Black Ops Wager and game in general..

[Druid]

Which part? It was definitely their fault they gave us a crap game.

 

[skitzo385]

5.6 million copies in the first 24 hours. Not a bad start.

My fav wager match is the "one in the chamber"
sticks and stones is a pain and can take a while if your playing people good with the hatchet
gun game is interesting
sharp shooter is similar to gun game but less fun imo..

 

[Druid]

The gun game can be frustrating. If you suck in the beginning, you're doomed.

 

[35g700]

5 was 4 in wwII, so I don't know how people say it sucks and 4 is good.

I rank them like this: 5>4>7>6. I don't have the first three, so I can't really comment. And yeah, I only like 5 better than 4 because I am better at it. The games are pretty much the same, so they're pretty much equal.

COD5 used a modified version of COD4's engine, just like COD6 and COD7.

And COD5 didn't play anything like COD4, it had a lot of similarities but in no way played anything like COD4 did.

 

[overlord20]

This cracked me up!!

 

 

[Druid]

COD5 used a modified version of COD4's engine, just like COD6 and COD7.

And COD5 didn't play anything like COD4, it had a lot of similarities but in no way played anything like COD4 did.

What do you mean by that? The only difference between the the two were the guns and maps (the maps were better imo). The killstreak system was the same basically. I mean you had dogs instead of a helicopter. I think waw had like an extra two perks as well. Besides that, the games were the same.

 

[35g700]

The engine was slightly modified, you could drive vehicles in COD5, and overall the game played a lot different then COD4.

 

[Druid]

Yeah, their were tanks on a few levels too. I forgot about that. You say the gameplay was a lot different. Care to elaborate? I'm really not going to understand your point of view unless you fully explain it.

 

[35g700]

I never played WaW all that much, but when I did play online I found the maps played quite differently then the maps in COD4. I also found that the perks, guns, and killstreaks also changed the gameplay quite a bit.

 

[dirkpitt45]

I agree with 35g700, World at War played completely different than cod4. Not just the running under the maps or juggernaut+mp40 overpoweredness, the game was slower paced. The maps were much larger so everything was longer range I loved cod4 to death, have over 50 days of play-time total between the pc and 360 version. W@W, played in the beta and demo, thought it was glitchy but it was a beta/demo and final would be slightly better.

Wrong, I wanted to like that game. I love ww2, and I love cod4, but I didn't love W@W. Played till I was third prestige (mostly cause friend were playing it and it was change from h3 and cod4) but I couldn't get into it the same way as cod4. Just wasn't the same, and I ended up HATING it by the time I sold it. Couldn't stand to play it all, was just too broken and unbalanced.

Haven't played black ops online yet (always play sp first) but single player is junk. The infinite spawning enemies of cod4, the "we're trying way too hard" of mw2, and the lameness of W@W. Basically all the negatives of previous cod iterations. Only thing I give Treyarch props for is the fact that its almost original, although it has the most over-played and over-used spy story of anything. Course if you don't read many books you wouldn't notice it as much, and I doubt a lot of the Black ops players have even finished an entire book.

The game is getting around though, hear so many people at school talking about it and usually they never mention their gaming habits publicly. It seems everyone likes to go black black ops on friday nights now as much as they want to go get plastered.