Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Enthusiast Zone > Gaming > Modern Warfare 2 vs Black Ops: Judgement Day

Modern Warfare 2 vs Black Ops: Judgement Day
Thread Tools
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2011, 04:14 PM
 
As alluded to before, I've been back in the CoD state of mind during my Minecraft break, and I have thoroughly made up my mind to the tune of which game is better. I enjoy both games through and through, mind you, but there has been so much discussion and argument about which is the stronger game this needs to be done.

First off, my decision is not being presented as a 'in my opinion' sort of way, this is concrete truth based on my experiences in the FPS genre for the entirety of its existence. So without further ado...

Modern Warfare 2 is the better game. Hands-down, no contest. Todd may disagree with me, but his opinion is only colored by his lack of familiarity with the maps, and nothing else. But before we discuss why exactly MW2 is the better game, lets get into the areas Black Ops is better than MW2.

Black Ops added so much to the CoD spectrum there really isn't a single area it didn't improve. The perk tiers are more useful. The lobby system is vastly superior, including the lobby leaderboards stats, joining and backing out of lobbies, the party chat system, and even the simple 'people in your lobby are colored blue' visual aid. The matchmaking is a wash, and at this late stage of the game for MW2 it's no contest finding good games quicker with Black Ops, but taking each game at its height of popularity the task of finding a game once a lobby has formed is a dead-heat.

The weapon 'unlocking' is also vastly superior. Being able to save up cash and make a class from start to finish is sooooo much less annoying then deciding you want extended mags on a SCAR and going through a half-dozen challenges based on kills to unlock it. This is especially evident now when going back into these games and wanting some variety. With Black Ops I can make anything I want at this point, with MW2, I'm still stuck with tiresome challenges.

The stat-tracking is not even close between the two games. Black Ops holds stats for every conceivable area of gameplay and can break them down by the week, month, or all time.

Now here comes the paragraph Dakar will lampoon me for. The maps. The maps in Black Ops are more interesting than MW2, from the layout to the overall design. Black Ops maps are far more interesting visually then the bland MW2 brown on brown on brown color scheme. Now whether or not they play any better I will concede isn't something I've been able to reconcile in my own head. I like MW2s maps for camping ability, and I like Black Ops maps for countering camping. Coming from a strictly aesthetic standpoint I like Black Ops maps better.

Okay, with those wins for Black Ops out of the way, lets briefly talk about some of the minor aspects that were inexplicably worse in Black Ops then MW2. The sound design, namely of explosives and footsteps, is so much worse it's almost a joke. The sound of someone blowing up my claymore right behind me and the sound of a grenade going off at the other end of the map sound exactly the same, and exactly as loud. Ludicrous. The footsteps are nigh-useless, and you end up hearing your own steps (even with ninja) over any enemy, even if he is walking on bubble-wrap. Never was this more apparent than lately switching between the two games. In MW2 I can camp a room and ready myself for battle based on sound. In Black Ops I can camp a room by being on guard at all times expecting death from all angles, because there is no reliable way to use sound to your advantage. Also, a side-note, I liked the titles in MW2 better. Something about unlocking a cool title by completing a challenge seems more interesting and rewarding then buying it from a list.

So currently we have Black Ops with a better lobby system, better stat tracking, better map visuals, more useful perk tiers and a few other things I like....such as Claymores on all classes, no more Stopping Power, awesome new killstreaks like Napalm and the amazing Blackbird. It fails in sound, which is a decent negative so at this current moment in my Judgement Day, I'd call it a tie. A tie because between the two games I can play them near identical, with near identical results. Sniping on MW2 lets me quickscope, Sniping on Black Ops lets me hold my breath for way longer....it's a wash. I am as successful, using identical tactics in both games, at getting kills.

So I hear you saying "How will this end up being a win for MW2 with no contest?"

Easy, one difference, one difference so gigantic it's impossible to ignore. One core aspect of gameplay, not just for CoD, but for every FPS that has ever existed is severely lacking in Black Ops. This problem has been talked about since the first match, and it has done nothing but grow, inception-style, in my mind until it became the very downfall of this game.

Hit detection, built-in lag, difference between client and host.....call it what you want, but the shooting mechanic, that is, the process of bringing up your sights, shooting an enemy, and taking him down is so fundamentally flawed in Black Ops compared to MW2. In a nutshell, Black Ops gunplay never feels solid, never feels like you are hitting someone with bullets, more like firing pellets. In MW2 you can predict "I will kill this person" or conversely "I will be killed by this person" in Black Ops the whole thing might as well be up to a group of a faeries. Hit markers flow like wine but mean nothing half of the time, people lumber by unscathed under a hail of gunfire and take you down with two pistol shots. The whole shooting mechanic feels floaty and disconnected when compared to MW2s tight rigid system. In MW2 you feel the weight of each shot and it lands where you expect it to. The killcams back me up, never have killcams made less sense than in Black Ops, never. In an FPS, all the fluff boils off and leave the core gameplay, which is shooting bullets and killing enemies. In this all-important realm Black Ops screwed something up, and made the guns feel light and weak. I almost wonder if the extra hitmarkers were their way of covering up their problems with hit detection.

So there you have it. Black Ops is a very, very fun game that added alot of trim and nice extras to the CoD experience, making it the best lobby matchmaking experience so far in the franchise. However, the most important part of an FPS, the shooting mechanics, are weirdly light and disconnected, making for a frustrating experience at times. MW2 may lack the fluff and extras of Black Ops, but features a much more rigid and predictable experience in-game.

Now, this simply pertains to the online matchmaking experience, judging the whole game as a package, I will tip my hat for Black Ops, mostly for the zombies.

THE END.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2011, 04:19 PM
 
I'll deal with you tomorrow.
     
sek929  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2011, 04:22 PM
 
I'm sure my conclusion jives with yours, but I'm also sure you'll have something to say about the perks and maps.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2011, 04:30 PM
 
Let's not play around. I'll have a ton of differing perspective. I'll need to reread it a few times to let it properly sort out.
     
Kevin Bogues
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2011, 04:58 PM
 
Can't wait to see Dakars take, fattys got great points, it will be interesting to see the different perspective with the same outcome (I assume)
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 10:30 AM
 
Alright here's my plan: As much as sek would like to claim this is an objective take, the very nature of why we game is as subjective as it gets (Case in point – CoD lovers, gun to the head – pick one game to play for the next month Halo: Reach or Call of Duty 4).

What I'll try to do here is take the different aspects of the games and categorize them based on importance. I'll then try to assign varying points to those levels of importance to try to quantify the experience. At the end, I'll add up the points accrued and declare the victor.It should be noted that I haven't done any planning in advance, so I have no idea how this will shake out.

I also don't know how long this will take to accomplish. I'll start working on this through-out the day and posting sections as I finish them. I'll do my best to mirror at least part of sek's take.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 10:51 AM
 
My drafted structure for breaking down the game. There are four categories:

Critical (Stuff that makes or breaks a game)
Maps and Spawns
Weapons
Perks
Netcode/Hit Detecion

Important (It makes your day harder when it's not done right, enhances the experience when it's great)
Matchmaking
Killstreaks
Equipment
Secondaries
Attachments
Framerate

Notables (We're not quite important enough to quit a game over)
Graphics
Sound System
XP / Unlock System
Prestiges

The Rest
Still being compiled, but numerous. These won't go towards the final score, but instead, create a second "bonus" number.

I'll be assigning a number from 0 to 5 for the Critical category, 0 to 3 in Important, and 0 to 1 in Notables.
( Last edited by The Final Dakar; May 27, 2011 at 02:26 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 01:02 PM
 
Alright, I'm going to start at the bottom (the easy stuff) and work my way up.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Notables (We're not quite important enough to quit a game over) 0 to 1 points
Graphics
Sound System
XP / Unlock System
Prestige System
Graphics
It's a no contest here. MW2 is the prettier game, and that likely can be boiled down to Black Ops having the option for online splitscreen. I don't consider myself a graphics whore, and try to keep it more sensible, comparing games to their predecessors and sequels. Perfect example, look at the first Modern Warfare. The ARs strike me as plasticky.

Modern Warfare 2: Good graphics, perhaps great. (+1 pt)
Black Ops: Average graphics (0 pts)

Sound System/Design
It might be early to say this, but this is probably the area in which Black Ops gets its ass so completely kicked.
There's a lot of levels to judge this on. As far as I can tell, full 5.1 surround sound is absent. Yeah, this doesn't affect everyone, but in this day and age, that's like not having HD graphics. WTF?

Then there's the absolutely depthless explosions (a sek notes). The only footsteps you hear are yours, except for random moments where the enemy inexplicably goes loud. Considering some of the rather large changes in volume depending on surface (yet inconsistent) I can't help but feel that not only is the system poorly designed, it's actually completely glitched and they haven't admitted it. If this area of the game were slightly more important, it'd have the potential to be enough to quit the game for. Because of this I'm going to break my scoring rules.

Modern Warfare 2: Excellent Sound. 5.1, depth, etc. (+1 pt)
Black Ops: Likely Glitched Sound System (-1 pt)


XP / Unlock System
This is two features that are linked, so there will be a total of 2 pts up for grabs here.

In an effort make the unlock system less restrictive, Treyarch introduced a cash system which would allow players to craft classes with more ease. In theory this is great, but their execution left something to be desired. Mainly the weapon part.

In Modern Warfare 2, weapons unlocked a specific levels. By and large I found this worked well, as the majority of weapons unlocked quickly enough, and, at least in the case of ARs, they were all quite useful. The real issue was that vital perks (Cold-Blooded, Ninja) were locked up for a while, while vital secondaries (Stinger, Javelin) took even longer. In a game where killstreaks were not only important but dominant, this was a kick in the nuts.

Black Ops, allowed those key perks to be unlocked as soon as you could afford it, meaning you wouldn't be slaughtered from the get go, if you were smart. However, Weapons were put into some type of hybrid system where you were still locked, but now you still had to pay to use them. Worse, they had secret weapons which required bank draining purchases to unlock, and those key secondaries? Still locked up until later levels.

It's hard to declare a winner here. The strength of MW2s unlock system was that it gave you an opportunity to test each weapon as you saw fit, whereas in Black Ops required you to be much more shrewd with your dollars (at least in those early levels).

This could get really difficult, too, when you considered everything that those dollars could be spent on. Camo, attachments, face paint, emblems, clan names. Mixing the vital with the non-vital became a chore, particularly as you started to unlock some options repeatedly through Prestiges (Unlock emblems, keep that forever. Unlock it for your Stoner? Every damn Prestige).

Then there's the cash system that runs alongside the XP system. Meaning each game you're keeping track of two numbers as you're eyeing this AR that unlocks at level 25, but you need this much cash to afford it anyway. That last thing the game needs is more numbers to keep track of.

Modern Warfare 2: Unlock System Simplicity good, Distribution Level reliance bad (1 pt out of 2)
Black Ops: Freedom Good, Convoluted dual-system bad (1 pt out of 2)

Once Treyarch needs to merge the XP/Money mechanic in a greater whole, and pick one system for the Primaries.


Prestiges
MW had 5 at 55. MW2 went to 10 at 70. Black Ops went 50 at 15. None of these work for me.
First, just go to 50. Its round, it's easy. If you're doing an unlock system, that's plenty of levels. Fast unlocks ≠ bad except for the uninitiated who may be overwhelmed. 15 Prestiges is also too many. I played what I consider an ungodly amount of MW2 and I barely got to Prestige 9 before we quit. Black Ops gives more rewards on the later stages, but for balancing purposes none of these affect gameplay, making them undesirable for all but the most obsessed. Custom Classes require too much a time investment to unlock and those do affect gameplay. My solution, 10 Prestiges, 50 levels, first 5 give classes, last 5 rewards.

Modern Warfare 2: Only 10 Prestiges but 70 levels, and those Customs take forever to get (0 pts)
Black Ops: 15 Prestiges? No thank you. 50 levels? Much better. (0 pts)
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 01:54 PM
 
Part II
I may split this up for easier completion.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Important (It makes your day harder when it's not done right, enhances the experience when it's great) 0 - 3 pts
Secondaries
Attachments
Equipment
Secondaries
Modern Warfare 2 introduced the most powerful and versatile secondaries in the series. Be it the endless chambers of the Striker, the rapid-fire fury of the Glocks, or the punch to the gut SPAS, every weapon gave you a fighting chance without overshadowing their Primary superiors (1887 glitch aside). Like the ARs, the shotgun class gave an array of versatile options, while pistols gained power with dual wield, and machine pistols gave those without spastic trigger fingers a chance.

Black Ops stopped all this progress. They removed the useful weapons and introduced gimmicky secondaries, whose powers useful if you connection was. Gameplay devolved and instead of rock-paper-scissors, it became rock-paper-feather – the secondary always being a feather in the face of Primaries. Maybe Primaries deserve to dominate the game. But the lack of options made the game feel more shallow.

Modern Warfare 2: An array of balanced secondaries, with further tactical tradeoffs (Anti-air rockets or anti-rusher shotgun?) Depth. (3 pts)
Black Ops: Stripped down secondaries, gimmicky but cool weapons (1 pt)


Attachments
Modern Warfare 2 had a decent variety of attachments. Their desire to hide some of these attachments behind weapon challenges, however, is a major draw back. This became more convoluted when something with only aesthetic value (Hello Holographic sight) was locked away for no reason (Or you had to suffer through the FAL's glitched RDS to get to it). FMJ? Good luck. It'll be a few years.

Black Ops' attachments were much easier to work with, and sights were customizable. Where the game suffered was somewhat arbitrary exclusions of attachments from weapons, as well as a mostly inane restriction on undermount usage while utilizing the Bling perk. The removal of the Heart Beat Sensor was probably a good move as well, given the smaller maps. The removal of all-but thermal scopes arguably made the game less cheap. The removal of FMJ, however, seemed like a poor decision, only enhanced by the paper mâché walls in Black Ops.

Modern Warfare 2: Simple but effective attachments. HBS was questionable (though thank god it wasn't on shotguns). FMJ was a nice change but poorly implemented. (1 pt)
Black Ops: Easily accessible but somewhat restricted attachments. Customizable scopes. No HBS, no FMJ. (2 pts)


Equipment
The tactical portion of the game. MW2 introduced the Throwing Knife, Sticky, Tac Insert and Blast Shield. Black Ops Camera Spike, Jammer, and Motion Sensor, as well as Nova Gas grenades. It also saw the Claymore moved to a new spot.

While ModernWarfare added quite a few new things, the balance wasn't quite there. A tac insert instead of a grenade was quite the sacrifice, while the the blast shield was poorly implemented and more of a liability than useful. Conversely, on Black Ops side, the camera spike was a nice addition, the motion sensor seems like the ideal balancing of the HBS, and the jammer feels like the correct implementation of the Scrambler perk. Adding a third tire to include this equipment was excellent, though the claymore's inclusion is a little headscratching but understandable. It does seem awkward when Nova Gas is thrown into the equation and you can outfit yourself with three offensive pieces of equipment, in comparison to a grenade, smoke, and jammer, but overall it's rock solid.

Modern Warfare 2: Nice new additions, but ultimately weak or unbalanced. (1 pt)
Black Ops: Adds a new tier and new or improved takes on equipment. (3 pts)
( Last edited by The Final Dakar; May 27, 2011 at 03:56 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2011, 02:02 PM
 
I think I'm done for today.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 11:37 AM
 
Part II: err, Part II
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Important (It makes your day harder when it's not done right, enhances the experience when it's great)
Matchmaking
Killstreaks
Framerate
Framerate
Simple, but underrated portion of FPS'. Equally simple, the conclusion – compare an AC-140 wreaking holy havoc on a map (dropping multiple 105mm shells on a map, causing huge explosions and dust) versus one napalm strike. Yeah.

Modern Warfare 2: Not perfect, but impressive. (+3 pts)
Black Ops: Stut-ter-er-er (0 pts)


Killstreaks
This is a tough one, as most of the focus will be on balance, arguably subjective.
First off, let's look at the cool stuff: MW2 has the Harrier, Chopper Gunner, and AC-130 (The Nuke is more controversial). The latter uses the mechanics of on the best missions in the series and integrates them into multiplayer gameplay. I still find this amazing.
Black Ops has the RC-XD, Napalm Strike, SR-71, and Attack Dogs (It also has the Hind, an advanced Chopper gunner). The SR-71 is probably the most useful killstreak ever.

As far as balance, here things get hairy. MW2 arguable has the most balance, with the real exception being the Harrier, which outclasses the Attack Copper too fully (and in many circumstances can be more powerful than the Pavelow). The Predator Missile is also a little too good at the lower levels, though this is mostly thanks to MW2's biggest killstreak flaw: killstacking.

Black Ops' flaws with one exception flow in the other direction. The RC-XD, at a 3 killstreak, is utterly broken. How effective it is in comparison to the Predator Missile is debatable, but at a 3 kill (2 with Hardline) it utterly far too common. Working your way up, the Mortar Team, a far more expensive reward is damn near completely ineffective. Valkyrie Rockets are hard to use mini-Pred missiles, and I'm not sure being given two is a fair trade-off given how vulnerable you are while using them. Basically, the entire list seems full of scattered ineffective killstreaks serving as filler.

Modern Warfare 2: Awesome powerful killstreaks, mostly balanced distribution, killstacking is a large flaw (+2 pts)
Black Ops: Greater variety in killstreaks, lots of ineffective filler, overabundant RC-XD. Not quite strong enough for two points, but not weak enough to deserve only one. I'll bump it up solely thanks to the SR-71 (+2 pts)


Matchmaking
The more important these get, the harder it is to determine what needs to be focused on. Is party chat and leader power important here? No, that'll be in The Rest. Here we need to look the more important things: Finding a game, quality of the game connection, quality of the competition.

Finding a game seems simple enough. The main complication always seems to be the size of the party. Well, that and the horrible matchmaking systems both games debuted with. It's true, both launches were a big hot mess. In the case of Black Ops, the game was near unplayable the first week (MW2 problems are harder to remember). As time went on IW worked very hard on shifting MW2s MM focus to connection latency, so much so that it became part of the feed during search. In the end, both feel effective enough – outside of GW MW2s appears equally fast. Black Ops' strength is the ability to dump higher part amounts into ongoing games (The weakness is you may not keep everyone when you do). MW2 is much choosier, and prefers to give people their own lobbies. This leads to some confusing lobby migrations. In Black Ops, if you get a half-empty lobby, you'll usually stay there till you die of old age.

Game connection quality is also hard to determine, given Black Ops more questionable hit detection issue (we'll see you later). All I can say is this: In MW2, 1 west coaster seemed enough to screw an entire lobby into playing across the country. In Black Ops, that doesn't seem to be the case. Conversely, MW2 seems less content to stay on a shitty connection. Black Ops almost thrives on it.

Now the strange closer: Competition quality. This is a no-brainer. For all the advanced stats, Black Ops seems destined to create uneven teams. I'm sure that guests introduce an unstable variable into the equation, but even if they were treated as < Green patch, game after game has shown me one sided teams being created with all high k/ds on one side and all scrubs on the other. Blow-outs occur with regularity (We've had nights where we set new records multiple times). In short, if you want a challenge, don't go here. MW2 is difficult, much more so. Blowouts occur much more rarely, and aren't nearly as clear. It cares about party size, almost to a fault.

Modern Warfare 2: Good balance, good connection, likes the West Coast too much
Black Ops: Better match joining, erratic connections, ****ed balance
It's a tough call as to points. Maybe you like blow-outs and no competition. I'll give the nod to MW2 on consistency and having less turn-over in game. (+2 pts to +1)
     
sek929  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 12:18 PM
 
So far I agree with everything you've posted, except the bit about secondaries.

Having AR + Shotgun in MW2 was unbalanced, I prefer Black Ops simply because it makes you stick with your primary choice. This is also the reason I like sniping so much in Black Ops. It takes skill and you are stuck with a sniper and a pistol secondary. There were times in MW2 where I would run around with my sniper class only using the shotgun, not so in Black Ops, my sniper class is for sniping only.

I loved having the M1014 secondary, but in reality it was just to powerful having a great primary weapon and a great secondary weapon. I also love the crossbow, and think it is an awesome addition to Black Ops.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 12:44 PM
 
Home stretch.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Critical (Stuff that makes or breaks a game) 0 - 5 pts
Maps and Spawns
Weapons
Perks
Netcode/Hit Detection
Netcode/Hit Detection
I think fatty did this section enough justice:
Hit detection, built-in lag, difference between client and host.....call it what you want, but the shooting mechanic, that is, the process of bringing up your sights, shooting an enemy, and taking him down is so fundamentally flawed in Black Ops compared to MW2. In a nutshell, Black Ops gunplay never feels solid, never feels like you are hitting someone with bullets, more like firing pellets. In MW2 you can predict "I will kill this person" or conversely "I will be killed by this person" in Black Ops the whole thing might as well be up to a group of a faeries. Hit markers flow like wine but mean nothing half of the time, people lumber by unscathed under a hail of gunfire and take you down with two pistol shots. The whole shooting mechanic feels floaty and disconnected when compared to MW2s tight rigid system. In MW2 you feel the weight of each shot and it lands where you expect it to. The killcams back me up, never have killcams made less sense than in Black Ops, never. In an FPS, all the fluff boils off and leave the core gameplay, which is shooting bullets and killing enemies. In this all-important realm Black Ops screwed something up, and made the guns feel light and weak. I almost wonder if the extra hitmarkers were their way of covering up their problems with hit detection.
Couple this with what I would say more egregious lag imbalances (Think when you get outknifed in MW2 only now it's with everything) and what do you get?

Modern Warfare 2: 9/10 it works (+5 pts)
Black Ops 6/10 it doesn't work (0 pts)


Perks
Perks are like killstreaks in many ways, as balance is key, and certain combos will often curry favor.
MW2 saw the rise of two very powerful, and ultimately, flawed, combos. MLC (Marathon Lightweight Commando) and OMADC (One Man Army Danger Close). I'm going to look at these flaws in depth.
MLC's flaws were two fold: Marathon was upgraded from a longer duration sprint to an unlimited sprint. While I appreciate the mechanic (particularly on larger maps) this is what enabled the latter two to go crazy. Lightweight, when coupled with an SMG, and sprinting, began to challenge the game's very hit detection, making it inconsistent. Finally Commando started out as a sort of lag compensator (like Stopping Power can be) and ended as the a destroyer of worlds in the wrong hands. Let's review: Lightweight was made broken by Marathon, and Commando was like Knife Stopping Power.
OMA was the more obvious flawed one. It didn't fulfill the Overkill's promise, while over-lapping with scavenger's generous but limited (read: balanced) abilities. It was redundant, but in a rewarding way.
Moving on from combos, Pro perks were a nice addition. However the challenges that accompanied them (along with priority) could be flawed. Sitrep's pro perk was unattainable. Ninja's pro perk was more useful than it's base. Steady Aim was counter-intuitive.

Flash forward to Black Ops. Stopping Power: Gone. Commando: Gone. OMA: Gone. Hacker (Sitrep): Very useful. Scout: Logical. Scavenger: No more unlimited claymores (But no more unlimited anti-air, either).All fantastic improvements. Now, the problems: Second Chance Pro: Unfair (Ignoring how much Last Stand sucks in general). Flak Jacket: Irritating (No symbol, like Painkiller or Juggernaut or the Blast Shield). Should be equipment. And while we're at it, Hardened and Tac Mask should be, too. Marathon and Lightweight can still be combo'd for utterly broken speeds, yet Ghost and Scavenger have been moved to same tier, hampering the ammo greedy ultra stealth types. Warlord is screwed on undermounts, ignoring other anti- explosive balances. Ninja gets the shaft thanks to new sound system (and it's anti HBS now Motion sensor ability is moved to Hacker Pro)

Yet, despite that veritable laundry list, its really a no contest. Black Ops flows better, though I arguably found it more vanilla (i.e., less good classes).

Modern Warfare 2: Pro Perks great, but sometimes useless addition. Stopping Power, OMA, Commando, Last Stand - Overpowered. Scrambler, SitRep, Hardline, Sleight of Hand - Underpowered. That's half the perks right there. (+2 pts)
Black Ops: No SP, No Juggernaut. No DC, but Flak Jacket? No Commando, but Second Chance Pro? A little boring, but far more balanced. (+4 pts)


Weapons (Primaries)
Another more subjective point in the game. What isn't subjective is Black Ops greatly scaled down the variety of choices in the game. What also followed was a decrease in recognizable styles and functional weapons. Is the Enfield worth the time? Most of the SMGs? The Shotguns? Most of the snipers?

Contrast that to MW2. Each weapon had its strengths and weaknesses, with few real useless options. Each AR had its own personality, based on power, clip size, recoil, and sights. Not to mention the awesome, awesome sound. Snipers fought on speed and recoil. SMGs on recoil and power. Pick a class and you can have a valid debate. You could also work by style. Maybe you prefer power no matter what. Maybe you want no recoil and deep clips. Maybe you want decent power and iron sights. You're covered everywhere.

The other weapon balance applies to maps. In MW2, you wouldn't get too far with an SMG in every situation (UMP of you're good), while in Black Ops they are much more likely to rule maps (See also: Rapid fire). The likelihood of OP weapons seemed greater in Black Ops, though I don't think it was as bad as the forums made it out to be (After all similar claims were made in MW2).

Modern Warfare 2: Lots o' weapons, Lots o' variety, less clear cut dominant weaps (+5 pts)
Black Ops: Over buffed SMGs, less useful than expected shottys, one good sniper rifle, bland ARs, strange LMGs (+2 pts)
Honestly, I'm not sure why I don't just score this as a binary proposition (5-0), but I'm giving Black Ops +2 points to cover the possibility of some serious partiality, as I really, really hate that game's weapons.


Maps and Spawns
The crux of Judgment Day. The longer I play the more I realize these are irrevocably linked. AFter all, for all the praise MW2's spawning, those issues still exists, and a common theme pops up: Highrise, Rust, Scrapyard, Favela, Skid Row. The most likely to get screwed on. Coincidentally the smallest maps?

Black Ops' problems feel more fundamental. Spawn Zones are easily recognizable, partially because there seems to be fewer of them, perhaps because the maps are also far simpler and there are less paths to take (which is somewhat amusing given camping is much harder as all rooms have 3 million entrances, roughly). Example of Spawn Zone problems: WMD. The Warehouse right next to one spawn has no influence over enemies spawning there. Maps like Havana, Summit, and Cracked will see you very often fighting to one end of the map, leaving you with a plethora of fresh enemies running straight at your exposed back. Summit is probably the most egregious example of awful map design I've ever seen. It's two endpoint spawn zones, a middle building and s shortcut between spawns. This does not foster immersive tactical gameplay. It fosters body spamming and spawn-killing.

Jungle remains the lone anti-example but hilariously, because it relies on one area where you the binary spawning helps you. As soon as you spot one enemy coming from a given entrance you can safely assume they're all over there. Leading to an easy lockdown of the area. When the flow stops you turn attention to the other side. Rinse, repeat.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop. The only thing that might be arguable against MW2 is you have a higher frequency of killcams where you can watch your opponent spawn then find you, but I chalk this up to Black Ops having shorter killcams as they're smaller maps. There's no way they shouldn't be comparable in frequency, yet somehow they aren't. half your deaths just end up being mysteries as they start once the enemy has engaged you.

Modern Warfare 2: Great maps, good spawns, most of time (+4 pts)
Black Ops: + Map "Interactivity" - Nuke Town (+1 pts)

If you don't agree with this portion of the shootout, chances are you won't agree with me on the rest, either. This strikes me as the fundamental place where Black Ops and MW2 players diverge.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
So far I agree with everything you've posted, except the bit about secondaries.

Having AR + Shotgun in MW2 was unbalanced, I prefer Black Ops simply because it makes you stick with your primary choice. This is also the reason I like sniping so much in Black Ops. It takes skill and you are stuck with a sniper and a pistol secondary. There were times in MW2 where I would run around with my sniper class only using the shotgun, not so in Black Ops, my sniper class is for sniping only.

I loved having the M1014 secondary, but in reality it was just to powerful having a great primary weapon and a great secondary weapon.
So does that apply only to the M1014? Or does that cover every shotty? Because if its only the M1014, that's more of a balance issue. I obviously feel the lack of ability to use it long range, silenced, with a deep clip, or shoot down air craft with it is a fair trade.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I also love the crossbow, and think it is an awesome addition to Black Ops.
Liking it doesn't mean it's not gimmicky. Like the semtex.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 12:56 PM
 
The Score

Notables:
MW2 - 3
Black Ops- 0 (1 -1)

Important (Part I):
MW2 - 5
Black Ops - 6

Important (Part II):
MW2 - 7
Black Ops - 3

Critical:
MW2 - 16
Black Ops - 7

Final Score:
MW2 - 31
Black Ops - 16

Okay, that's way more of a crushing victory than I expected. But that's weighted. What happens if I score each category as a win, loss or tie?

MW2: 8 wins, 3 losses, 3 ties. Giving Black Ops the benefit on all ties, MW2 wins, 8-6.

Feel free to just throw in your hat into the ring on what the scoring should be for each category (without counting till the end) and see what your result is.
( Last edited by The Final Dakar; May 31, 2011 at 01:46 PM. )
     
Leonard
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
So far I agree with everything you've posted, except the bit about secondaries.

Having AR + Shotgun in MW2 was unbalanced, I prefer Black Ops simply because it makes you stick with your primary choice. This is also the reason I like sniping so much in Black Ops. It takes skill and you are stuck with a sniper and a pistol secondary. There were times in MW2 where I would run around with my sniper class only using the shotgun, not so in Black Ops, my sniper class is for sniping only.

I loved having the M1014 secondary, but in reality it was just to powerful having a great primary weapon and a great secondary weapon. I also love the crossbow, and think it is an awesome addition to Black Ops.
Why have secondaries then?

I think a secondary should be useful and not just some stupid pistol like they have in homefront (although it is satisfying to surprise a sniper with a pistol kill).

But then certain shotguns in MW2 seemed too powerful or had too long of a range.

Rocket launchers/grenade launchers were useful for certain classes.

I think you really should be able to mix and match any 2 weapons. A sniper and an AR for instance. If you can pick it up later after you spawn, why not give the ability straight from the spawn?
Mac Pro Dual 3.0 Dual-Core
MacBook Pro
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 03:53 PM
 
The Rest

This is the fluff. It doesn't make or break the game, and it doesn't really enhance the experience greatly. It just is. What I've got so far (To be graded yet):

Stats
Parties
Offline
Co-op
Contracts
Challenges
Titles
Emblems
Killcams
Voice Chat
Start-up
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post
Why have secondaries then?

I think a secondary should be useful and not just some stupid pistol like they have in homefront (although it is satisfying to surprise a sniper with a pistol kill).

But then certain shotguns in MW2 seemed too powerful or had too long of a range.

Rocket launchers/grenade launchers were useful for certain classes.

I think you really should be able to mix and match any 2 weapons. A sniper and an AR for instance. If you can pick it up later after you spawn, why not give the ability straight from the spawn?
Current FPS gameplay involves compromises. If you can use any two primaries, you're not really compromising. Granted, a shotgun is really effective close range, but an SMG will still outclass it at most ranges.

Who would carry around rockets when you can have another AR? No one. Who can sneak up and kill a Sniper if he can fire back with a SCAR? The balance is there now, even if it needs tuning.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 04:26 PM
 
Timely post by someone on NeoGaf (Apparently people revisted the game during the three-day weekend):
Weapon balance? Every weapon is so nearly identical to each other that it's pathetic. It doesn't even come close to having the variety of MW2.
The shotguns, snipers & explosives may have been nerfed, but now they're completely useless in any situation.

The maps are across the board smaller, overly simplified & just less intricate. Like Havana is just one flat rectangle strip of land with two little enclaves at the opposite ends of the map for the teams to spawn.

Compare that to Quarry or Karachi in MW2, just a completely different level in design.
     
sek929  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So does that apply only to the M1014? Or does that cover every shotty? Because if its only the M1014, that's more of a balance issue. I obviously feel the lack of ability to use it long range, silenced, with a deep clip, or shoot down air craft with it is a fair trade.

Liking it doesn't mean it's not gimmicky. Like the semtex.
Applies to all shotguns, especially the SPAS since it's range and power are something to be reckoned with.

Your response to Leonard hit my point on the head. I like how choosing a sniper class is a massive compromise in Black Ops. Sure I'm raining abuse on enemies two football fields away, but the mid-close range battles become incredibly hectic. In MW2 I'd snipe to my hearts content, then spin around with a shotty in my hands. Granted I loved that, but it made me all that more unbearable to play against, at least in Black Ops if you get close enough to me you are going to have a huuuuuge advantage.

Another thing I really like about having the 'weak' secondaries is the switching speed. Going back to MW2 it felt like ages between weapon switches which left me wide open a number of times. Even though taking out the pistol may not instill terror in your enemies, it'll be very fast...leaving you time to shoot, run away, or juke your way in close for the stab.

Another plus for Black Ops' limited secondary selection is now enemies with anti-aircraft weapons are much more common, even myself on several classes, with is something I only have one special class made in MW2 for. I've never shot down so many UAVs and helis than in Black Ops, and it's mostly because given the choice, I'd rather pick a weapon like a shotgun as my secondary, but the other way turns out to be far more useful to my team in the long-run.

I guess I'll concede that the Crossbow and Ballistic Knife are a bit gimmicky, but I feel if there were more choices in the way of special weapons this wouldn't be such an issue.

Lastly, going up a few posts of yours you mentioned how blowouts are more common in Black Ops than MW2. I'm going to have to completely disagree here. There were tons of nights in MW2 where we wouldn't lose once, and always win by 3000 points or more. I'm not saying Black Ops is more balanced in the way of not letting us win as much, but IMO, we drop beatdowns frequently in both games. Now when you say Black Ops has a tendency to leave teams very unbalanced I will agree, especially when it was just me and you playing on certain nights. We'd win by a large margin, being the top two players on our team, and then it would almost always take the lead player from the other team and shuffle him to us, very strange.
     
sek929  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Timely post by someone on NeoGaf (Apparently people revisted the game during the three-day weekend):
Snipers useless in any situation? Meh, this guy is talking out of his ass. Also I find explosives, like semtex, incredibly useful.
     
boy8cookie
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll let you know when I get there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 04:49 PM
 
No Poll?

Weak.

MW2 by a mile in all regards. **** BO, killed the CoD experience for me.
     
sek929  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 05:03 PM
 
Notables:
MW2 - 3
Black Ops- 1*

*I like the graphics, and as I said before I think the color palette is more interesting.

Important (Part I):
MW2 - 4*
Black Ops - 7*

*I removed a point for MW2 secondaries because of my concerns I voiced earlier. Sure, there is some variety, but 99% of the time you are going to see shotgun secondaries, the other 1% is thumper or rockets. I added one point to Black Ops secondaries,

Important (Part II):
MW2 - 6*
Black Ops - 4*

*Removed a point for MW2 under framerate, smoke grenades and smoke in general bring the game to its knees, didn't add any for Black Ops in this category since, as you said, its framerate is much worse. Added a point to Black Ops under matchmaking to make it a wash.

Critical:
MW2 - 15*
Black Ops - 8*

*Added a point for Black Ops under maps/spawns, because I think you are to harsh, and removed a point for MW2 in the same category since its spawn system is nearly as flawed IMO. Still give the edge in map design to MW2.

Final Score:
MW2 - 28
Black Ops - 20

Still a decent victory for MW2. However, if Black Ops had the same level of hit detection this could have turned into a real heated discussion about which game is better. But the game breakers for me are hit detection, and the useless sound system. All other points are far more even between the two games.
( Last edited by sek929; May 31, 2011 at 05:14 PM. )
     
Leonard
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2011, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Who would carry around rockets when you can have another AR? No one. Who can sneak up and kill a Sniper if he can fire back with a SCAR? The balance is there now, even if it needs tuning.
I'd certainly carry around a rocket if the map has little shelter and a pavelow or 2 comes out, or if that pave low is worth 400 battle points. it's like in Homefront, I thougt I'd never use a Rhino, but you can help your team by getting rid of aircraft or tanks which distract and destroy your team.

As for a sniper having a SCAR, it won't matter because when a guy is sniping they are concentrating on sniping and not on things around them. It's easy to sneak up on them. an AR would as a secondary would allow a sniper to also play a non- sniping role.
Mac Pro Dual 3.0 Dual-Core
MacBook Pro
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2011, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Notables:
MW2 - 3
Black Ops- 1*

*I like the graphics, and as I said before I think the color palette is more interesting.
I meant to ask about this the last time you said it. Got some specific examples?


Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Final Score:
MW2 - 28
Black Ops - 20

Still a decent victory for MW2. However, if Black Ops had the same level of hit detection this could have turned into a real heated discussion about which game is better. But the game breakers for me are hit detection, and the useless sound system. All other points are far more even between the two games.
I've done some other math-play where I gave Black Ops an extra point in every category where they weren't maxed and it was still like a 3 - 5 point win for MW2.
     
sek929  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2011, 02:20 PM
 
Maps like Nuketown, Jungle, Villa, and Firing Range strike me as using a broader color palette than anything I can think of from MW2. The only map in MW2 I would consider calling colorful is Carnival.

Looking back now at each game's map selection I can say that Black Ops uses more vibrant colors, wheras MW2 has a very subdued and pastel-ish set of colors repeated through all of its maps. Invasion and Favela are two maps with colored buildings, but those colors are very washed out, coupled with the overall bleak backgrounds of deserts and destroyed middle-eastern villages the whole game can be summed up in one word to me, brown.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2011, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Snipers useless in any situation? Meh, this guy is talking out of his ass. Also I find explosives, like semtex, incredibly useful.
I was referring to the part about the maps.


Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Another thing I really like about having the 'weak' secondaries is the switching speed. Going back to MW2 it felt like ages between weapon switches which left me wide open a number of times. Even though taking out the pistol may not instill terror in your enemies, it'll be very fast...leaving you time to shoot, run away, or juke your way in close for the stab.
Wait, you can't complain about secondaries being overpowered and in the same breath complain that they take too long to switch to. That's the point, it's balance!

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Another plus for Black Ops' limited secondary selection is now enemies with anti-aircraft weapons are much more common, even myself on several classes, with is something I only have one special class made in MW2 for. I've never shot down so many UAVs and helis than in Black Ops, and it's mostly because given the choice, I'd rather pick a weapon like a shotgun as my secondary, but the other way turns out to be far more useful to my team in the long-run.
Forcing team play through poor weapon selection is not good game design. The proof is that MW2 and Black Ops become polar opposites – thanks to secondaries being mostly useless everyone has turned their attention to the killstreaks. And since Black Ops slowed down the pace there we go from one game with flooded airways to one where nothing survives for 10 seconds. That's incredibly poorly thought-out on both sides.

Either allow killstreaks to stack and give us shitty secondaries, or keep them rarer and give us a plethora of choices outside of rockets.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I guess I'll concede that the Crossbow and Ballistic Knife are a bit gimmicky, but I feel if there were more choices in the way of special weapons this wouldn't be such an issue.
Not only are they gimmicky, they're one-hit kills with far better range than shotguns. I can't imagine how much more broken they'd be in a game with consistent hit detection.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Lastly, going up a few posts of yours you mentioned how blowouts are more common in Black Ops than MW2. I'm going to have to completely disagree here. There were tons of nights in MW2 where we wouldn't lose once, and always win by 3000 points or more. I'm not saying Black Ops is more balanced in the way of not letting us win as much, but IMO, we drop beatdowns frequently in both games. Now when you say Black Ops has a tendency to leave teams very unbalanced I will agree, especially when it was just me and you playing on certain nights. We'd win by a large margin, being the top two players on our team, and then it would almost always take the lead player from the other team and shuffle him to us, very strange.
Those nights in MW2 where we wouldn't lose included out best 3 players, playing in a lobby we would never leave, which is the main advantage we could use MW2. I don't remember us getting many games where we'd win by 3000 pts or more, where in Black Ops, that practically the majority of the games, win or lose.


Originally Posted by Leonard View Post
I'd certainly carry around a rocket if the map has little shelter and a pavelow or 2 comes out, or if that pave low is worth 400 battle points. it's like in Homefront, I thougt I'd never use a Rhino, but you can help your team by getting rid of aircraft or tanks which distract and destroy your team.

As for a sniper having a SCAR, it won't matter because when a guy is sniping they are concentrating on sniping and not on things around them. It's easy to sneak up on them. an AR would as a secondary would allow a sniper to also play a non- sniping role.
It is not easy to sneak up a good player. If I had a SCAR instead of shotty I'd be twice the bastard because I'd have twice the flexibility.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2011, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Maps like Nuketown, Jungle, Villa, and Firing Range strike me as using a broader color palette than anything I can think of from MW2. The only map in MW2 I would consider calling colorful is Carnival.

Looking back now at each game's map selection I can say that Black Ops uses more vibrant colors, wheras MW2 has a very subdued and pastel-ish set of colors repeated through all of its maps. Invasion and Favela are two maps with colored buildings, but those colors are very washed out, coupled with the overall bleak backgrounds of deserts and destroyed middle-eastern villages the whole game can be summed up in one word to me, brown.
I think you're liking the backdrops more than the palettes. because I'm not seeing anything special here:


Or here:


Nuke Town is indeed cool, but its also highly stylized and complete cluster**** as a map, so that's a push.

Jungle is a jungle. You like a green and brown? I guess you've found your place. Also highly stylized.
     
sek929  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2011, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Wait, you can't complain about secondaries being overpowered and in the same breath complain that they take too long to switch to. That's the point, it's balance!
Sure I can, I prefer the quicker switching to weaker weapons as I think it makes the game far more realistic than running around with a loaded LMG and a shotgun with twelve rounds in it. I say the balance is better taking away shotgun secondaries because it makes class choice more important. Remember, I could play games with my sniper class and go 20-5 never using the sniper, that's just strange.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Not only are they gimmicky, they're one-hit kills with far better range than shotguns. I can't imagine how much more broken they'd be in a game with consistent hit detection.
I don't see it that way. They have incredibly limited ammo and are so much more difficult to hit a moving opponent it evens out quite nicely. The ballistic knife is best suited for close range, where the crossbow is much better at long range, but at long range you need to arc the shot several feet above your target it actually takes skill compared to normal weapons. The special weapons need more variety, but I don't think they are in any way unbalanced.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Those nights in MW2 where we wouldn't lose included out best 3 players, playing in a lobby we would never leave, which is the main advantage we could use MW2. I don't remember us getting many games where we'd win by 3000 pts or more, where in Black Ops, that practically the majority of the games, win or lose.
We would win by 3000+ points allll the time dude. The challenges for annihilation victory would rack up like killstreaks for me. Not to mention we crested 20 wins in a row several times in our MW2 career. MW2 did seem to leave lobbies intact more, but I can't remember winning any less in MW2 as compared to Black Ops, quite the opposite in fact.

Edit: I guess I like the location in the jungles of Vietnam more than urban desert environs. This isn't saying one game has better maps, I just find them more appealing than the monotonous bland desert brown fest that is MW2.
     
Leonard
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2011, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It is not easy to sneak up a good player. If I had a SCAR instead of shotty I'd be twice the bastard because I'd have twice the flexibility.
True, I've had a couple of Snipers that I haven't been able to sneak up on or flank, and they've royally p***ed me off.

But in Homefront, I haven't seen too many good ones - one of the reasons for my 116 pistol kills. I probably found more good snipers in MW2.
Mac Pro Dual 3.0 Dual-Core
MacBook Pro
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2011, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Sure I can, I prefer the quicker switching to weaker weapons as I think it makes the game far more realistic than running around with a loaded LMG and a shotgun with twelve rounds in it.
You can prefer it, but the quickness has nothing to do with adding game balance when the other side of the equation has been removed.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I say the balance is better taking away shotgun secondaries because it makes class choice more important. Remember, I could play games with my sniper class and go 20-5 never using the sniper, that's just strange.
Not really. If you were caught out in the open, you'd be ****ed. See, you're confusing good strategy with being overpowered. Could you do that on every map? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I don't see it that way. They have incredibly limited ammo
Scavenger, and yes, i saw this often enough.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
and are so much more difficult to hit a moving opponent it evens out quite nicely. The ballistic knife is best suited for close range, where the crossbow is much better at long range, but at long range you need to arc the shot several feet above your target it actually takes skill compared to normal weapons. The special weapons need more variety, but I don't think they are in any way unbalanced.
They're basically mini-snipers. Hell, they're more effective in that they'll kill you if they touch you anywhere.


Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
We would win by 3000+ points allll the time dude. The challenges for annihilation victory would rack up like killstreaks for me.
Not as much as in Black Ops, no.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Not to mention we crested 20 wins in a row several times in our MW2 career.
I recall this. I already admitted this is the flaw of holding onto a lobby.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
MW2 did seem to leave lobbies intact more, but I can't remember winning any less in MW2 as compared to Black Ops, quite the opposite in fact.
Easily disproven. See: Our win loss ratios. I went from 1.8 to 2.6 in Black Ops. That's a staggering difference.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Edit: I guess I like the location in the jungles of Vietnam more than urban desert environs. This isn't saying one game has better maps, I just find them more appealing than the monotonous bland desert brown fest that is MW2.
And I accept this fully. But I tried not to factor my distaste for Black Ops aesthetic in here (going so far as to award 2 extra points on the weapon area as that's probably where it affects me most)

Any bias on maps is rooted in gameplay preference rather than aesthetic.
     
sek929  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2011, 03:43 PM
 
Win / Loss doesn't tell the whole story.

We went into Black Ops an established team that cut our teeth for hundreds of hours in MW2. I went into MW2 never having played CoD online before. Not sure about your crew though, how many were well-versed in CoD multiplayer when we started playing MW2? I'm willing to bet our familiarity with the mechanics, and with eachother had a large part to play in how much we won in Black Ops right off the bat. Hell, my first match ever on Black Ops I went 20+ kills with single digit deaths, that is because I played MW2 first and understood how to play at that point.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2011, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Win / Loss doesn't tell the whole story.

We went into Black Ops an established team that cut our teeth for hundreds of hours in MW2. I went into MW2 never having played CoD online before. Not sure about your crew though, how many were well-versed in CoD multiplayer when we started playing MW2? I'm willing to bet our familiarity with the mechanics, and with eachother had a large part to play in how much we won in Black Ops right off the bat. Hell, my first match ever on Black Ops I went 20+ kills with single digit deaths, that is because I played MW2 first and understood how to play at that point.
Time to be gentle. There's some truth to that. But do you remember those first two weeks? Most of us were ready to walk away from the game, between the hit detection, spawning, recoil, and feeling out the Stopping Powerless damage system, there was a pretty huge learning curve. When we started getting rolling, I think I coined the term, "Difficult to learn, easy to master" to describe the trial that had been acclimating to Black Ops.


If you're right, and I mean, really really right, then we should be even better at MW3 than Black Ops right? Otherwise I think experience is a very small component in the larger narrative.
     
sek929  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2011, 04:44 PM
 
If MW3 irons out the problems we have with Black Ops, then we should technically do better, but I don't think we had as much of a break between MW2 and Black Ops as we are going to have between Black Ops and MW3.

I think our record will be better than MW2 easily, because of the reasons I mentioned before.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2011, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
If MW3 irons out the problems we have with Black Ops, then we should technically do better, but I don't think we had as much of a break between MW2 and Black Ops as we are going to have between Black Ops and MW3.
I was the last person playing MW2, and we were done by this time last year. We have at least three guys still in the cycle right now.
(On a related note, I played my first game Black Ops in two months Sunday – on a map i didn't know. Finished right at my k/d, 2.4)

Edit: Since you added
I think our record will be better than MW2 easily, because of the reasons I mentioned before.
Naw, naw, son. That's back-pedaling. Why wouldn't we continue to get better from Black Ops?
     
sek929  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2011, 05:51 PM
 
I suppose it's possible, but our records (wins, k/d) are already so damn good I can't see much room for improvement. If we do end up being better at MW3 than either game I think it's time to go pro for us.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2011, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I suppose it's possible, but our records (wins, k/d) are already so damn good I can't see much room for improvement. If we do end up being better at MW3 than either game I think it's time to go pro for us.
That's hilarious, because winning nearly two games before taking a loss, I though we were already pretty damn good. Look at the people we encounter in Black Ops; As far as winning percentage goes, only full-on clans and insanely gifted players match us. Is our improvement really worth an increase of nearly 50% to winning?

Alright, let's try and narrow down what's reasonable. (It's unfortunate I don't have my Black Ops stats in front of me; If only they had implemented online stats of some kind) I believe my my winning percentage in Black Ops is 2.6. I know for certain it hovered at a scary 3.0 momentarily. My MW2 w/l stands 1.8.

My argument is that my Black Ops record of 2.6 is mostly due thanks to terrible matchmaking and numerous guests. You think it's natural evolution - getting better at the game. So where do put our respective predictions at?
     
boy8cookie
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll let you know when I get there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2011, 02:51 PM
 
I'll be playing MW3 with you guys, so automatically the win % will be much higher.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2011, 03:05 PM
 
Joking aside, I hadn't considered that – we beat the pants off our previous records without our best player.
     
Stogieman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2011, 03:23 PM
 
Or maybe your % went up because Crosbie wasn't host.

Slick shoes?! Are you crazy?!
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2011, 03:38 PM
 
If you played Black Ops you'd know your connection would have been the least of our problems.
     
boy8cookie
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll let you know when I get there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2011, 05:23 PM
 
I was there for some of the early "records" (1100-7500 on Jungle, etc). The inconsistency in hit detection and predictably bad spawns got old quick though.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2011, 10:20 AM
 
Two thoughts after playing Black Ops last night:

1. The spawning is horrific. I'm not sure what Todd's complaints are, but the best way i can parse the difference in the systems is that MW2's spawning is more beneficial for those who are still living, while Black Ops' is more beneficial to those who have just died.

2. My w/l is Black Ops is 2.9 (roughly). 2.9 More than twice 1.8 So if you split the difference, our win loss in MW3 should be in the 2.5 range if Black Ops was really just us getting awesome and not horrific matchmaking (assuming no guests and no major gameplay changes).
     
sek929  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2011, 12:46 PM
 
I think if we play as a full crew right off the bat that 2.5 should be doable, for you at least.

The difference between MW2 and BO for me is more or less a solid 2.00, and I am very certain I can reach that.
     
boy8cookie
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll let you know when I get there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2011, 05:14 PM
 
1.8*2=3.6
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2011, 10:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by boy8cookie View Post
1.8*2=3.6
Art Major!

Hilariously, I forgot to carry the one.


Their numbers always get me though... I have trouble figuring out what the 1.8 and 2.9 mean. Is it 1.8 wins per loss?
     
boy8cookie
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll let you know when I get there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2011, 02:28 PM
 
kills/deaths
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2011, 02:31 PM
 
Sorry, staring at numbers too long completely addles me. Think of it like the rule of people once they get put in lines.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:31 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,