|
I really enjoyed the single player in MW and MW2. Black Ops had a few decent moments in the single player campaign but overall it just felt like I was out there by myself killing thousands of bad guys to no real purpose. I figured since the game was called Black Ops it would involve more infiltration and sneaking around rather than going from one massive fire fight to another. Sadly they disappointed me there.
The multiplayer in Black Ops is the best so far though. It's way more balanced than MW2 (as mentioned above preventing noob tubing and knife running). It still is funny though when people try to "knife spec" and they just get mowed down.
I also agree with one of the above posters that the rate of fire on the weapons seems way too high. This is annoying because it really affects accuracy and kinda makes for a lot of "spray and pray" moments that seem to be more luck based if you survive.
The other major issue that I have with the game is that the bulk of the weapons and weapon attachments you use didn't exist in the time frame that the game takes place in. Most of the assault rifles in the game weren't developed and used until the mid to late 1970s. I'm fairly certain that they didn't have red dot sites in the 1960s nor would they have had underbarrel grenade launchers, shotguns, or flamethrowers (wtf?).
Stuff like that really bothers me because it just makes the whole game seem sloppy. If you want to make a realistic period shooter you should probably do your research and give us period weapons.
The graphics and sound seem to be of less quality than MW or MW2. Now I do have the PC version and I've seen the XBox version now and it looks like the Xbox version does have better graphics than the PC and it definitely runs a hell of a lot smoother.
If Treyarch continues to make Call of Duty games I just may be done with the series. Overall I am disappointed with the game but at least the multiplayer makes me feel like I didn't get totally cheated.
|