963 replies to this topic

[BillyChaka]

aren't you overthinking it a little bit? the game just came out. there are plenty of setups people can do well with. i think it's a little early to say "FAMAS > everything." i think your views are a little extreme when it comes to weapon balance. shotguns are fine,, you just need to play more cautiously and sneak around. you can get good one shot kills with shotguns, especially the stakeout.

i don't see how you can think that the balance is even worse in this game than in modern warfare 2. there's a much greater variety of weapons and perks now than there ever was, and that's not just because the game just came out. since stopping power and juggerjuice is out, there's so many more varieties. you can do well with a galil, you can do well with an MP5, shit, if you try hard, you can do well with an olympia. i think that's the beauty of a game like call of duty. it's that for the most part, especially in black ops, you can hold your own with the weapons you have. (edit: for example, you can keep using an M16 throughout a prestige. it doesn't become obsolete as you find more weapons, unlike say, BC2, where you earn better weapons as you rank up. you don't necessarily get better weapons in black ops, just different ones i suppose.) i mean, in MW2 all you see is assault rifles and UMPs.

and treyarch's at least promising to support this game and patch it, which is way more than i could say about infinity ward. they couldn't take out tac insertions from FFA? they couldn't limit the number of times someone switched classes from one man army? i think you're being way too hard on treyarch. this is probably the most anticipated game of the year and it's only been out for a week. chill your nutsack.

JUST SAYING

Edited by Paradise, 16 November 2010 - 04:42.

[amazin]

TBH i was pretty underwhelmed by the FAMAS, the galil and AUG are my personal choices for full auto ARs

[Stinger]

Shotguns require a greater expenditure of effort than SMGs or assault rifles. Why go to all the effort of creeping up on someone to be standing within sneezing distance when you could full auto them from across the map instead? It would be easier for me to get a Chopper Gunner with a FAMAS in many areas of the map than with an Olympia, which has a limiting playstyle. I fail to see the point of shotguns in this game.

High risk, minimal reward.

Ah well, I won't be using them again.

Paradise, on 16 Nov 2010, 4:31, said:

i think you're being way too hard on treyarch.

Treyarch deserve all the censure they get for the botched PC release, which is only borderline playable.

[Kalo]

Stinger, on 16 Nov 2010, 7:18, said:

Shotguns require a greater expenditure of effort than SMGs or assault rifles. Why go to all the effort of creeping up on someone to be standing within sneezing distance when you could full auto them from across the map instead? It would be easier for me to get a Chopper Gunner with a FAMAS in many areas of the map than with an Olympia, which has a limiting playstyle. I fail to see the point of shotguns in this game.

Because people like them.

Edit : Expanding a bit, what you say goes for all shotguns in pretty much every game. People just like them.

Edited by Kalo, 16 November 2010 - 06:45.

[Chyros]

Kalo, on 16 Nov 2010, 8:31, said:

Edit : Expanding a bit, what you say goes for all shotguns in pretty much every game.

?? Ever played MW2?

The problem is the classic Treyarch mistake of making everything in a class identical with one clear winner. All auto assault rifles basically do the same damage, for all intents and purposes, and every auto weapon in the game either fires at 750 or 938 RPM. The FAMAS just happens to have both the highest rate of fire and the least recoil, making it the best weapon. If you choose anything else, you will either get more recoil or lower rate of fire or both, so there's not really any point in any other auto weapon. And non-auto weapon fails by default because they are all weak and do not profit from damageviewkick. Sniper rifles and shotguns are useless by definition because they do not gain extra power at their intended specialty range and suffer immensely outside of it, taking away roughly 75% of your combat capability.

You can almost MATHEMATICALLY PROVE that there is no choice other than the FAMAS in the game.

[Camille]

Stinger, on 16 Nov 2010, 7:18, said:

Shotguns require a greater expenditure of effort than SMGs or assault rifles. Why go to all the effort of creeping up on someone to be standing within sneezing distance when you could full auto them from across the map instead? It would be easier for me to get a Chopper Gunner with a FAMAS in many areas of the map than with an Olympia, which has a limiting playstyle. I fail to see the point of shotguns in this game.

High risk, minimal reward.

because some people play for fun as opposed to competitively?

getting kills with a weapon that no one uses is extremely rewarding in itself, you should try it sometimes. as crazy as it may sound, some people don't play to have the absolute best score EVER obtainable in any way.

[Chyros]

Camille, on 16 Nov 2010, 9:42, said:

Stinger, on 16 Nov 2010, 7:18, said:

Shotguns require a greater expenditure of effort than SMGs or assault rifles. Why go to all the effort of creeping up on someone to be standing within sneezing distance when you could full auto them from across the map instead? It would be easier for me to get a Chopper Gunner with a FAMAS in many areas of the map than with an Olympia, which has a limiting playstyle. I fail to see the point of shotguns in this game.

High risk, minimal reward.

because some people play for fun as opposed to competitively?

getting kills with a weapon that no one uses is extremely rewarding in itself, you should try it sometimes. as crazy as it may sound, some people don't play to have the absolute best score EVER obtainable in any way.

What's fun though about getting killed at every corner simply because your weapon is inferior? I've played with many underpowered weapons but I mostly got irritated with them because every time I got killed it actively reminded about the lack of balance in the game.

[Camille]

well, you'll always find something now won't you

though it needs to be said that IMO a good player can be dangerous with any weapon, regardless of stats. i'm not saying i'm a spectacular player myself but i didn't find it that hard to get more than decent scores with any weapon in mw2. as for black ops, that remains to be seen since i haven't played it online yet. though i highly doubt things are as black and white as you make believe, you do tend to exaggerate after all

[Chyros]

Camille, on 16 Nov 2010, 9:52, said:

well, you'll always find something now won't you

though it needs to be said that IMO a good player can be dangerous with any weapon, regardless of stats. i'm not saying i'm a spectacular player myself but i didn't find it that hard to get more than decent scores with any weapon in mw2. as for black ops, that remains to be seen since i haven't played it online yet. though i highly doubt things are as black and white as you make believe, you do tend to exaggerate after all

I do, this is true, would never deny that . I want to stress that I've found it a LOT easier to make kills with underpowered weapons in MW2 than in BO, though. Try it for yourself. I managed some crazy killstreaks with useless stuff in MW2 but as soon as I pick a non-assault rifle in BO, I go negative. The difference is really heavily felt (which is not strange since roughly speaking all weapons are their CoD 4 counterparts and it's only the assault rifles that got buffed).

[Wizard]

*Minor distraciton incoming*

Did anyone know about this?



Not sure if it's possible on PC though...

[SquigPie]

LOLWUT

[Camille]

i knew about this but i don't know if it works on the pc either. i've tried all possible button combinations and nothing works

[Kaido]

It works, just press space multiple times

[Nem]

Wizard, on 14 Nov 2010, 20:10, said:

Nem, on 14 Nov 2010, 23:46, said:

Though multiplayer is inferior to any modern warfare, the campaign in Black Ops was the most fun I have had in a game in quite some time. Though linear, it's the most cinematic thus far, and that's exactly what I look for when I pick up a current Call of Duty game. If you want a thinking mans game, or one finally tuned for competitive play, chances are you won't find it here, But if you want to have a good time and experience what the movie industry refers to as a Summer Blockbuster, sit back and enjoy a story that rivals any Call of Duty as well as most FPS shooters on the market.

Strangely, I've found the campaign to be lacklustre and dull so far and consequently have barely completed any of it.

I found it boring to start as well, but by the end found myself deeply involved as well as quite entertained by the resolution. Stick with it, you may enjoy yourself.

There is a trend in this topic, One that I'm surprised has gone unnoticed. Chaka, Paved as well as the other 360 users here seem to enjoy the game a fair bit more then our PC playing counterparts, It could be because the game was designed for us console users. As Chyros pointed out the guns work better because of the aim assist Treyarch surely accounted for when designing the weapons. Spawning as well, is a whole lot better as the maps are limited to 16 player count they were sized for, not the 24+ that the port simply 'up'd with what I assume is 0 spawn tuning whats so ever.

I'm sure there are alot more instances like those that injure the PC version, and think we can all agree Activision has some crummy ports on the market. I don't see why this game would be an exception. The bulk of their money is made on console sales and they develop accordingly. Perhaps the game is more enjoyable on the box it's intended for.

Edit: Is there a console player here that hates the game as much as these port users?

Edited by Nem, 16 November 2010 - 16:28.

[Wizard]

Nem, on 16 Nov 2010, 16:14, said:

There is a trend in this topic, One that I'm surprised has gone unnoticed. Chaka, Paved as well as the other 360 user here seem to enjoy the game a fair bit more then our PC playing counterparts It could be because the game was designed for us console users.

That simply means we have more to moan about then

Nem, on 16 Nov 2010, 16:14, said:

As Chyros pointed out the guns balance better because of the aim assist Treyarch accounted for when designing the weapons.

That doesn't really take account of the poor dmg and RoF that all guns besides the AK74u and FAMAS have

Nem, on 16 Nov 2010, 16:14, said:

Perhaps the game is more enjoyable on the box it's intended for.

Then it's up to Treyarch to make it FOR the PC rather than port it.

[Nem]

Wizard, on 16 Nov 2010, 11:33, said:

Nem, on 16 Nov 2010, 16:14, said:

Perhaps the game is more enjoyable on the box it's intended for.

Then it's up to Treyarch to make it FOR the PC rather than port it.

Nobody is arguing they shouldn't, just pointing out they didn't.

[SquigPie]

That's because they consider all PC-gamers to be 30-year old cynical amoral pirates and all console-gamers to be cu$tomer$ who'll buy anything they feed them.

[Wizard]

Nem, on 16 Nov 2010, 16:35, said:

Wizard, on 16 Nov 2010, 11:33, said:

Nem, on 16 Nov 2010, 16:14, said:

Perhaps the game is more enjoyable on the box it's intended for.

Then it's up to Treyarch to make it FOR the PC rather than port it.

Nobody is arguing they shouldn't, just pointing out they didn't.

I am not disputing that. I am just making a more general point about piss poor devs

[Nem]

SquigPie, on 16 Nov 2010, 11:37, said:

That's because they consider all PC-gamers to be 30-year old cynical amoral pirates and all console-gamers to be cu$tomer$ who'll buy anything they feed them.

Or because they make quite a few million more because of the larger population of console gamers?

[BeefJeRKy]

Development for a console is easier as well considering there is no such thing as the fragmentation that exists with PCs and making sure it runs on certain configurations etc...

[Jok3r]

Nem, on 16 Nov 2010, 11:14, said:

Wizard, on 14 Nov 2010, 20:10, said:

Nem, on 14 Nov 2010, 23:46, said:

Though multiplayer is inferior to any modern warfare, the campaign in Black Ops was the most fun I have had in a game in quite some time. Though linear, it's the most cinematic thus far, and that's exactly what I look for when I pick up a current Call of Duty game. If you want a thinking mans game, or one finally tuned for competitive play, chances are you won't find it here, But if you want to have a good time and experience what the movie industry refers to as a Summer Blockbuster, sit back and enjoy a story that rivals any Call of Duty as well as most FPS shooters on the market.

Strangely, I've found the campaign to be lacklustre and dull so far and consequently have barely completed any of it.

I found it boring to start as well, but by the end found myself deeply involved as well as quite entertained by the resolution. Stick with it, you may enjoy yourself.

There is a trend in this topic, One that I'm surprised has gone unnoticed. Chaka, Paved as well as the other 360 users here seem to enjoy the game a fair bit more then our PC playing counterparts, It could be because the game was designed for us console users. As Chyros pointed out the guns work better because of the aim assist Treyarch surely accounted for when designing the weapons. Spawning as well, is a whole lot better as the maps are limited to 16 player count they were sized for, not the 24+ that the port simply 'up'd with what I assume is 0 spawn tuning whats so ever.

I'm sure there are alot more instances like those that injure the PC version, and think we can all agree Activision has some crummy ports on the market. I don't see why this game would be an exception. The bulk of their money is made on console sales and they develop accordingly. Perhaps the game is more enjoyable on the box it's intended for.

Edit: Is there a console player here that hates the game as much as these port users?

As to the campaign- I found it enjoyable, if a bit underwhelming. Still, it was fun, and the helicopters were surprisingly well implemented. And for the multiplayer, while I haven't played all that much (a lot of gungame, but some regular multiplayer) I'm enjoying so far. The sniper rifles are truly useless, which is dissappointing, but other than that it seems to be ok so far.

[Kalo]

Chyros, on 16 Nov 2010, 8:40, said:

Kalo, on 16 Nov 2010, 8:31, said:

Edit : Expanding a bit, what you say goes for all shotguns in pretty much every game.

?? Ever played MW2?

Of course I have, I don't own the game because it loves to crash my PC after sustained hours of gameplay. And when I play? I play hard and for a long assed time. I never was able to find a fix .

[Chyros]

Nem, on 16 Nov 2010, 18:14, said:

There is a trend in this topic, One that I'm surprised has gone unnoticed. Chaka, Paved as well as the other 360 users here seem to enjoy the game a fair bit more then our PC playing counterparts, It could be because the game was designed for us console users. As Chyros pointed out the guns work better because of the aim assist Treyarch surely accounted for when designing the weapons. Spawning as well, is a whole lot better as the maps are limited to 16 player count they were sized for, not the 24+ that the port simply 'up'd with what I assume is 0 spawn tuning whats so ever.

Oh yeah, I completely agree on this, and it's not a new thing either since the exact same was true for MW2 which was also a straight console port. However, though the consoles do dull out the differences between weapons, they are sometimes statistically unambiguously better than others which points out poor design skills regardless of what platform it was designed on. The damage and rate of fire difference must be felt on consoles too, surely? (if less than the PC version)

Jok3r, on 16 Nov 2010, 19:11, said:

And for the multiplayer, while I haven't played all that much (a lot of gungame, but some regular multiplayer) I'm enjoying so far.

Personally Gun Game and Combat Training are the only things I really enjoy when playing alone. I would enjoy the regular multiplayer game with my friends if it wouldn't categorically pit us against each other .

Kalo, on 16 Nov 2010, 20:02, said:

Chyros, on 16 Nov 2010, 8:40, said:

Kalo, on 16 Nov 2010, 8:31, said:

Edit : Expanding a bit, what you say goes for all shotguns in pretty much every game.

?? Ever played MW2?

Of course I have, I don't own the game because it loves to crash my PC after sustained hours of gameplay. And when I play? I play hard and for a long assed time. I never was able to find a fix .

Well, in that case, you'll know how powerful shotguns can be if implemented well, and that they aren't by definition lacking in strategic options. The original FMJ Winchesters akimbo was pretty monstrous and an example that a shotgun isn't by definition useless - even with something as artificial as a cutoff range.

[Stalker]

Quote

famas ... FAMAS .. famas ... FAMAS ... famas famas ... famasfamasfamas ... FAMAS ... famas
... famas ... FAMAS ... famas ... AK74u ... famas ... FAMAS ... famas

meh.. I prefer the AUG

[Kalo]

Chyros, on 16 Nov 2010, 19:52, said:

Well, in that case, you'll know how powerful shotguns can be if implemented well, and that they aren't by definition lacking in strategic options. The original FMJ Winchesters akimbo was pretty monstrous and an example that a shotgun isn't by definition useless - even with something as artificial as a cutoff range.

Indeed, but the argument Stinger put out there was "Why use a shotgun when you can shoot someone from over yonder with an assault rifle" in essence. Which does apply to just about every FPS game without an "Odd" shotgun.