When multiplayer is dominated by 13 year old boys who sit in their basements (why do they always do this in their underpants?) playing six hours a day there is no point taking part. Lets have some single player games where the casual player is not wasting their money.
Or add lag for players who have many hours of online practice. Like a horse race. Put weight on a fast horse. Or in multiplayer add lag for movement and shooting to equalise gameplay.
The Call of Duty games would be much better off if they had LONGER single-player campaigns.
I mean, with 4-5 hour campaigns, why do they even bother putting it in at all?
If they don't care, just make the CoD games multiplayer-only games, since that seems to be what everyone cares about these days.
I really want to play the CoD games, but I'm not into multiplayer at all, so it doesn't feel worth it to waste my money on the games with 4-5 hour campaigns.
I just replayed this campaign recently, so much better and more challenging than Black Ops 2 on veteran. The Blood and Gore effects really make you feel immersed in battle, and there are no cheap looking hitmarkers in the campaign like Black Ops 2. The zombies here is better too.
SEE CALL OF DUTY IS LIKE THE BEST GAME IN THE WORLD BUT jurassic park is awsome try to get it on pc or the com ur useing.
great game. unfortunately, with this game being so great, other games that are great are always negatively compared to this. if it's too different, it's automatically bad. if it's at all like it, it's a clone and gets no credit. Call of Duty and other great games will probably never be able to coexist. there will always be people for or against certain incredible franchises.
black ops is amazing i am a girl and i play this for wii but its epic has alot 2 do with reznov plus when u kill dragovitch is epic as ever like when thwey say "its over we won".
Personally I think Modern Warfare 2 & 3 have better campaigns. They're paced better than Black Ops as they slowly build towards all out chaotic action (both within missions and overall) and have slow patches allowing you to catch your breath. Black Ops on the other hand moves from big set-piece to big set-piece to vehicle chase to big set-piece and so on and so on. The Modern Warfare stories build plot-wise that keeps you involved all the way to the conclusion of the game. Black Ops' attempt at mystery unravels several missions before the end so you're left with just the prospect of killing the baddy to keep you going.
I've got to say the campaign was so boring I couldn't finish it. Haven't tried the rest of the content and will not comment on it.
I played MW3 before trying BO. Wow, BO looks like PS2 graphics compared to MW3... I can understand the MW3 hype a little more just by comparing it to the last CoD release...
@jr0mz honestly, quite a lot. It is probably best you get a demo and try it out yourself. Battlefield has bigger maps, vehicles and a slightly different feel. This could be good and bad. It isn't as fast paced as Call of Duty.
What's the difference between the Battlefield series and COD? I only have Black Ops and I'd like to play Battlefield also. Thanks for those who will reply :)
@splinter10. You could be right that it has a good story line, though that doesn't detract from the fact that the gameplay is pretty derivative and ads nothing new to either the COD franchise nor the FPS genre. I finally got around to finishing the campaign and I was left with a resounding feeling of "Meh". Apart from the fact that the overal set pieces are pretty lacklustre, more style over substance, there are other more basic faults such as poorly placed checkpoints, dumb AI etc.
For all of you on here talking nonsense about black ops. The reason it got this score is because it actually has a great story line. If any of you even knew anything about the cold war, the Cuban missile crisis, MKULTRA . Then you'd know this is a very brilliant take on these events. The secret wars that took place in the 70's, when the world was on the brink of WW3. While I think online lacks any substance and all the weapons feels the same (and I am a BF player) I really enjoyed the campaign for its take on the cold war, and how the USA ad Russia came within inches of blowing each other and ultimately the whole world away with nukes. The campaign makes you feel like a special Forces operative. So for that I really enjoyed the campaign. But if I want great online I play BF.
Black Ops sucks, its just a waste of money. Zombies is the only lasting reason for this game. In the end even if your good at it the multiplayer just leaves you pissed off.
only reason sp was better in black ops is because activision rushed infinityward and they wanted longer to make it but they wouldnt let them
@b0sse There are lots of longer games out there that focus on single player. I play more multi-player, but also enjoy single player a lot as well. Check out the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games--FPS/role playing with supernatural elements, mutants, other weird anomalies, and a huge game world. Quite decent graphics as well, and striking environments. There are 3 installments, and a new one on the way. Metro 2033, and Metro Last light are also longer games of high caliber. The 'Dead Space' series games are long, fun, and very freaky. :) I am currently finishing Far Cry 2--an older game that is very long--beautiful graphics if youare playing the PC version and have the rig to max it out. Of course Far Cry 3 is an awesome choice as well. There are lots of alternatives to CoD for gamers who appreciates a long and entertaining single player experience.
@CODMangekyo Redeem yourself! Buy Halo 4...its like COD but way, way better in every conceivable way :)
@DoubleUp360 its worth it, as is mw3 and bf3 ( in my opinion)
@callofdutygir10 its nice that you have interest in these things because i thought that only boys like these things :)
@callofdutygir10 i bet your a guy
@MVan86 It's not like anyone buys a CoD or Battlefield game for the single player any way.
3-4 hour campaigns. They might as well not have put them in there at all, and just released their games as multiplayer only.
Games like these just pisses me off, cause they seem pretty awesome to play gameplay-wise, and yet I'm not gonna play them because I won't pay full price for 3-4 hour campaign, and I don't like playing multiplayer games.
It's just a tease to people like me.
@MVan86 Black Ops is ten times better than MW2 and 3. I can't stand how cheap MW2 and 3 feel compared to W@W and Bo. Fire a rocket in MW 2 and 3 into a group of guys, and they fall over w/o a mark on them. In BO and W@W you see limbs flying off and you are reminded that these guns are not toys. MW 2 and 3 feel cheap and juvenile. MW2 and 3 are better than BO 2 though....
@Dredcrumb9 @MVan86 Personally I noticed little difference between the animations in all 5 of those games (MW 1-3, WaW and BO) and felt the weapons were all dead on - something the series has got right for quite some time now.
Where the difference appears in my opinion is MW's campaigns are interesting right til the end, WaW is as well but not as exciting, but BO story loses most of it's pull once you work out the supposed twist. As primarily a campaign player those things matter to me more than slight differences in animations.
@MVan86 @Dredcrumb9 I like how BO and W@W have gore and bullet wounds, it makes you feel like you are in a war. Where the MW games feel like a T rated arcade game. It made no sense how the barett 50 cal in MW blows only one guys arm off the whole entire game. it didn't sit well with me .they didn't update the engine.