But Zombies ruined in some way CoD games, thay are supposed to be real and war-based, and oh come on zombies? But they can be fun, but I just find they don't fit very well in those games.
But Zombies ruined in some way CoD games, thay are supposed to be real and war-based, and oh come on zombies? But they can be fun, but I just find they don't fit very well in those games.
eh, i think most people would disagree with you here. the zombie modes of treyarch's CoD games are really creative additions that add a lot of variety to the game. plus its an entirely separate mode. you don't need to play it if it bugs you. problem solved!
But Zombies ruined in some way CoD games, thay are supposed to be real and war-based, and oh come on zombies? But they can be fun, but I just find they don't fit very well in those games.
eh, i think most people would disagree with you here. the zombie modes of treyarch's CoD games are really creative additions that add a lot of variety to the game. plus its an entirely separate mode. you don't need to play it if it bugs you. problem solved!
Im not saying that it bugs me, I was just saying, that is was a little strange for me to put zombies is a real war based game, anyways If it is fun to play with zombies, I really don't care. I was just waying my opinion. That is doesn't like, fit?
Supposedly (the rumor is that) the next CoD game takes place in space as space marines. INSTA-BUY
Halo much?
Damn. Why are people talking about Halo all the time. The terrible boredness i've experienced when playing those games have traumatized me for life. This thread doesn't even relate to Halo...
I don't think it'll be anything like Halo... Halo has a complete different style of play... if anything it'll be similar to Ghost Recon: Future Soldier or even Crysis 2(Crysis 2 multiplayer looks like a superpowered COD).
Please sign the petition to get Nintendo to integrate Social Features directly in the Switch OS/Hardware:
https://www.change.org/p/nintendo-integrated-network-features-on-nintendo-switch-voice-chat-lobby
it's tough to innovate a genre that's just about killing people... it doesn't seem like sound logic to expect the type of innovation you get from Zelda or Mario. Again, what else do you want?
you're right the fps don't have as much room for experimentation, but i think metroid prime and to a lesser extent perfect dark demonstrate that there's plenty of wiggle room with the format. that doesn't mean i expect call of duty to become an exploration based game or anything. my point is that it's a good series that's been getting an unwarranted number of releases because it's too profitable for activision to stop milking every penny from it (seriously, they're basing their entire business on it http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=141618 ). it's not a problem of black ops failing to innovate as much as it is the fact that black ops exists, on shelves just one year after the last game, with another set for release soon.
that doesn't mean black ops is a bad choice, but if you've played call of duty before i think you know what you'll be getting. goldeneye wasn't completely unlike anything i've played but at least gave me some surprises. the original game definitely doesn't prepare you for what you'll see and do in it.
But Zombies ruined in some way CoD games, thay are supposed to be real and war-based, and oh come on zombies? But they can be fun, but I just find they don't fit very well in those games.
It's a seperate mode. Every Call of Duty since 4 has had a wierd extra mode, like Arcade Mode, Zombie Mode, and Spec-Ops. Yeah, it's weird and cartoony, even compared to the Zombie Mode to World at War, but it's still very, very fun. Really, it's like a whole separate game within the game - you can take it or leave it, and it doesn't ruin the canon of the otherwise realisticish series.
If you're looking for single player.. you likely beat Goldeneye 10 years ago with the rest of us, and in that case Black Ops campaign has a whole lot more new to offer.
If you're looking for online.. Black Ops will have a community about 500x larger and the game itself has a ton of modes.
I think the only way anyone could take Goldeneye is if they REALLY enjoyed the game years ago and have absolutely no interest whatsoever in Call of Duty, for whatever reason.
Dude, get Goldeneye for the Wii, and Black Ops for any other console, the differnce is big, in the Wii there is no zombie mode, no splitscreen and poor graphics. IGN give Goldeneye 007 Wii a 9, and CoD Black Ops Wii 7.5, that mean that for IGN Goldeneye is 2.5 better than CoD Black Ops Wii, they also give CoD Black Ops for ps3, the one that have good graphics, zombies and spliscreen a 8.5. Anyways thats what IGN think about the game,its really tou decision (but come on dude, Goldeneye looks f*cking great)
it's tough to innovate a genre that's just about killing people... it doesn't seem like sound logic to expect the type of innovation you get from Zelda or Mario. Again, what else do you want?
you're right the fps don't have as much room for experimentation, but i think metroid prime and to a lesser extent perfect dark demonstrate that there's plenty of wiggle room with the format. that doesn't mean i expect call of duty to become an exploration based game or anything. my point is that it's a good series that's been getting an unwarranted number of releases because it's too profitable for activision to stop milking every penny from it (seriously, they're basing their entire business on it http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=141618 ). it's not a problem of black ops failing to innovate as much as it is the fact that black ops exists, on shelves just one year after the last game, with another set for release soon.
that doesn't mean black ops is a bad choice, but if you've played call of duty before i think you know what you'll be getting. goldeneye wasn't completely unlike anything i've played but at least gave me some surprises. the original game definitely doesn't prepare you for what you'll see and do in it.
Okay, and this is where our opinions diverge. You see, I don't like spending $50 or $60 on a surprise. I save that for the bargain bins( Hence why I haven't bought 007 yet). When given a choice, I'm probably gonna stick with the series that I know I'll like, and Call of Duty just happens to be one of them. So long as they don't do something stupid and the quality suddenly goes down, I'm probably gonna get the next one, because I enjoy them, and by the next year, I'm usually done with the copy I have. I only really get sick of a consistantly good series when my tastes change, and then nothing they do to it will be able to change my mind, unless they turn it into a completely different genre (See Halo, Pokemon, and Zelda).
So in short, as Brook83 was saying:
Different doesn't always equal better
Surprises aren't always a good thing.
Not in my opinion at least.
Also, coming back to the main point of the thread, both Black Ops and Goldeneye will be "surprises" to the OP, so I don't see why the best CoD to date by numerous standards can't be comparable to one of the best Bond License FPSes to come out in a long time. Goldeneye is different from Call of Duty, yes. But call of Duty is also different from other FPSes by equal degrees (coming from what I'm told at least, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). They're different series, but they're both quite good, and the better FPSes on the Wii by most accounts, with each being stronger in different categories. Really, all I'm trying to say is give it a little credit, darn it. It's a good game. That alone warrants its existance. If Activision's gamble causes the next CoD to suck, then we, the consumers, don't have to buy it, and I'm sure word of mouth for a series that big will spread rapidly enough to ensure the big bad corporation won't see a profit. Otherwise I don't see why Black Ops is a problem.
Dude, get Goldeneye for the Wii, and Black Ops for any other console, the differnce is big, in the Wii there is no zombie mode, no splitscreen and poor graphics. IGN give Goldeneye 007 Wii a 9, and CoD Black Ops Wii 7.5, that mean that for IGN Goldeneye is 2.5 better than CoD Black Ops Wii, they also give CoD Black Ops for ps3, the one that have good graphics, zombies and spliscreen a 8.5. Anyways thats what IGN think about the game,its really tou decision (but come on dude, Goldeneye looks f*cking great)
Dude, get Goldeneye for the Wii, and Black Ops for any other console, the differnce is big, in the Wii there is no zombie mode, no splitscreen and poor graphics. IGN give Goldeneye 007 Wii a 9, and CoD Black Ops Wii 7.5, that mean that for IGN Goldeneye is 2.5 better than CoD Black Ops Wii, they also give CoD Black Ops for ps3, the one that have good graphics, zombies and spliscreen a 8.5. Anyways thats what IGN think about the game,its really tou decision (but come on dude, Goldeneye looks f*cking great)
Besides, the Wii version has much better controls and therefore much better gameplay. The lack of offline multiplayer is disappointing though and gives Goldeneye and Conduit 2 a leg up. Personally, I think any good Wii FPS stands out from the generic crowd of HD console FPSs just by having the Wii's motion controls.
Ash: Professor Oak, how's your Bulbasaur?
Prof. Oak: Oh, it only hurts when I sit.
...
Prof. Oak: It's only Chansey if Krabby won't let go. Bye, now.
Ash: I don't think I'm going to call him anymore.
If you're looking for single player.. you likely beat Goldeneye 10 years ago with the rest of us, and in that case Black Ops campaign has a whole lot more new to offer.
If you're looking for online.. Black Ops will have a community about 500x larger and the game itself has a ton of modes.
I think the only way anyone could take Goldeneye is if they REALLY enjoyed the game years ago and have absolutely no interest whatsoever in Call of Duty, for whatever reason.
Two other reasons: They have a lot of oppurtunities to use offline multiplayer. They are either too young or don't like to play M rated games.
Ash: Professor Oak, how's your Bulbasaur?
Prof. Oak: Oh, it only hurts when I sit.
...
Prof. Oak: It's only Chansey if Krabby won't let go. Bye, now.
Ash: I don't think I'm going to call him anymore.
Besides, the Wii version has much better controls and therefore much better gameplay. The lack of offline multiplayer is disappointing though and gives Goldeneye and Conduit 2 a leg up. Personally, I think any good Wii FPS stands out from the generic crowd of HD console FPSs just by having the Wii's motion controls.
A me too gimmick doesn't really seem like "standing out" to me. Just saying.
Forums
Topic: Goldeneye or Black Ops?
Posts 81 to 100 of 188
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.