COD:BLOPS First Strike Images, No PC Date


While there’s still no official date for the PC release of COD: Black Op’s first DLC, First Strike, images of it have finally appeared. The 360 gets the content tomorrow, while us second class citizens must wait in confused sadness that we bought the wrong Microsoft product to win their approval. But it is coming to PC, and it was the biggest selling games of last year. Some of you bought it. Admit it. So you’re probably interested to see what’s happening with the new content. Which is five new maps, three relatively traditional, one set against a hockey stadium, and another giving you another reason to play as a zombie. I’ve put the better images (i.e. the ones that aren’t of empty scenery) below.

And here’s a trailer of the new bits and bobs:


  1. pakoito says:


  2. Jetsetlemming says:

    Why is there a registered symbol in the tag for the game, that’s weird. Also those screenshots look bland, like there’s little color depth or something. Maybe just because it’s been a bit since I last played a super desaturated modern AAA title because I no longer have a “next-gen” console in my house.

    • JonWood says:

      I assume it’s because content from RPS is syndicated in Steam, which will be looking up news of games based on the tag name, which needs to match the name that they use for it. In the case of COD:BLOPS, that will include the ® symbol after Call of Duty.

    • ZenArcade says:

      Wow man. I wish I was as hardcore and nerd-indie as you are with your PC master-race attitude! /sarcasm

      Saying that though, I too don’t really care about the next bland-as-all-hell DLC being pumped out. Everyone will buy it, everyone will play it, meh. Huge shrug. All I see is another corporate gimmick, frankly.

  3. Phoshi says:

    I like the way I can’t tell any of those screenshots apart because they all look exactly the same.

    • westyfield says:

      I did a double- then triple-take scrolling through those pictures – I thought it was John having a joke: “haha these pictures all look the same, here’s the same three images over and over”

  4. My2CENTS says:

    Do not care. You can take seriously a shooter when 13 year old are allowed to play it.

  5. Rinox says:

    That zipline…is gonna see a lot of campers.

  6. GT3000 says:

    Cosmochimps! Also it seems like the RPS readerbase is so bitter over CoD, for whatever reason. I swear if it isn’t an indie title it seems like you guys are sucking on sour grapes.

    • Greg Wild says:

      I’m less bitter, more puzzled. How does the same battered old formula keep shifting copies? The only conclusion I can reach is that people have no taste.

    • GT3000 says:

      Same reason people buy McDonald’s day in and day out. It’s relatively good bargain for the buck if at the expense of eating competently. The difference here is that most of the RPS base has and does play much like they have and do shovel cheeseburgers into their maws.

    • Teddy Leach says:

      I’m proud to say that I wouldn’t eat at McD’s or play a CoD-style manshoot even if you paid me to do so. We are simply used to better things that the same tired old formula that makes far more money than it should.

    • Gepetto says:

      Also, CODBLOPS is the sort of game for which you would buy a consolethingy. RPS is a PC site.

    • Schmitzkater says:

      I think your McDonald’s comparison is a bit gimped, since whenever I go to eat there it is pretty fast, yes, but it’s also pretty CHEAP.
      And I can’t really remember a time that BLOPS or anything surrounding it was in any way cheap. Other than it’s gameplay.

    • pakoito says:


      CODBLOPS is far and away more expensive than any other FPS you can play on PC. It’s McDonals with Chez Lui prices.

      “And I can’t really remember a time that BLOPS or anything surrounding it was in any way cheap. Other than it’s gameplay.”

      Heck, even COD:MW1/2 are still expensive.

    • Doesntmeananything says:

      Why would you specifically buy a console for this game? At its core it’s a primitive FPS – you run, you shoot. I don’t see how any platform is much more suitable for this sort of game, and PC has even a bit of advantage with better controls.

    • GT3000 says:

      You guys are missing the forest for the trees. The operative statement was “bang for the buck.” Anyone buying CoD for anything other than the competitive multiplayer aspect should be summarily executed. It’s like going to McD’s and buying a salad. You’re missing the entire point. That said if you’re buying it for the competitive multiplayer aspect then you’re getting your money’s worth. As running through their progression system takes at least a few dozen hours to complete, more so if you’re a whore for funny little icons next to your name.

    • pakoito says:

      Call of Duty saga prices as of RIGHT NOW: link to

      “Anyone buying CoD for anything other than the competitive multiplayer aspect should be summarily executed.”

      ¿Competitive? it’s more imbalanced, casualized and less fitted for tournaments than Team Fortress 2 for heck’s sake. To play competitive we have Quake Live or Counter-Strike.

    • Gepetto says:

      It’s not that you would SPECIFICALLY buy a console for this, just that the game is primarily developed for consoles. There are many, better FPS’ for the PC, of which a large number were developed with the PC primarily in mind, rather than as an afterthought.

      Also, It’s priced like a console game.

    • Doesntmeananything says:


      So you’re completely shifting away from your previous point.

      Okay, let’s say it does have that console taste. How does it make it a many-times worse PC game?

      And care to name those “many, better FPSs…which were developed with the PC primarily in mind”? Which were released in the recent years, of course.

      Also, don’t see how its price-tag is relevant in this case. If it’s priced like a console game, you would buy a console for it? Now I just genuinely can’t understand what you were trying to convey in your first statement.

    • Gepetto says:


      Of course the price tag is relevent. £40 for a PC game on release is £10-£15 above average. What do you get for your large outlay? An average, short single player element, with so many cut scenes and suchlike that it reminded me (almost) of Dragons Lair.

      As for the multiplayer, It’s easily inferior to TF2, Counter-strike BF2 etc…..

      Why restrict youself to playing great FPS’ (or games of any genre) “from recent years”? One of the great strengths of the PC is in things like

      Not that I’m suggesting that CODBLOPS is an awful game or anything, just that if you pay significantly above-average price for something, you’d expect to get something of an significantly above-average quality.

    • Mattressi says:

      GT3000, if you’re buying it for the ‘competitive’ multiplayer and thinking you’ve got good bang for your buck, you obviously haven’t played many multiplayer titles. BC2 was actually a pretty decent game (certainly far better than CODBLOPS and MW2!), TF2 is a great multiplayer game, Red Orchestra is a very fun and engaging multiplayer game, the ARMA series are great multiplayer games too (and as a novel bonus, have a SP campaign that doesn’t suck balls and hold your hand through it!). Feel like something different? Why not Mount and Blade Warband (especially with the CRPG mod) for some very immersive, engaging and unique combat mechanics. Maybe one of the many innovative HL2 multiplayer mods (just so you know, a mod is user created content for games that don’t have wankers for publishers). All of these games cost less than BLOPS and all are significantly better IMO.

      But hey, if you like BLOPS, that’s fine. Just letting you know why so many people here don’t fawn over the latest rehash excreted from Activision.

    • GT3000 says:


      You’re assuming I don’t haven’t played any of those games. I’m certainly not fawning over Activision’s product but I certainly don’t despise it’s existence as an affront to the good name of PC Gaming when there are clearly more pressing malarkey to address like Ubisoft’s backasswards DRM and on-disc DLC being charged for. Just trying to be the voice of reason, people forget that those who don’t enjoy BLOPS are the in vast minority, usually trying to compensate with some elitism complex. It’s a fun shooter that doesn’t try to shatter any established order. Nothing wrong with that. It isn’t evil made manifest.

    • Phinor says:

      I’d like to know what this “better than CoD” shooter is on PC. Mind you, gameplay-wise it has to be rather close to what CoD is or the comparison is not valid (ie. BF/2BC2 are great, but they literally are not of the same (sub)-genre as CoD is). I’d also like if that game which I’ve not heard of has new content available once a year or so; I don’t mind if it costs me. Enough players & dedicated servers are a given, obviously. So what is this mythical game?

      I know CS/CSS are almost like CoD but.. they are not, at all. TF2 is way different as is ARMA and Red Orchestra. Are there others out there?

    • pakoito says:

      Bobby Kotick will be here in a moment to tell you what to play, no worries ;)

    • DoucheMullet says:


      The reason it bothers us so, is because all it causes is for other developers to look at CoD’s success and jump on the bandwagon, making generic modern military shooter #2456632. It happened with WWII and now it is happening with “Modern Warfare” They also love to rip off CoD’s MP. I’m so sick and tired of buying a multiplayer game these days and seeing how I have to grind for XP to unlock equipment. It all just becomes so stale. The reason why RPS loves indie games so much, is because unfortunately, indie games are the only ones actually trying to innovate these days. Also, Modern Warfare 2 was the first to charge $60 for a PC title, inspiring other greedy developers like Ubisoft to follow suit. And as long as they do shit like charge $15 for awful map packs, developers will always want a piece of the pie.

  7. Flappybat says:

    Death to pay for maps for FPS games.

    It fractures the playerbase.
    It usually prevents modding and custom maps.
    It only exists to pad the wallets of the publisher whilst the games remain relatively unpatched.

    The PC Gamer review of Black Ops was the only one that reflected my experience with the game.

    • omicron1 says:

      Most review sites are only going to review the game once, no matter how many platforms it comes out on. And most sites will play it on 360/PS3, as that’s their core audience. If anything is said about the specific platform, it’s at most a short “impressions” blurb. Thus, only the PC-focused websites (like PC gamer) will actually give a valid review of the PC version.

  8. Greg Wild says:

    Men! With guns! IN THE SNOW!

    Where do they come up with this increasing innovation?

  9. President Weasel says:

    I’m bitter over CODBLOPS because it worked quite well on my PC (in a generic, but fairly well crafted way) until they released a patch which made it unplayable and then abandoned it.
    This is one of the rare occasions when I am actually, genuinely, bitter about something on the internet. Can’t use the game, can’t sell the game, feel anger that they took my money and so many other people’s and didn’t give enough of a shit to actually fix the problems in their game.

    So I shan’t be giving them any money for their DLC.

  10. Kid_A says:

    Will this DLC contain a patch to finally fix the imperfect hitboxes, stuttery multiplayer and general lag issues a pretty large chunk of the playerbase on PC are having, though?
    I genuinely got excited when I saw this was patching itself a few nights ago, only to be disappointed to see that instead of fixing the multiplayer, Treyarch had just patched something to the effect of “some users getting stuttering sound in SP”. It’s not like this is the 360, where you have to pay for every patch to go through verification before it goes on Live…

    • Ringwraith says:

      How recently have you played it? As currently I only get no real issues other than it randomly freezing up sometimes. None of the people I play with have any problems with it any more either, and one of them should have by all rights quite a bit of lag, considering how far away he is, yet doesn’t have any real problems with it either.

    • Kid_A says:

      Last night would seem pretty recent, no? There’s still a fair chunk of people who are having issues. Oh, and while I’m here: respawns, especially in TDM, especially on Nuketown, Array and occasionally WMD. Lost track of the number of times I’ve respawned only to die instantly to someone overlooking the point with a Stoner or L96 aimed right at me.

  11. Brumisator says:

    After so many of us were ripping our hair out as to “WHY WHY OH WHY are people paying 15 currency for a F#%& CoD:MW2 map pack, and why is it the best selling thing this month on Steam?” maybe it’s best this doesn’t come out on PC. For our blood pressure.

  12. fionny says:

    Im sad to say it but im probably gonna have to get this, I play alot of the multiplayer which like Activ-Rip-Off Merchants or not is a good fun game.

    Thats not to say that this profiteering is right in any way shape or form. I think all PC players should get the map pack free as compo for the rubbish code that it launched with.

  13. faelnor says:

    Or, for the same price, you could buy Blood 1 and 2 including all their expansions and still have some money to buy (first price) one loaf of bread, one tuna can, one tube of mayonnaise, 1L of bottled water and a small box of cookies.

  14. Jimmeh says:

    If the original Modern Warfare (CoD4?) received half the community support as TF2 with the addition of new weapons and maps (and hats!) it had the potential to be a long-term multiplayer success. As it is, there are already two money-grabbing sequels in the works on any given release day.

    I’m sorry to say I paid money for BLOPS. What I got were the same reused assets and tired textures I bought three years ago. I wasn’t expecting the moon on a stick, but the fact that it still isn’t playable to a satisfactory standard online has left me, and I imagine a lot of others here, with a very sour after-taste.

  15. SLeigher says:

    intelligence is spelt wrong in the video, pretty much sums up cod blops to me

    • Navagon says:

      To be fair, it’s intentional. Trading Standards says they’re not allowed to use the word “intelligence” in relation to CODBLOPS.

  16. SLeigher says:


  17. Ravenger says:

    The last patch fixed the stuttery performance for me, but it took them so long to fix the issues that I’ve lost all interest in the game in the intervening time.

    I’ll never forget booting the single player for the first time and seeing the game lag like a multiplayer game with a 1000ms ping. That’s on a home-built PC that eats Crysis for breakfast and finishes off with a large course of Bad Company 2 for lunch. By comparison CODBLOPS gave my PC indigestion.

    • neems says:

      Can I ask what your system specs are?

    • Ravenger says:

      i5 760 @ stock, 4GB DDR3 @ 1333, GTX 460 1gb @ 800mhz, X-Fi sound card.

      Prior to the last patch online was really stuttery – mainly when weapons were firing for the first time – possibly a sound caching issue. Now it runs much smoother, and doesn’t lag when an opposing player shoots at me for the first time.

      I’m running Crysis max detail 1680×1050 (no AA) at around 50fps. Same for Bad Company 2, but with 4xAA. Less demanding games run at a constant 60fps with vsync enabled.

    • neems says:

      Cheers. I was curious because I know a lot of people playing BO, and more than a few of them aren’t happy with their performance, especially with shadows turned on. It seems to me that CPU speed is a factor – I know 2 people who had c2q 6600s, somebody else with a 2.8GHz c2q and somebody with a 2.8GHz AMD Hex-core, all having problems with frame rate dips. Somebody else with a core 2 duo at 4Ghz, no problems at all. Core i7 at 3.8 no problems, i5 at 4 no problems.

      It’s my pet project at the moment, looking at cpu performance in multi-platform games. I reckon a lot of recent console ports need pretty fast processors to get decent frame rates – architecture / efficiency seems to be less important than outright clock speed, and for the most part more than 2 cores doesn’t seem to help.

  18. neems says:

    For a lot of people, simply the fact that it has dedicated servers makes it an instant improvement over MW2. Plus an actual working console, and even match configs and fast restarts!

    A lot of fps clans basically buy into any new shooter that comes along that plays half decently and caters for match play to some extent. Black Ops certainly isn’t perfect in that respect – in particular the levelling system is slightly awkward in respect to match play (“No don’t prestige you idiot – we have a match tonight!”).

    DLC is a bit of a funny one, as I generally don’t buy DLC for anything, and with these sorts of games it can split the community – any server that runs the downloadable maps will essentially be verboten for people without them. On MW2 they had a seperate playlist for the dlc packs, but that won’t work in a dedicated server set-up. It also remains to be seen what the leagues will do, although I imagine they would either ignore the dlc or set up entirely seperate leagues / ladders.

    • pakoito says:

      Leagues? ladders? the game is only 6 months away from dying….what’s the point?

    • fionny says:

      Ahh now I see why you attacked my grammar and spelling earlier Pakoito… seems you are a troll who attacks comments which support what all in all is a reasonably good game now they’ve patched out the majority of the bugs.

      Again I will say don’t think the profiteering is good or healthy but the game is fun and that the purpose of a game.

    • rayne117 says:

      I’d assume if you took a fun game from 2007, and changed NOTHING about for 3 games, the original amount of fun will still be there if not a little stale.

      Hope you like CoD because as long as you keep buying each installment you’ll be playing CoD: Russian Invasion of a Mountain (and $20 DLC packs because Activision figures if you are stupid enough to pay $15 they might as well round it up to $20) by 2015.

    • fionny says:


      As opposed to what? Batlefield games just throwing the same rubbish then rinse and repeat? All the FPS’s are at it, I just prefer COD to BF so fucken sue me.

  19. neems says:

    To play, compete, have a laugh with my mates? I’ll probably be dead in 40 years, why do I bother doing anything?

    Not that it necessarily takes 6 months to run a league.

  20. Basilicus says:

    Still playing Day of Defeat: Source.

    Haven’t found a CoD game that matches up for teamwork, accessibility, or cleverly asymmetric level design. Miss the Bren, though.

    • Sigh says:

      That is a great game and is most deserving of an update. I have a lot of fond memories from DoD:S.

  21. Sigh says:

    I find it strange that RPS readers spew acidic, tiresome, repetitive comments at CoD:BLOPS and criticize paying for maps yet prostrate themselves on the ground before Team Fortress 2.

    Personally, I find paying for 300-400 pixels that represent a hat more loathsome than paying for a map pack. Yes the map packs should be free and yes CoD games retail higher than most PC games on release, and Yes TF2 normally retails for a third of the cost of most AAA PC games. The micropayments and monetizing of TF2 concerns me more than paying for map packs and makes me truly worry about the future of PC gaming.

    I do cringe a little every time I pay for a map for an FPS game, but I would throw up in my mouth and gag on that bile if I started paying for cosmetic changes to my character especially when a given hat or gun costs as much as one map for CoD. In terms of the pixel/texture/geometry-to-money ratio a map seems so much more reasonable.

    • fionny says:

      Firstly I like and play BLOP’s.

      But on the TF2 attack, the hats are totally optional and you can get loads of them free… if someone wants to pay for a hat let them…. lets face it I think tf2 is the best value game i ever bought in terms of play time constant new content etc… I personally have only ever payed for it once.

    • pakoito says:

      We have a gallow for those RPSers who paid for hats. Do you remember Tei? he bought a ninja mask.

    • CMaster says:

      While I’d agree that the hate for both CoD (I don’t care, but I don’t quite get the passion) and DLC (I think it’s a great idea, often done badly. A lot of the hate seems to be under the misguided idea that we “used to get it for free”) around RPS seems a bit excessive, your point is kinda underminded on two levels:
      One: Lots of RPS commentators are/were very unhappy about cash for items in TF2
      Two: TF2 gives out new maps for free every few months

    • Sigh says:

      “the hats are totally optional and you can get loads of them free…”

      …By doing the cartoony grind. The very same attack leveraged against CoD:BLOPS minus the cartoony part.

    • Rinox says:

      Only the OCD kids ‘grind’ for virtual hats. I have played 300 hours of TF2 over the years and not a single of them I was thinking ‘maybe I should play a little longer for potential hat drops’. There is no grinding unless you want to.

      It’s always the same when people hate on TF2’s hats. They’re not really pissed at the system, they’re just pissed they can’t get them all. Cause if you do, yes, you’ll have to grind or pay. But if someone can’t see the silliness of wanting all the virtual hats, then they deserve to go to grinding micropayment hell, frankly.

    • Doesntmeananything says:

      Indeed, it is not fair to compare gameplay changing and shaping content such as maps with innocuous one such as cosmetic additions. And grind in pristine, i.e. sans RPG elements online shooters isn’t like grind in MMORPGs, for instance. In both TF2 and CoD it’s almost impossible to discern the difference between grinding and ‘normal’ gameplay. Ultimately, you just play the game, while your general goal may be like ‘getting two engineer weapons’ or just ‘having fun’, with no effect on the actual style of playing.

    • Sigh says:

      “…it is not fair to compare gameplay changing and shaping content such as maps with innocuous one such as cosmetic additions.”

      It is fair when both things are digital DLC and cost roughly the same price. As a consumer I am weighing the impact of my money.

      Though I do think you make some good points and I modified my post below to reflect that.

    • Misnomer says:

      I play TF2 quite often and the grind I hate now is the one required to get all weapons. I will admit that I did marathon grinds to get all the stuff in the Medic, Pyro….updates when there were achievements. Even that was better than this where it may take me months to get a brass beast. A fair number of the new weapons I have gotten have even been from trading. I want to play the game, not kill time on trading servers, so I only trade on the server where I am currently in game. Never through forum links or anything.

      Screw the hats, I just want access to all the mechanics other people can use to kill me. TF2 has put obnoxious crafting prices in to encourage buying items from the store and the grind to get the items from a random drop is huge. I don’t idle. So yes, consider me another pissed TF2 player ever since the Mann Co. update.

      I would rather have no new weapons added than weapons I can’t access due to randomness. COD DLC is hardly as annoying in this regard.

    • Sigh says:

      Ahhhh Misnomer good points. I completely forgot about the hundred of TF2 servers set up specifically to grind for achievements and items. I know, only a fraction of the community, but it exists.

  22. Alexander Norris says:

    With any luck, the 360 exclusive means Treyarch will do exactly what they did with WaW — i.e. offer us the maps for free.

    I certainly have no interest in paying for map packs. :/

  23. Sigh says:

    “…your point is kinda underminded on two levels:
    One: Lots of RPS commentators are/were very unhappy about cash for items in TF2
    Two: TF2 gives out new maps for free every few months”


    My point still stands. Yes some RPS readers were upset about the micropayment introduction, but I don’t see them writing “/care” and filling the comment threads after TF2 post with vitriol. The phenomenon with CoD here really mystifies me. It is like people are angry about something else in their lives but feel satiated by directing that anger at the perennial whipping boy of CoD.

    Yes TF2 still gets loads of free content and I admire Valve for providing that…the new maps being the most generous. However the other content is sort of locked behind a well disguised form of grind though this time it doesn’t happen in military-industrial complexes and snowy bases it just happens in a Saturday morning cartoon environment, but it is still grind.

    EDIT: In response to Doesntmeananything I think your statement is fair. I am emphasizing grind here because that and the brownish textures seem to be the most absurd criticisms aimed at CoD here on RPS. I am just responding to those silly comments. In terms of unlocking items, hats, guns, etc. TF2 is no different than CoD it is just that CoD wraps it all up in an aesthetic package of “unlocks” based on level and XP while TF2 disguises their content drip-feed as random drops spread out over a given timeline. Players can be either actively conscious and engaged with the process or just play the game…imagine that.

    You mention the reaction to DLC one must pay for here on RPS. I too think the reaction is perhaps not fully defensible even though I articulated one form of that in my post. Developers should be able to sell DLC and I am fine with weighing my options as a consumer and I often purchase DLC that seems reasonable and worthwhile.

    • CMaster says:

      You don’t?
      Every TF2 post I see has a bunch of “it was good till they ruined it with hats” posts after it. See the first comment here, or any other TF2 post
      I wouldn’t try and argue about TF2 or CoD being more or less grindy – the former isn’t – the game is fun with the starter weapons and all key class abilities available, the latter I haven’t tried, although I suspect it is much the same.
      I was merely tying to say that I don’t think you can suggest Valve are offering worse value in the form of hats, where they are providing actual game changing content in the form of maps, which buying as many CoD maps would probably cost you enough cash to buy every damn item from the Mann Co store.

      As an aside, I don’t really play TF2 any more. As with a lot of FPSes, I’ve had my fun and am now kinda tired of it, made worse by the fact that I’m out of practice. I don’t feel at all that all the extra guff has harmed the game, although it has made it more confusing and I think that stuff like bleed effects were a very bad idea (gets rid of the supposed goal for it always to be clear how and why you died). I do however dislike the constant string of changes to make rocket/sticky jumping easier that have left it so that a soldier can blast you point blank in the face and take almost no damage themselves, screwing a lot of my favourite tactics for dealing with them. (Eg Pyro pretty much has to fight Soldiers by reflecting rockets only – getting close he’ll still lose and Scouts can’t get up close with the bat any more).

    • Sigh says:


      Fair enough. I actually think that I agree with many of your points. I will not argue that the cost of the CoD map packs is a bit absurd given the retail value of the base game. However, TF2 does provide game-changing content that players need to pay for or grind for in the form of guns and new mechanics tied to guns or equipment combinations as someone was complaining about a little earlier up in the thread. Yes Map packs the CoD community is split or fractured on different servers. With TF2 some players have specific equipment combos that grant them bonuses or alternative mechanics and they either bought them or played some obscene amount of hours to unlock them. Those players are on the very same server as a new player using the base equipment/mechanics. I know that occurs with CoD as well with level 1 players facing off against level 53 players, but at least the level 1 players have a clear road map as to how to acquire the same equipment/mechanics as the level 53 player.

      I don’t even want my position to become a TF2 vs. CoD diatribe as it has become. My main point is that the RPS comments following a CoD post are tiresome and lazy and many of their criticisms can be just as easily directed at games that are (somewhat) more beloved by the community here. If people want to apply a particular criticism, fine just do so equally across the gamut of games.

  24. Paravel says:

    I am laughing, a lot, that they are releasing DLC while still patching a soon-to-be-playable release title. Bwahahahahahhaa!

  25. terry says:

    Oh man! The return of “guy firing gun while nonchalantly looking elsewhere” cover art. It’s been a long time.

  26. Kakrafoon says:

    I can proudly say that I saved three fellow players from the terrible fate that is CoDBlops and its soulless predecessors and showed them the awesomeness that is Bad Company 2. Now, they can’t get enough of destructible environments, squad tactics and vehicle maps, while their CoD games grow mouldy in a ditch somewhere, and they are looking forward to Battlefield 3!

  27. Bungle says:

    The PC will get the DLC right after Treyarch delivers the mod tools they promised. Right? Right…?

  28. Zogtee says:

    I’m so sick and tired of the snobbish and predictable “omg people play shite like this hahaha”. You didn’t like it? Fine, who the fuck cares?

  29. loshon says:

    I pre-ordered it, had fun with it after they patched it to a semi-working state, then went back to the shenanigan-filled fun that is MW2.