrila warfare or terrorism since about 1960).

    • Premium User Badge

      Rinox says:

      They just shot the guy in the head with precise-o aim. There’s two of them. They’re black ops guys. They just destroyed half the city and a small army to get there. Mr. Cliché Villain was afraid enough of them to use her as a human shield. They’re even looking right at her.

      And in THAT situation you pull an AK at them? Sorry, that’s Retarded (capital R) no matter which side she’s on.

    • Rich says:

      Ah, it’s because “Castro’s followers are fanatic in their devotion”. Now shut up and take your medicine.

    • Premium User Badge

      Rinox says:

      *takes his medicine* (Duvel)

    • Rich says:

      A fine medicine it is.

  18. Carolina says:

    I can’t help but notice that the Cuban soldiers keep saying “¡Lo miro!”, which literally means “I look at him!”… which sounds hilariously stupid. “I see him!” (“¡Lo veo!”) would be more appropriate.

    Weird, since games of this calibre usually have great foreign voicework and translations.

    • subedii says:

      Really? In MW2 the map set in Karachi was actually generic impoverished middle-easty town place with arabic everywhere.

      Let’s be honest here, in these games there’s the US, possibly the UK, and then a big amorphous blob called “rest ‘o’ the world” which which occasionally contains clotted, coagulated lumps labelled things like “Communistski”, “The ‘NAM” and “Durka-durka-stan”.

      It’s a Michael Bay film in game form.

    • Premium User Badge

      Rinox says:

      I wish someone would mod the shouts of the generic muslim opponents into stuff like ‘derka derka mohamed jihad, haka sherpa sherpa’.

    • Rich says:

      “Ah shish kabob!”

      Yay Hotshots.

  19. d00d3n says:

    In short: A more story driven experience than any of the previous cod games, even the modern warfare ones. You play as the same character throughout the game, except I think during one mission.

    The levels are huge compared to mw which as far as I am concerned is not a good thing. It feels very unmoderated and somewhat repetitive during large sections of the game.

    The game also moves away from the clancy amped up realism thing and feels more like a bond movie or something. The ending feels especially different in this regard.

    Still a good game though, but not in the league of mw or mw2.

    • suibhne says:

      MW2 had little in common with “Clancy amped-up realism” – it was purely ridiculous sci-fi, more like a Roger Moore Bond outing (except not nearly as enjoyable). Are you really suggesting that BO is even less realistic than MW2?

    • d00d3n says:

      I don’t agree with this. MW2 had many spectacular events and of course is not realistic at all, but to call it pure sci-fi seems like an overstatement. Wasn’t the sensibility quite similar to other Clancy stuff like for example Splinter Cell? That is it is all grounded in realism, but the creative freedom from that pretense is enormous. Cod black ops diverts from the clancy mold with more cheese and an ending that would fit in any bond movie.

    • Optimaximal says:

      Sorry, but Modern Warfare 2 had a soldier infiltrate a nuclear submarine, fire a nuke after 30 seconds playing with a computer that just happened to blow up the fucking ISS!

      Sci-fi – maybe not… Horribly & unbelievable – definitely.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      CoD4 was early Clancy, back when he was good and the plots of his novels actually had something remotely in common with real-life politics. The plot, while obviously fictitious, is reasonably believable: the nationalist far-Right has been on the rise in Russia for a few years now, and the current Middle-East troubles aren’t going anywhere now and certainly weren’t going anywhere then.

      MW2 was late Clancy: jingoistic bullshit with no relation whatsoever to actual international relations or politics and Michael Bay levels of fetishism for dumb Hollywood action film tropes, coupled with laughably unbelievable technological advances. To top it off, the quality of Clancy novels has dropped dramatically since he stopped giving a shit and started getting ghostwriters to write word-vomit; similarly, MW2’s plot is pure verbal fecal matter that has absolutely none of what made early Clancy/CoD4 interesting (the fact that there was a possibility the events depicted might come to pass, thanks to a fair bit of research into current affairs).

    • subedii says:

      Well it’s not like his writing quality ever got in the way of the ridiculous number of franchises his name’s attached to.

    • d00d3n says:

      I just wanted to add that the PC conversion of black ops is broken. Performance is horrible. There is no visible graphical improvement compared to the console versions. Gamepad support is horrible. Get the game on 360 if you want a good experience.

  20. Premium User Badge

    Chaz says:

    Looks like more of the same old mindless crap, but I guess if people keep buying it in their droves then they’ll keep shoveling it out. I guess the main attraction will be the MP, which will be just like the last 3 games but with a few minor tweaks here and there and some different weapons.

    I used to love FPS’s but the genre has become so stale of late, what with everyone seemingly trying to emulate the popularity of the CoD:MW games with predictable clones. Frankly I couldn’t give a stuff about competetive MP and weapon unlocks etc. When are we going to see another Stalker or Boiling Point? How about a big open world Stalker type game with a good co-op mode?

    • subedii says:

      It’s funny, I was just playing Call of Pripyat over the past few days (Appropriate name. There’s an “in Soviet Russia” joke in there somewhere about how CoP takes the complete opposite stance to CoD, but I can’t be bothered to make it), and I have to say it does a really good job with the atmosphere. It basically dumps you in huge rolling landscapes of perils and says “Survive.”

      Granted it’s wrong to compare a game like CoP to a straightforward shooter like Black Ops, but there’s a few things to be learned there. It’s a game that implicitly trusts the player to be able to think for themselves and carry out their own actions. From a shooting perspective (and ignoring most of the game) you can set a quest pointer pointing at whatever objective if you want, but the game doesn’t care if you take a roundabout path, get a better position, try to do things stealthily or just go guns blazing. It doesn’t stop you from getting the best angle on a situation and an environment.

      There’s loads of other reasons why CoP is awesome (and if we’re honest, its gunplay doesn’t really have as much kinetic *kick* to it, being grounded in slighly more realism and much less scripted encounters), but as a shooter, I think the main thing that Call of Duty could learn is to trust the player and allow them some actual leeway.

    • subedii says:

      Also with regards to co-op, the greatest travesty about Crysis is that they didn’t have a co-op mode, and instead opted for their own take on Battlefield multiplayer instead. Which never took off.

      Because the free-roaming levels of Crysis with their massive bases and roaming patrols are practically begging to be co-oped. Two player co-op in that game would have been phenomenal.

      I’m still surprised that not only did they not do co-op with Crysis, but that they aren’t even putting it into the sequel. Granted, the sequel may end up being more linear, but still, even what they’ve shown so far seemed open enough to support the idea.

  21. Chizu says:

    It runs fine on my system in singleplayer without a hitch.
    Had some fun with that. Some ridiculousness in there which I like.

    Played a little MP, I didn’t buy it for the MP, but its okay. It freezes from time to time. Usually long enough for it to recover just in time for me to die.
    ALOT of people on the server I was playing on were complaining about lag and low framerates. I had no issue with the framerates besides the freezes every now and again.

  22. coldwave says:

    Underbarrel Nuke Launcher

    This is retarded.

  23. Leelad says:

    What i’m looking forward to most is laughing at the idiots who pay £10 for the 4 maps for multiplayer in 2 months time.

    No i’m not buying it. Treyarch….

    Plus £40 for a PC game? No thanks, love.

  24. sacred_flame101 says:

    I think ill stick with 007 Goldeneye. Much more fun than this game looks

  25. Artist says:

    Lol, devs made a mistake – the real numbers are 4 – 8 – 15 – 16 – 23 – 42, as everybody should know! (Repeat them at least 100 times and you will understand…)

  26. duke of chutney says:

    i havnt bought a COD game since 1.

    im curious as to how they’ve done such a sucessful job of over hyping their games, i played cod 4, and thought wow, this is cod1, and i played modern warfare 1, it has very high production values and cinematics but i agree with many of the sentiments above.

    what i mean by hype is, the bbc are running an article on it, how did cod manage to get to this status, by selling alot i suppose.

    I read a news paper article on it, and the main thing the devs had to say about their game is……. that they had a cool reload animation, cos they hired an ex ruski sf and he did the motion capture for them, a one handed pistol reload. If you had a press release what would be the most important thing you wanted to say about your game? Reloading looks cool….

    I saw a similar thing in a conference vid before both Halo 3 and Far Cry 2, In the halo vid the main point was that you could take screen shots and build custom maps in mplayer, and in farcry, you could set fire to stuff and there was no hud.

    how come these devs have nothing worth while to say about their game, and yet get max press coverage?

  27. wvanh says:

    I have a job, I have the disposable income, I want to support gaming regardless of who develops the games and what they decide to charge for it. I’m genuinely interested in what Treyarch can do now that they got a shot at blank check development, so I preordered on steam and kept an open mind.

    Pre load worked fine. I could play it this morning when I woke up. I played pretty much exactly the bit in the video. It ran fine on my PC (admittedly the specs are pretty high end) and didn’t seem buggy or anything, the first 15 minutes didn’t have any mind blowing set pieces, but then the first 15 minutes of modern warfare were spent in the tutorial so no complaints from me there.

    All the pre-emptive whinging about the price, campaign length, or what features it may or may not have compared to either its predecessors or -insert your personal benchmark of excellence here- is ridiculous. Seems to me that if you buy all your games based on bullet points, and go into them with a checklist of everything everyone else did better or cheaper you’re gonna have a lot less fun playing the game regardless.

    • mondomau says:

      Oh man. Ok, I’ll bite –
      I have a job, I have disposable income. I spend between £50-60 (min) a month on indie and ‘big’ titles on various formats. I want to support the game industry by supporting developers that contribute to the advancement of the medium, not mindlessly throw money at a game without ascertaining if it’s worth my money or not.
      So far, I don’t like what I see – It seems to be another generic military FPS (albeit a very pretty and apparently well-executed one) with a lot of the things I like about military FPSes cut out. It’ll do very well, I’m sure but I’m not sure it’s worth my money. Especially not £40 of it for what has been rumoured to be a shoddy port. That’s not entitlement, that’s being discerning.
      I’m not whinging, neither am I being a snarky douchebag. I’m stating a fact. If something happens to make me change my mind and buy this game, I’ll do so with a minimum of fuss.
      Probably not for £40 though. That’s a price point Activision (see, not treyarch? ) can stick up their arses.

  28. l1ddl3monkey says:

    Won’t be buying it. Didn’t buy the last Modern Warfare or Medal of Honour game, not going to buy this. Bored of generic woo-haa military might is right generic terrorist massacre simulators and I already know that anything that console players queue up at midnight to buy is going to bore me to tears.

    • Subject 706 says:

      Word. Great minds think alike.

    • Huh says:

      And who are you, again?

    • Jad says:

      Maybe I should just go onto every RPS post about a racing game and inform everyone how I won’t be buying the game, throw in a couple of insults at the genre and console players, and then move on. I could also do this for any simulation game, every RTS, and anything else I don’t like. That would be fun! Everyone would be dying for my informative comments! Oh man, a racing game! Will Jad like it? Nope, ha ha, he doesn’t! What a wonderful guy, letting us all know his personal dislikes with no actual informed commentary! Hooray!

    • DrGonzo says:

      That logic is fail. That is saying, you should comment on all racing games as you don’t like the genre. He was simply saying he finds like particular game to be a bit boring and generic, but I’m guessing he does like the FPS genre itself.

      It sounds like your either insecure about your choice in games, or you’ve just got pissed off at the overwhelming amount of COD is shit posts in this comments thread. But that really is to be expected when it’s an article about COD on RPS.

      On another note, I’m starting to feel like a crazy person talking about fish, and fish poo.

  29. SLeigher says:

    Having finished the single player, i have to say the story, while easier to follow, is nowhere near as interesting as mw2, very predictable and just as we’re building up to the end you get sort of separated from the main character who you’ve been for the entire game so suddenly all the personal connection is lost just at the pivotal moment, treyarch have little to no idea what they’re doing with the story in my opinion.

    Also, I don’t know about anyone else but i hate the vehicle missions, they take a very linear game already and turn it into an onrails shooter where you can barely see what you’re shooting at. Just leave vehicles to battlefield next time.

    the game’s still fun but there are just no moments that shock and delight you like both modern warfares are full of

  30. bleeters says:

    It’s good to see you’re provided a constant UI reminder to follow your squad. Wouldn’t want the player demonstrating any independant thought or trying to open a door themselves.

  31. Flappybat says:

    Wow lots of complaints. The single player is duff no doubt about it, better than MW2 at least but the multiplayer is great if it is your cup of tea. With the dedicated servers, maps full of dynamic props and all the improvements to classes and kill streaks it does feel like a good step up from MW2.

    Shame about the crippling client freezing bug only in multiplayer.

  32. cliffski says:

    I have an unopened copy on my desk right now, and I’m debugging instead. I pretty much define the whole concept of WILLPOWER right now.

    • Gaytard Fondue says:

      Yeah, I couldn’t bare it. The urge to throw it in the next incinerator would win

    • cliffski says:

      I played a bit of singleplayer, but it just depressed me. I was maybe in control of the game about 50% of the time, and even then, its mostly scripetd bits where you can aim anywhere and press fire, and a motobike explodes.
      Unskippable cutscenes finally pushed me over the edge, and I quit playing.
      The multiplayer is mroe fun, but tbh, the multi in COD:4 was much much better, elss laggy and much betetr graphcis. How can a newer engien look worse?
      I can’t say I recommend it, and I’m a massive COD 2 and 4 fan.

  33. Geography says:

    It would appear that Malta and the Isle of Man have both had their timers pushed back to the same as the US (which is what, 4-5 hours from now or something like that?).

    Good job at Geography there, Valve.

    It’s worth noting that both these timers were correct before the 10hour addition to the timer yesterday morning.

    • Premium User Badge

      Rinox says:

      Those damned Maltese, always getting games ahead of everyone else!

  34. Red Scharlach says:

    Not even Zork can save this game.

  35. Graham says:

    Oh man. Through that whole video I was pretty bored, but kept watching because I wanted to see how the squad would fail to kill Castro. And then they shot his head in slow-mo.

    So I wonder: will the game reveal that they killed a look-alike? Or will the game claim that the Castro we know is a double? Or does it simply take place in an alternate dimension where America always wins?

  36. Hideous says:

    Guys. This is the best CoD yet: http://i.imgur.com/DjNID.png

  37. Premium User Badge

    oceanclub says:

    I bought Modern Warfare 2 yesterday (now available at €22). I’m officially one year behind the zeitgeist.

    • Ted says:

      dude, Lots of people have varying opinions, but you just wasted your money.
      the MP is stupidly imbalanced, containing so many things that basically just made to piss people whom can shoot bullets off. (hell, people whom are good at MW2 hate it, see youtube) add to that inferior SP (shorter, linear-er) and inferior Co-op (some special missions, only 1 is actually cool) to W@W(with its co-op campaign AND fascist undead) and you seriously wasted that money.
      you should have skipped it.

    • Premium User Badge

      oceanclub says:

      “Lots of people have varying opinions, but you just wasted your money.”

      Possibly! I just felt like playing a dumb shooter after a lot of RPGs lately, and when Gamestracker displayed the price drop, I thought “what the hell” and made an impulse buy. I got my €10 worth of fun from COD4 playing the multiplayer which I found quite moreish until one day I just stopping playing it (never did finish the SP part). I may end up regretting it and instead finally getting around to finishing the Fear 1 trilogy…

      P.

  38. Al3xand3r says:

    The multiplayer is what fans want as usual, Counter-Strike on steroids with level ups and all that stuff, but the single player is trash, again as usual, although much more so than MW and MW2 (I actually had fun with especially the first MW’s single player honestly). And it’s very unpolished and all around janky, it just doesn’t feel right. This game doesn’t even look great on PC, here are a few early screens I took with max settings on DX10 hardware, although I didn’t tweak AA yet due to the performance reasons stated by others.

    http://img101.imageshack.us/slideshow/webplayer.php?id=blackops201011091721197.jpg

    Although this has nothing to do with it being a console shooter folks, I’m just out of playing GoldenEye 007 on Wii and single player wise it’s a far superior game with fun stealth vs action balance, good adaptive AI which reminds of F.E.A.R. as they roll and dive to cover, flank you, and don’t just aimbot and grenade spam (outside a few bugs that occur here and there) and fun level design that’s usually not just a straight line and has some verticality to it. You can even play without regenerating health.

    Although certain levels and sections do take after COD (it’s a movie game after all, despite the changes, so some scripted scenes are a must to convey the story), it’s not the majority, and I never noticed it using spawning enemies and other such crap (other than reinforcements being called when you fuck up your stealth attempts). Even in the full action segments the AI tends to drop in by crashing windows, ceilings, etc, not just respawning out of your view until you hit a trigger that goes past that segment and stops the waves. The multiplayer part however is very COD-like which is a shame.

  39. Vodkarn says:

    “However, the first MW has some of the best scripted moments in any shooter I’ve ever played…”
    My favourite scripted sequences were when I got around their triggers and managed to spawn an enemy on top of my head, or the clown-car 6×10 foot rooms that infinitely spawned enemies until you walked to a certain point, or the circling helicopter that always had a new man on the turret gun, no matter how many people you shot out of it (47, in my case).

    Yes, those were amazing design achievements.

    • Pony Canyon says:

      Someone comments on how they enjoyed the scripted sequences of COD4:MW. You reply with a comment not about the scripted sequences of COD4:MW.

      What exactly is your point?

    • bleeters says:

      I remember the circling-helicopter-with-infinite-crew part from Modern Warfare 1, myself. The rest seems equally applicable.

  40. noobnob says:

    Been watching a bit of multiplayer, and it’s not Explosives of Duty: Grenade Warfare all over again…yet.

  41. Kevin says:

    Decided to go against my gut and grab this last night at the packed launch party at the local Best Buy. The single player is fantastic – but I’m giving it props because I like the setting so much and not that its groundbreaking or innovative. The framing device, the trippy visuals, the trip through the 60’s Pentegon -fantastic. I haven’t finished it, though at this point, a few hours in, i have a good idea of what is going on.

    Essentially the single player is a cold-war spy story (many of the cliches well in hand) told with a modern aesthetic. What If Tom Clancey wrote James Bond. While the game is the same, its trying something new and it pays off to fans of the era.

    OTOH, the multiplayer is a broken lagfest, and performance is all over the place in single-player.

  42. Premium User Badge

    Sagan says:

    As with any Call of Duty, I’m a little interested in this. I mean, every now and then all you want is just shoot a lot without worrying too much about challenge or choices. And who doesn’t like a game that so obviously had a lot of money thrown at it?

    The problem of course is, that this just isn’t interesting enough to warrant full price. For me this falls in the same category as stupid-but-fun Zombie Shooter. Except that one costs 5$.

    If I pay full price for a game nowadays it has to offer something substantially new. Or be made by Blizzard or Bioware.