Call of Duty: Black Ops - Page 5

Originally Posted by ogbuehi

I think it's not fair for lower ranking guys to get pitted against higher ranking guys. The biggest problem is that higher guys have access to better guns and perks. So I'm stuck trying to beat these pro guys with a spec'd out ACR with my puny SCAR with the marathon perk.

Originally Posted by PJ_Rage

The SCAR is as good as the ACR if not better, IMO. I guess you can complain that you can't get the best sights right off the bat, but to say that you don't get any good guns early is kind of crazy. The M4 and SCAR are among the best ARs in the game.

Originally Posted by ogbuehi

The M4 and SCAR sucks compared to the ACR and M16. I maxed out the SCAR as I waited to get the M16. I'll tell you, that took a very long time. Even with a blinged out SCAR, I get my butt handed to me. Once I got the M16, I was rockin' pretty good. I was especially able to knock out my 40 FMJ kills with the M16 in no time unlike the SCAR. I like the ACR because of it's natural faster reload time and lack of recoil even during full trigger squeeze. Whenever I need to just rack up some kills quickly I can always fall back on my M16 to keep me on point.

Keep in mind I got myself up to major general on system link mode. So I spent a great deal of time with the different weapons available (at least the ones I could get with that rank). The M4 and SCAR very, very, quickly fell off into the background as I used some of the better weapons became available like the M16, WA2000, AUG HBAR, and Mini-Uzi.

I am also probably one of the few guys that watches 70%-80% of my Killcams. Nine times out ten, the guy who waxed me (when I was level 1 to whenever the AUG becomes available) had a much better gun that was not available to me despite both of us firing at the same time. (I accounted for lag as well, because he was taking damage on his screen from me while he was shooting me. Plus I knew hands down that the recoil of the raggedy SCAR/M4 didn't help one bit.)

Originally Posted by PJ_Rage

Trust me when I tell you that it's you and not the guns. It sounds to me like you can't handle recoil very well which is why the m16 and ACR appeal to you with no recoil and almost no recoil respectively. That doesn't make the other guns better, only better for you, which is fine, we all have our preferences. It just bothers me when people say that they suck or that it's not fair because they haven't unlocked any good guns yet and they are playing against other players who "have better guns". People said that in COD4 also, and it was BS then as well. If you were complaining about not unlocking perks, or not having the pro perks yet, I would be sympathetic, but the guns are very well balanced throughout the ranks, whether you can personally use them well or not.

Originally Posted by ogbuehi

I'm confused and curios as to why you would want a rifle that has more recoil over one that has less or none given roughly the same amount of damage per bullet.

Originally Posted by Myrtledog

Everyone will be home playing Medal of Honor when I go to pick it up at the store.

Originally Posted by PJ_Rage

I don't know. I'd rather see the noobs advance through the ranks as they get better than to be thrown right in with the sharks. IMO it works out better for both parties that way. And the other thing is that people top out no matter how many pros cams they watch, they either just don't have the hand-eye coordination, aim, dexterity in fingers, or care to learn, whatever it is, but in my experience, no matter how many hours people play, they level out. It's not fair to put someone who has leveled out lower in a match with others who are on a different level.

Originally Posted by Daekwan

The matchmaking system as it stands is horrible. Halo3 while not very impressive graphically or radically changed in gameplay is still the blueprint for how online MP should be.

1. True Skill system. Not just climbing the prestige ladder because you played the game 50 days and I played the game 3 days.

2. Real matchmaking system. Group players together based on their true skill level.

3. Online stats. I cant believe this isnt available in most MP games. We pay $50 a year for XBL and it should offer more features. Tracking stats online should be a standard by now. I can track acheivements online with any game.. why not stats? It doesnt even have to be realtime. How hard is it to upload the same Leaderboard stats from the game to a website once a day? Its really just one big spreadsheet.

4. Gameplay video clips. Again something that should be there. They could even start small by recording the last 10 game winning kill-cams. Then move up to showing all of your personal kill-cams from the last match. To finally being able to replay video of an entire match. You wanna know whats cooler than winning a game by sticking an RPG in in some guy's azz who was camping in the bathroom?? Being able to watch it over and over again.. and showing it to friends.

5. Custom maps. I wouldnt expect this one for years, if ever for 2 reasons. First Activision is greedy as hell and wants to make the every dollar possible off every map created. Second the strength of COD is its competitive and balanced gameplay. Custom maps that are just thrown together are likely to be very biased towards one team.

Originally Posted by PJ_Rage

This is totally subjective. A couple haters on hardcore gaming forums don't speak for the masses. The masses love MW2. IMO it's the greatest multiplayer game to ever hit consoles. But, my opinion will surely differ from others. Everyone wants something different. But to say that MW2 is the worst COD is an overstatement. If you can't recongize what IW has done with COD4 and MW2, you are blind. People love IW because they have created two of the best multiplayer FPS games ever made. There's a reason everyone is trying to copy what they've done. Not to say that Teryarch can't get it done with this new series, but they had the COD4 engine and code handed to them, and world at war was a massive failure compared to both COD4 and MW2. That's why people have more respect for IW.

Originally Posted by armybonzola

Too bad WAW is light years better than COD4 and MW2.

Originally Posted by armybonzola

Too bad WAW is light years better than COD4 and MW2.

Originally Posted by kjr39

Yeah, well BC2 is better than all of them.

Originally Posted by kabob983

I can at least appreciate BC2 for what it is. DICE did a great job on it and for their goals it came out a strong game, just not to my liking as much as MW2. W@W though took CoD 4, made it less interesting, added crappy weapons, worse textures, a boring SP campaign, and horrible MP maps and then tried to sell it. I know alot of people like it, a few mins into the beta though and I was sick of it.

Eventually I did buy a copy for $15 to play through the SP campaign (which I had to suffer through) and then traded it in to Amazon for $25 credit.

Originally Posted by dobieck1

Were there better WWII weapons they should have used? Isn't the SP campaign the first to highlight the battle in the Pacific theater, ala the HBO series the Pacific?