Black Ops Single Player w/ out shooting

[skace]

This is very overblown, the first mission is fun.

Yes, you can hide behind your allies and let them do all of the work on that mission because they were made indestructible. That's a lot better than them getting clipped by a stray round and you failing the mission, and why would you want to hide exactly?

A thread like this is like saying that UT'99 sucked because you could join a Face server and piston camp the top portal and get kills without doing anything. If you got bored doing that, it was your own fault for being boring. Games are fun (or not) based on how you interact with them, and I had a lot of fun playing through Black Ops singleplayer aggressively.

Yes you can play aggressive and pretend there is a challenge, however you are the equivalent of a child with a wooden sword pretending he is slaying dragons in his backyard. This game uses imagination to simulate challenge and risk that aren't really there. Of specific note: there is a sequence where he runs and gets shot a bunch and states "these bullets can't really kill you", then there is the mortar explosions that he runs directly through for 0 damage, then there is the plane sequence where he never even fires back.

The point here is that there is a fine line between "scripted sequences" / "AI assistance" and complete and total broken invulnerability. This game does not present you with any sort of challenge. He wasn't playing on "Very Easy", he was playing on "Hardened". Which is supposed to assume the player has some semblance of skill and would like to be challenged in some fashion.

Now since I haven't played the game (and not sure I ever will), I can't say how the other levels compare to this supposed "tutorial" level. But I will say that if the player chooses "Hardened" the game should not coddle him in a tutorial in such a ridiculous fashion. This may be the developers only mistake, but it is a pretty large one.

 

[BeauJangles]

I buy all Call of Duty games for the SP. In multiplayer the games are complete garbage. I can play Quake Live and get a much better, more visceral, more skill-oriented match up for free!

And if I wanted a more "realistic weaponry" style multiplayer experience, I'd go play Counter-Strike or something similar.

Counter-Strike isn't any more realistic. BF:BC 2 is.

 

[Phobic9]

Thank you for helping me save $60.

This.

 

[CPA]

There is maybe 5 people in the world that buys Black Ops for the single player. The multiplayer and zombie modes are where 99% of players get the action, and you aren't winning either of those without shooting. Hell, you aren't winning Zombies period.

Besides, even if you were going to get this for single player, this video means absolutely nothing. You can choose to not shoot, or choose to shoot. But I guarantee you that you cannot possibly beat the campaign without shooting. Maybe the first level, but not the rest.

Count me as one of those 5 then. TF2 is about the only multiplayer game I play, and I haven't hit that in about 6 months. The fact that a whole mission can be done without firing a single bullet should be embarrassing to Treyarch. The last minute was pathetic, if not hilarious. 20 enemies and not one could hit the broad side of a barn.

Again, OP thanks for saving me $60.

 

[CPA]

No I died while shooting the M60 on the plane.

LOL, Ridiculous, as it may seem, obviously the solution is not to shoot.

 

[skace]

Counter-Strike isn't any more realistic. BF:BC 2 is.

I'd rather play BF2 than BF:BC2. And CS may not be realistic in some senses, but the ground weaponry is amazing in many ways, or at least was. Far more than most games.

 

[Arsinek]

I also buy COD for the multiplayer. Single player is good for one play through. Playing against other people is always funnier to me. Campaigns are fun doing them coop with a friend. I think I played through halo2 coop a million times in college and it was always fun.

 

[CPA]

They do have co-op. Co-op multiplayer and zombies. Like I said, that's where the majority of the fun is. The single player is worth going through once, but if that's really all you want then the entire FPS genre is not really for you. Go play an RPG.

You are missing the point.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

Yes you can play aggressive and pretend there is a challenge, however you are the equivalent of a child with a wooden sword pretending he is slaying dragons in his backyard.

that is epic win

 

[LumbergTech]

that is epic win

its called playing video games...you do realize none of them are real

i agree with the premise of the thread, but lets not be stupid

 

[AstroManLuca]

Yes you can play aggressive and pretend there is a challenge, however you are the equivalent of a child with a wooden sword pretending he is slaying dragons in his backyard. This game uses imagination to simulate challenge and risk that aren't really there. Of specific note: there is a sequence where he runs and gets shot a bunch and states "these bullets can't really kill you", then there is the mortar explosions that he runs directly through for 0 damage, then there is the plane sequence where he never even fires back.

The point here is that there is a fine line between "scripted sequences" / "AI assistance" and complete and total broken invulnerability. This game does not present you with any sort of challenge. He wasn't playing on "Very Easy", he was playing on "Hardened". Which is supposed to assume the player has some semblance of skill and would like to be challenged in some fashion.

Now since I haven't played the game (and not sure I ever will), I can't say how the other levels compare to this supposed "tutorial" level. But I will say that if the player chooses "Hardened" the game should not coddle him in a tutorial in such a ridiculous fashion. This may be the developers only mistake, but it is a pretty large one.

Sounds like a Kinect or Wii game.

 

[Homerboy]

Count me as one of those 5 then. TF2 is about the only multiplayer game I play, and I haven't hit that in about 6 months. The fact that a whole mission can be done without firing a single bullet should be embarrassing to Treyarch. The last minute was pathetic, if not hilarious. 20 enemies and not one could hit the broad side of a barn.

Again, OP thanks for saving me $60.

All of this. TF2 is pretty much the ONLY multiplayer game I play anymore. And even that is rare (expecially with all the dress-up mods they have now).

CoD is an incredible yawn for SP. I have played it but I have not bought it. :ninja: Even at that price it couldn't hold my interest for more than a few levels. INCREDIBLY boring.

 

[JoshGuru7]

Yes you can play aggressive and pretend there is a challenge, however you are the equivalent of a child with a wooden sword pretending he is slaying dragons in his backyard.

Let's not pretend that imagination isn't necessary for every other computer game or that there is anything wrong with wooden swords. I agree with the notion that imposing limits on yourself (not using Boone in FO:NV for example) can be a lousy solution for games that are too easy. I just personally find aggressive style play to be a more enjoyable way to play these games anyways so it isn't a drawback. If I had decided not to purchase the game based on this thread, I would be worse off.

 

[JSt0rm]

I loved COD 1 but man they have ass raped this thing into something so horrible it boggles the mind.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

its called playing video games...you do realize none of them are real

i agree with the premise of the thread, but lets not be stupid

what is stupid is that they claim "realism" yet this guy can get through a level without firing a shot? also, his cpu team mates get shot multiple times yet dont die, which is also ridiculous for a game that is said to be "realism"

 

[AstroManLuca]

what is stupid is that they claim "realism" yet this guy can get through a level without firing a shot? also, his cpu team mates get shot multiple times yet dont die, which is also ridiculous for a game that is said to be "realism"

Meh, most games don't even pretend to be realistic these days. If you want realism play ARMA II or something.

I don't think COD has ever claimed to be a realistic portrayal of war. Especially since COD4, it's been more like an interactive action movie than a simulation.

 

[simonizor]

That has got to be some of the worst AI programming i have ever seen in my life.

What did you expect with Treyarch making it? At least the enemies don't float off into the sky like they did in CoD 3.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

Meh, most games don't even pretend to be realistic these days. If you want realism play ARMA II or something.

I don't think COD has ever claimed to be a realistic portrayal of war. Especially since COD4, it's been more like an interactive action movie than a simulation.

On the contrary, Treyarch has said black ops was going to be realistic and have realistic ai (i cant find the press release). And then said the violence was TOO realistic

http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/10/24/black-ops-violence-went-too-far.aspx

And if they werent for the whole realism gig, why did they consult army vets (MOH also consulted spec ops)
http://www.stripes.com/military-lif...sure-realism-1.124896?localLinksEnabled=false

they sure did a great job with the realism

 

[slayer202]

you can easily sprint past a lot of sections in all of the recent COD games on the hardest difficulty. world at war was the worst

 

[Kyle]

The single player is worth going through once, but if that's really all you want then the entire FPS genre is not really for you. Go play an RPG.

Wow...one of the more ridiculous things I've read on here...

fwiw, I'm a big fps fan, and haven't played multiplayer in years- who are you to say the genre is not for me? I love single player fps. Now maybe this particular game isnt for me since it's obviously MP focused- but saying that's true for the entire genre is quite stupid really.

 

[minmaster]

yea this particular game isn't worth buying just for single player. but there are other games that are single player only, so you can't tell him to give up the whole genre for not being into multiplayer.

games like COD and BF (BF doesn't even have single player really) are only worth it if you're into duking it out online.

 

[erikistired]

The single player is worth going through once, but if that's really all you want then the entire FPS genre is not really for you. Go play an RPG.

this is one of the more ridiculous things i've seen you say, and you say a lot of really ridiculous things.

 

[LumbergTech]

what is stupid is that they claim "realism" yet this guy can get through a level without firing a shot? also, his cpu team mates get shot multiple times yet dont die, which is also ridiculous for a game that is said to be "realism"

i agree, i was just commenting on the metaphor of a child playing make believe..

video games are playing make believe

i still agree with your point about it being ridiculous

 

[BeauJangles]

yea this particular game isn't worth buying just for single player. but there are other games that are single player only, so you can't tell him to give up the whole genre for not being into multiplayer.

games like COD and BF (BF doesn't even have single player really) are only worth it if you're into duking it out online.

This.

I fired up SP for the first time today. The story sucks, the game mechanics suck, and it just isn't fun.

On easier difficulties each level boils down to:
- follow guy around to various yellow markers
- press w the entire time
- occasionally shoot guys, but only if the game wants you to and only the way that they say is alright.

On harder difficulties it's that plus the computer just aimbots your head.

 

[zerocool84]

The graphics really are ugly. Hopefully they revamp the engine for the next CoD cus it's really starting to show it's age now but they probably won't as they're already working on the next version to come out next year.