COD :BLACK OPS TRAILER TONIGHT
AGENT47
who needs IW, I LOVED nazi zombies co-op I spent more hours on that
than any other COD game to date
The Der Riese map was a blast with the teleporters , electric fences,
and the pack -a-punch machine that made COLT's have exploding bullets
plus the 4 player co-op campaign with all the death cards activated
was really fun as well
I hope they have another "veteran mode" I loved the grenade showers
myself
The alMIGHTY N
I wasn't a big fan of Nazi Zombies. I finally got to experience it
properly when hanging out at my in-laws' - they live with the nephew I
gave my old Xbox 360 to, and he *loves* Nazi Zombies (and is pretty
f'ing good at it, too). I thought it was okay, but I couldn't really
get into it that much.
I think I may have been playing the same map you refer to. Is Der
Riese the downloadable one that takes place in a weird factory/
warehouse type location with a bunch of teleporters and a giant device
in the middle area up on an elevated platform that can upgrade
weapons?
The one I'm thinking about has this one room where you can go up on
some steps and across a catwalk and then kind of just sit there while
all the enemies come rushing at you from only two points (a doorway to
the left and the stairs to the right) - my nephew likes to hang there
and zap the enemies with a laser gun or throw monkey bombs.
He's got all sorts of strategies that he must have really researched
because they're not things that a casual player would even think of.
What he likes to do is stab the zombies the number of times that kills
them minus one and then shoot them afterwards to maximize points
earned... and leave one zombie with the legs shot out so it's crawling
around but still "alive" so he can just run around the level boarding
up windows, upgrading, activating teleporters, etc.
Anyway, back on topic...
I'm a little disappointed that the game won't be a "Vietnam War game"
like the earlier Call of Duty titles were "World War II games."
Black Ops just doesn't evoke a sense of a period piece game. From what
I've read on the web just now, which is really just rumors anyway
until the trailer premieres, it takes place during the Cold War era in
a variety of locations. I wonder why they couldn't just do a Vietnam
War game since tons of gamers are clamoring for that and no one's
really been able to make a truly killer Vietnam War game yet.
AGENT47
yeah that's the map, it's a progressive map, meaning that as you gain
levels (there is no ceiling to the levels)
"lol leave a crawler"
been awhile since I heard that........
eventually you'll need to unlock the PACK-A-PUNCH machine , which you
have to link up all teleporters to do so , in doing so zombies have
access to the area, its a bit of a balance issue, to get to the higher
levels you'll need the pack-a-punch machine (that machine in the
middle)
But there's a downside , those zombies that only come from 2 areas
will now come from 3 , then 4, then eventually the zombies will come
from all sides of you ( did you make it out of that area?) there's
more to Der Riese than that starting stage
you need the stronger weapons because the zombies scale up each 5
rounds or so , you get more tougher zombies and after ahwile those
starting weapons will take a whole mag of a m60 to kill just a few
zombies
this is where weapons like the WonderWaffle come into play and the
life saving monkey bombs
the first few rounds are management rounds, in order to gain the most
points to spend on unlocking areas and upgrading weapons, your best
opportunity is to start saving your cash right away buy knifing the
first 5 rounds or so of zombies, knifing them earns you much more
points, and like you saw already "leave a crawler" is what we call
em..BUT there is a downside to "crawlers" they are on a bleed out
timer, in the later stages you need to hold a zombie at the
window..just have one person hold the repair boards and the zombie
will stay there longer (this is where window guy is hero) but its a
bit of a chore role in the team
The newer always think to leave crawlers but they bleed out ,.,its
better to have a full body non damaged zombie at a window then a
crawler
once you get to the higher rounds then you'll start to have to move
around a little more, no longer camping will keep you alive, this is
when the teleporters start to come into play which is why its good to
start saving money early
ALSO THE WINDOW guy is the most important player for better or worse
its important to keep at least one zombie alive , when you have an
idea the round is over, this gives people precious time to restock
ammo supplies , fix all the windows and what not ( you can get away
with crawlers like you described in the first few 20 ish rounds or so)
but they are on a bleed out timer
nazi zombies is probably one of the best designed co-op games ever
created, it really challenges you to think as a team, use money
wisely , have good team communication , have a good strategy laid out
before hand
since there is no ceiling to how many rounds you go , it can get
really insane , the highest I got on Der Riese without using any
glitches or tricks was round 60 and it was INSANE the only weapon at
this point worth anything is the WWaffle, everything eles you might as
well throw jelly beans at them
then you have the zombie DOGS which are a blessing and a curse , a
blessing because it gives you that much needed ammo , usually the last
dog drops an ammo crate upon dying
I don't play zombies anymore, but when I did I often had 3-6 hour
matches in one sitting , in that 3 hours + you really get to know your
online friends , and when you all survive a 3 hour battle together
(my longest match was 7 hours with the same 4 people) and in this time
you really get to know who your gaming with ..sometimes its
hilarious ..there's always one really dumb guy or one nube..but we all
sort of help each other ..we give the nube tips (NO DON'T SAVE A
CRAWLER) save a window full zombie then you have all the time in the
world to go ammo up and repair boards and what not..put your weapon
in the pack a punch or roll the dice on the weapons goody chest
the first few rounds though are really maintenance rounds or
preparation rounds for the tougher zombies, in those key moments can
make or break
i've had some epic co-op games on that map
plus there was at that time this entire zombie back story on how they
were made, there were clues in all the maps , there was a fan made
website devoted to the nazi zombie theory and treyarch would throw
little hidden secrets now and then so you never knew when something
was added or if it had been there
unlike L4D where I really didn't give a crap about the story, Nazi
zombies had a big draw story wise, added with the fantastic co-op made
for some fun gaming
XBOX 1 had a couple pretty decent Vietnam games, I remember one you
could walk around the barracks and chat before you went into the
jungle , it had some light RPG elements to it
wow I remember people saying there's too many Vietnam games, there
were 4 all in 2004 pretty close to each other
I've even seen come comments at GT where the kids are saying they're
tired of "modern games"
sheesh
Luther Root
>
> Anyway, back on topic...
>
> I'm a little disappointed that the game won't be a "Vietnam War game"
> like the earlier Call of Duty titles were "World War II games."
Yeah, you and me both. I'm starting to believe that I'll never play a
decent Vietnam War FPS. Men of Valor probably came close (I liked the
idea that you fought in real battles but the game was mostly "meh".) I
hope DICE try to fill this void by doing a sequel to Battlefield
Vietnam -- I didn't play it, but from what I remember reviews were
generally positive.
> Black Ops just doesn't evoke a sense of a period piece game.
They should have named it COW: Not quite Modern Warfare. But I can
almost get a sense of their thinking:
"Oh, we _must_ do a snow level"
"Yeah, definitely got to do a snow level"
"Bad Company 2 did a snow level"
"Well, that settles it then, we're doing a snow level"
> I wonder why they couldn't just do a Vietnam
> War game since tons of gamers are clamoring for that and no one's
> really been able to make a truly killer Vietnam War game yet.
The answer is that developers are under a misguided belief that gamers
want varied gameplay locations for FPS (mostly to facilitate a variety
of multiplayer maps), as supposedly proven by MW2 and BC2.
They were also apprehensive about returning to exclusively to the
jungle because CoW5 flopped, although that may be more attributable to
the fact gamers are bored shitless of WWII shooters. As Pachter once
said: "WWII games have lasted longer than the real thing".
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
Misguided belief? Not quite- I'll take a fair amount of variety in
locations over trudging through the same environment ad nauseum.
AGENT47
cod5 was a flop? WOW come back to earth and google the sales for WAW
Thanks for reminding me why I don't visit this group as much anymore,
I'll let myself out
Luther Root
Well, the compromise is a diluted storyline and brevity of games
evidenced by MW2 and BC2 . For gamers who are less interested on the
MP side of the game that's a lot. I would had no problem with a COD
game set exclusively in Vietnam if it was historically accurate and
had enough mission variety.
Luther Root
In absolute terms, maybe "flop" was an overstatement. However,
relative to COD4 it sold ~4M less and the disparity with MW2 was even
greater.
> Thanks for reminding me why I don't visit this group as much anymore,
> I'll let myself out
Right. People are going to make mistakes occasionally. I'm happy to
admit mine when this happens. No need to be petulant about it.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
Speaking as one of those gamers, I think you've presented a mistaken
dichotomy. Variety in environments doesn't necessarily mean a diluted
storyline or short game (the original Halo, Call of Duty 2, and Just
Cause 2 all have strong single player modes, while having good variety
in locations); the games you mentioned above would've probably had
about the same depth and length of gameplay in their single player
modes if they had stuck to the same environment. If I'm not mistaken,
the Army of Two sequel stuck with the same environment, and was STILL
apparently a fairly short game, according to a number of reviews.
Short, of course, is a relative term, but if it comes down between a
short game with no variety and a short game with variety, guess which
one I'd take? In some cases, a game that's not particularly long can
feel more substantial if there's enough well-paced variety in
locations, like Timeshift. I will grant that a game like Half-Life 2
might not have been as effective if it had thrown in more variety in
locations at the expense of its atmosphere, but then again, Half-Life
2 is more the exception to the rule.
Unfortunately, the jury will be out on whether single player gamers
get shafted again in terms of bang for the buck with Black Ops until
the review embargo lifts.
>I would had no problem with a COD
> game set exclusively in Vietnam if it was historically accurate and
> had enough mission variety.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mitch
>
> cod5 was a flop? WOW come back to earth and google the sales for WAW
>
Sales were high but I have to wonder what the "retention rate" of WaW
was. Everyone I know personally was as disappointed as I was and sold
it within a month. We bought it with the assumption it would be great.
Probably won't do that with anything Treyarch ever makes again.
I'm hoping it's good but I won't be shelling out for it until it's out
for a while.
The alMIGHTY N
Yep, that sounds exactly like the level I played.
> But there's a downside , those zombies that only come from 2 areas
> will now come from 3 , then 4, then eventually the zombies will come
> from all sides of you ( did you make it out of that area?) there's
> more to Der Riese than that starting stage
I kind of held him back from getting past that first area. :-\
> you need the stronger weapons because the zombies scale up each 5
> rounds or so , you get more tougher zombies and after ahwile those
> starting weapons will take a whole mag of a m60 to kill just a few
> zombies
>
> this is where weapons like the WonderWaffle come into play and the
> life saving monkey bombs
>
> the first few rounds are management rounds, in order to gain the most
> points to spend on unlocking areas and upgrading weapons, your best
> opportunity is to start saving your cash right away buy knifing the
> first 5 rounds or so of zombies, knifing them earns you much more
> points, and like you saw already "leave a crawler" is what we call
> em..BUT there is a downside to "crawlers" they are on a bleed out
> timer, in the later stages you need to hold a zombie at the
> window..just have one person hold the repair boards and the zombie
> will stay there longer (this is where window guy is hero) but its a
> bit of a chore role in the team
Here's the thing... he doesn't really play online. He just plays by
himself or with a cousin (who doesn't play games that well because
he's seven) locally. He doesn't really have the option of holding back
a live zombie most of the time so his strategies were developed for a
solo run-through.
Those fuckers kept taking me down. We could survive past the first few
appearances, but eventually I'd get overrun by them and that would be
that.
> I don't play zombies anymore, but when I did I often had 3-6 hour
> matches in one sitting , in that 3 hours + you really get to know your
> online friends , and when you all survive a 3 hour battle together
> (my longest match was 7 hours with the same 4 people) and in this time
> you really get to know who your gaming with ..sometimes its
> hilarious ..there's always one really dumb guy or one nube..but we all
> sort of help each other ..we give the nube tips (NO DON'T SAVE A
> CRAWLER) save a window full zombie then you have all the time in the
> world to go ammo up and repair boards and what not..put your weapon
> in the pack a punch or roll the dice on the weapons goody chest
I don't think I'd be able to play something like that for such a long
period of time. I could do co-op for lengths of time (played
Conviction co-op last night for about three hours), but not
competitive or non-campaign co-op.
> the first few rounds though are really maintenance rounds or
> preparation rounds for the tougher zombies, in those key moments can
> make or break
>
> i've had some epic co-op games on that map
>
> plus there was at that time this entire zombie back story on how they
> were made, there were clues in all the maps , there was a fan made
> website devoted to the nazi zombie theory and treyarch would throw
> little hidden secrets now and then so you never knew when something
> was added or if it had been there
>
> unlike L4D where I really didn't give a crap about the story, Nazi
> zombies had a big draw story wise, added with the fantastic co-op made
> for some fun gaming
>
> XBOX 1 had a couple pretty decent Vietnam games, I remember one you
> could walk around the barracks and chat before you went into the
> jungle , it had some light RPG elements to it
I tried a few of them and didn't enjoy a single one. They've generally
gotten pretty middling reviews, and of course none were able to hold a
candle to the WWII games. I think that's the bigger problem... you can
find "okay" Vietnam War games but not a single "good" one yet the
shelves were overflowing with WWII games.
> wow I remember people saying there's too many Vietnam games, there
> were 4 all in 2004 pretty close to each other
Yep... but I think it wasn't that there were too many Vietnam War
games... just too many Vietnam War games that weren't really good.
> I've even seen come comments at GT where the kids are saying they're
> tired of "modern games"
Fortunately for Activision, the general market doesn't think that.
> sheesh
The alMIGHTY N
> On May 1, 6:48 am, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Anyway, back on topic...
>
> > I'm a little disappointed that the game won't be a "Vietnam War game"
> > like the earlier Call of Duty titles were "World War II games."
>
> Yeah, you and me both. I'm starting to believe that I'll never play a
> decent Vietnam War FPS. Men of Valor probably came close (I liked the
> idea that you fought in real battles but the game was mostly "meh".) I
> hope DICE try to fill this void by doing a sequel to Battlefield
> Vietnam -- I didn't play it, but from what I remember reviews were
> generally positive.
>
> > Black Ops just doesn't evoke a sense of a period piece game.
>
> They should have named it COW: Not quite Modern Warfare. But I can
> almost get a sense of their thinking:
>
> "Oh, we _must_ do a snow level"
>
> "Yeah, definitely got to do a snow level"
>
> "Bad Company 2 did a snow level"
>
> "Well, that settles it then, we're doing a snow level"
>
> > I wonder why they couldn't just do a Vietnam
> > War game since tons of gamers are clamoring for that and no one's
> > really been able to make a truly killer Vietnam War game yet.
>
> The answer is that developers are under a misguided belief that gamers
> want varied gameplay locations for FPS (mostly to facilitate a variety
> of multiplayer maps), as supposedly proven by MW2 and BC2.
Other developers, perhaps, but this is Treyarch we're talking about.
Both COD games they did were set in WWII and both games sold pretty
damn well considering how overshadowed they were by MW. I thought if
*anyone* would do a straight up Vietnam War game, it would be
Treyarch.
> They were also apprehensive about returning to exclusively to the
> jungle because CoW5 flopped, although that may be more attributable to
> the fact gamers are bored shitless of WWII shooters.
Flopped? Do you really think that 6.31 million units just on the Xbox
360 is a flop? Here are the sales numbers for the entire COD series on
the Xbox 360:
Call of Duty 2 - 2.47 million
Call of Duty 3 - 2.35 million
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - 8.24 million
Call of Duty: World at War - 6.31 million
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - 10.57 million
Treyarch's games don't sell as well as Infinity Ward's, but that
doesn't mean they don't sell. Many publishers and developers would
sell their souls to the Devil to get sales of 6.31 million units on a
single title.
World at War sold more than either Gears of War game. It also sold as
many units as both Uncharted games combined. I'd say that's pretty
damn good.
> As Pachter once
> said: "WWII games have lasted longer than the real thing".
Considering how much longer than World War II the Vietnam War lasted,
I hope the same doesn't hold true for any upcoming Vietnam War games.
The alMIGHTY N
It all depends on the scenario. In modern games, it doesn't make sense
to stay in just one environment. I'd love to just stay in the jungles
of Vietnam if it would tell a great story.
The alMIGHTY N
Call of Duty games have had plenty of variety in environments in a
specific title, even in the World War II based ones. There's the
mentality that you're playing the same thing over and over again
because you know the setting is still World War II, but the individual
stages in many of the games felt different enough that it would be
tough to say one was stuck in the same environment all the time.
A Vietnam War era game could have a decent variety of level
environments. Just think back to films based on that war. Even just
focusing on the more "modern" films like Platoon, Hamburger Hill, Good
Morning Vietnam, Casualties of War, and Full Metal Jacket, there were
plenty of different locations that had unique looks. Two of my
favorite films of all time are Platoon and Full Metal Jacket, and if I
somehow didn't know they took place in the same war, I would never
have guessed with how different the locations were.
The alMIGHTY N
Not quite. Modern Warfare outsold World at War by 1.93 million if you
only look at Xbox 360 numbers and by 3.08 million if you look at both
the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. It's Modern Warfare 2 that outsold
World at War by 4.26 million on the Xbox 360 but by 8 million on the
two combined platforms.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that World at War sold better than
almost every game this generation. It's the fifth best selling game on
both the Xbox 360 *and* the PlayStation 3. The games that beat it? On
both systems, Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2 and Grand Theft Auto IV
outsold World at War. On the 360, Halo 3 also beat it and happens to
remain the number one game on the system. On the PS3, Metal Gear Solid
4 beat World at War by 700k to take fourth place on the list.
> > Thanks for reminding me why I don't visit this group as much anymore,
> > I'll let myself out
>
> Right. People are going to make mistakes occasionally. I'm happy to
> admit mine when this happens. No need to be petulant about it.
He's always petulant. :-)
The alMIGHTY N
I wasn't a huge fan of the solo campaign, but I worked my way through
it. I don't play much competitive multi-player online so the apparent
awesomeness of its modes is kind of lost on me. All of my friends who
purchased the game finished the campaign long before I did and enjoyed
the multi-player quite a bit.
The general consensus I've heard is that it doesn't come off as good
as the other Call of Duty games, but that didn't stop people from
playing it.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
I have no doubt that a Vietnam War game could have enough variety if
done right. The thing is that it takes a lot of TLC and inspiration
to make an FPS where a persistent environment doesn't grow tiresome.
Half-Life 2/Orange Box succeeded, but think about how many things went
right with that game- lighting, a general setting and level
progression with enough innate variety to keep things fresh, while
maintaining a consistent atmosphere, and a story that is actually very
engaging on a personal level. Hell, HL2 managed to hit these items
better, IMO, than a game that came after 3 more years of technological
advancement (Modern Warfare). I see it as the exception to the rule,
and as a result, most FPS games need to hit a rather general, almost
academic checklist for me to enjoy them at a similar level.
Environmental variety happens to be one of those bullet points, and
level progression is a related one as well.
A game based on Apocalypse Now would be kind of cool, but I think by
its very nature, an FPS/TPS version would completely miss what made
the movie awesome. I think Far Cry 2 tried to tap into that type of
feel, but unfortunately fell flat.
>
>
> > Unfortunately, the jury will be out on whether single player gamers
> > get shafted again in terms of bang for the buck with Black Ops until
> > the review embargo lifts.
>
> > >I would had no problem with a COD
> > > game set exclusively in Vietnam if it was historically accurate and
> > > had enough mission variety.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
The alMIGHTY N
I see where you're coming from, but ultimately I would focus more on
the atmosphere in a game set during the Vietnam War than the variety
of the environments. If the developers were able to capture the kind
of tension the soldiers in Vietnam had to go through where there could
be booby traps anywhere in the incredibly dense jungle, where at any
point a troop of Viet Cong combatants could pop out of the ground
around you, etc., I'd be a happy camper.
AGENT47
It stayed pretty high on the MP charts for quite a long time , I think
overal Treyarch makes a better overall package.
WAW had 4 player co-op campaign with death card options, then theres
the bread and butter MP mode and finally the groundbreaking Zombie
mode.
I think most gamers and people are a little gullible in thinking for
themselves , they all hear OMG InfinityWARD is god and they follow
what the supposedly kool kids say, its almost peer pressure, but when
you dissect the content and look at the maps online TreyArch makes a
very well rounded package for your gaming dollar.
COD4 no doubt was a excellent game , but so was WAW it was VERY good
in its own-right , its hard to compare because COD4 had no 4 player co-
op campaign or a separate zombie bonus mode that was really a
glorified chat room where you can hang out with new buddies and kill
zombies.
I know most of the people that purchased the extra maps were just
because of the zombie mode, and Treyarch ran with it and each
successive map got much more intricate and well thought out.
I don't like the whole Treyarch vs. Infinity Ward fanboyism, I mean I
look at both games and enjoy them both very very much.
BUT COD4 can I play 4 player co-op with anyone?anytime ? in the world?
and as a bonus turn on modifiers called "death cards" that make the
enemies into tougher combatants who only die with head-shots? NO or
is there a blistering fast zombie mode with infinite levels of zombies
and a modifier to your weapons that makes a COLT pistol a grenade
launcher or a magic box that spits out a chain lightning gun? NO
I think Treyarch really offered something very well done and quite
unique, and I would hate for a gamer to miss out just because IW isn't
stamped on the box.
COD4 was one of the top tier games of this gen and of all time I will
say that, but I still like WAW overall better, and the weakest part of
WAW was the MP because you already had that on COD4 with the perks and
balance , but COD4 doesn't have zombies , zombie dogs, mysterious
teddy bears , and mysterious alien laser guns in the campaign and what
not.
I think what WAW offered was a game for both casual and very hardcore,
a casual player could hang in a room of zombies and just play pick up
guy or whatever, there was less stress than the l33t veterans of COD4
and it was more accessible , on the same token a hardcore headshot
master could play in the same room and not feel like he's playing on
casual.
I don't think WAW's success just rode on the coattails of COD4
otherwise it wouldn't have stayed in the higher levels of MP
popularity as it did for so long on Nelsons MP chart.
Sure zombies has since long died and the game is sitting on the shelf
but I will no doubt buy Treyarch's new game if they even mention the
word zombie or campaign co-op, they get me and I get them and so do
over 11 million people.
Saying it didn't sell well compared to one the juggernauts of this era
is not too shabby IMO.
I just wish people could remove their "OMG IW is jesus" glasses and
take a look at the other games out there, they might find maybe just
maybe they drank a little too much kool-aid off the IW shelf.
And on the subject of Vietnam games there's been some kool ones on the
XBOX 1 already , I remember the tunnel rats missions and the RPG-like
pre entry camps before you went into the jungle, vietcong where
popping out of the brush left and right, it was a fun game.
I remember a buddy saying "man there's too many Vietnam games" and now
today we have people saying" why aren't there more Vietnam games" or
can a Vietnam game be done? ROFL
I've even seen in the comments section for Modern Warfare games and
they say "OMG I want WW2 games modern is boring"
It' just cycles like that it a natural course of human thinking and
communication.
Conflict Vietnam was a very solid game
Luther Root
>
> > In absolute terms, maybe "flop" was an overstatement. However,
> > relative to COD4 it sold ~4M less and the disparity with MW2 was even
> > greater.
>
> Not quite. Modern Warfare outsold World at War by 1.93 million if you
> only look at Xbox 360 numbers and by 3.08 million if you look at both
> the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. It's Modern Warfare 2 that outsold
> World at War by 4.26 million on the Xbox 360 but by 8 million on the
> two combined platforms.
I didn't look-up the data, I was merely taking a guestimate,(hence the
"~") and given I was only 900k or so off, I don't think that's a grave
error. But there's no need to bludgeon me with data, that's a role
usually reserved for Jordan.
> Nevertheless, the fact remains that World at War sold better than
> almost every game this generation. It's the fifth best selling game on
> both the Xbox 360 *and* the PlayStation 3. The games that beat it? On
> both systems, Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2 and Grand Theft Auto IV
> outsold World at War. On the 360, Halo 3 also beat it and happens to
> remain the number one game on the system. On the PS3, Metal Gear Solid
> 4 beat World at War by 700k to take fourth place on the list.
Its sales figures don't change the fact people were excepting a game
of COD4 standard, but a got a generic FPS instead. COD5's sales were
inflated by the goodwill created by C0D4, and if its follow-up was of
a similar standard it would have gone a long way to kill the
franchise. Therefore, my original point stands, from a developmental
perspective, it was a huge disappointment.
Luther Root
The original HL2 had pretty diverse environments actually -- canals,
coastline, ghost town, urban, prison, citadel, and also had diverse
gameplay to support this. Ep 1, apart from the first level, was
primarily urban and is generally regarded the weakest in the series.
Episode 2 recaptured the spirit of HL2, and it was close to a
masterpiece.
Returning to the topic, Killzone 2 had pretty much homogenous
environments, yet was very good game, mainly to a great FP mechanic,
in particular its highly realistic cover system.
The alMIGHTY N
> On May 4, 1:14 am, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > In absolute terms, maybe "flop" was an overstatement. However,
> > > relative to COD4 it sold ~4M less and the disparity with MW2 was even
> > > greater.
>
> > Not quite. Modern Warfare outsold World at War by 1.93 million if you
> > only look at Xbox 360 numbers and by 3.08 million if you look at both
> > the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. It's Modern Warfare 2 that outsold
> > World at War by 4.26 million on the Xbox 360 but by 8 million on the
> > two combined platforms.
>
> I didn't look-up the data, I was merely taking a guestimate,(hence the
> "~") and given I was only 900k or so off, I don't think that's a grave
> error. But there's no need to bludgeon me with data, that's a role
> usually reserved for Jordan.
A difference of 900k is a difference of almost a million or in perhaps
a clearer form 22.5%.
Would you rather pay $60 for a game or $46.50 for it? :-)
If you scored 96% on a test, wouldn't you rather have an A+ than a
C? :-)
> > Nevertheless, the fact remains that World at War sold better than
> > almost every game this generation. It's the fifth best selling game on
> > both the Xbox 360 *and* the PlayStation 3. The games that beat it? On
> > both systems, Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2 and Grand Theft Auto IV
> > outsold World at War. On the 360, Halo 3 also beat it and happens to
> > remain the number one game on the system. On the PS3, Metal Gear Solid
> > 4 beat World at War by 700k to take fourth place on the list.
>
> Its sales figures don't change the fact people were excepting a game
> of COD4 standard, but a got a generic FPS instead. COD5's sales were
> inflated by the goodwill created by C0D4, and if its follow-up was of
> a similar standard it would have gone a long way to kill the
> franchise. Therefore, my original point stands, from a developmental
> perspective, it was a huge disappointment.
I don't think people were expecting a Modern Warfare level game at
all. After all, Activision has been quite consistent about releasing
one Call of Duty game per year while alternating between Infinity Ward
and Treyarch. While gamers may not specifically know the identities of
the two different developers, it's quite clear to people that there
are indeed two different developers working on the game - Call of Duty
2 was great, Call of Duty 3 was good but not great, Call of Duty 4 was
great, Modern Warfare was good but not great, etc. and so forth.
The bulk of Call of Duty sales is likely to come from people who like
to play competitive multi-player matches online, and in that respect
World at War did not fail at all. In fact, the general consensus
amongst gamers is that World at War has a superior multi-player suite
compared to Modern Warfare - Treyarch basically took what Infinity
Ward built and made it much better, and let's not forget the Nazi
Zombies mode, which was extremely popular amongst the mainstream
fanbase.
If anything, the reason it *didn't* sell as well is because of the not
insignificant portion of gamers who simply didn't want to bother with
*another* World War II game and either didn't put much priority on the
multi-player aspect of the game or just thought that it didn't
outweigh the waste of the solo campaign.
Finally, and most importantly, Activision most certainly didn't expect
World at War to sell anywhere near as many units as Modern Warfare.
They're not stupid. They know that Treyarch is less highly regarded
than Infinity Ward and their products aren't as good as their
compatriots'. They know that the modern military theme of the MW games
is more popular now than the ever aging World War II motif.
In fact, I can almost guarantee you that Activision felt the sales of
World at War *exceeded* their expectations seeing as how World at War
with 10.33 million on the 360 and PS3 *crushed* Call of Duty 3's sales
of 3.05 million on both systems.
So no, World at War was absolutely not a flop or failure by any
reasonable standards or expectations. It may look that way to you as a
gamer, but it certainly doesn't look that way to the developer or the
publisher.
The alMIGHTY N
> On May 2, 1:34 pm, Mitch <Mitch@...> wrote:
>
> > > cod5 was a flop? WOW come back to earth and google the sales for WAW
>
> > Sales were high but I have to wonder what the "retention rate" of WaW
> > was. Everyone I know personally was as disappointed as I was and sold
> > it within a month. We bought it with the assumption it would be great.
>
> > Probably won't do that with anything Treyarch ever makes again.
>
> > I'm hoping it's good but I won't be shelling out for it until it's out
> > for a while.
>
> It stayed pretty high on the MP charts for quite a long time , I think
> overal Treyarch makes a better overall package.
>
> WAW had 4 player co-op campaign with death card options, then theres
> the bread and butter MP mode and finally the groundbreaking Zombie
> mode.
>
> I think most gamers and people are a little gullible in thinking for
> themselves , they all hear OMG InfinityWARD is god and they follow
> what the supposedly kool kids say, its almost peer pressure, but when
> you dissect the content and look at the maps online TreyArch makes a
> very well rounded package for your gaming dollar.
It's tough to quantify value since value is a very subjective thing.
Mathematically speaking, role-playing games should have the most value
since you're getting so many more hours of game play time out of them
than other genres, but if what you're getting in the package doesn't
appeal to you it really doesn't matter how much there is.
I prefer Infinity Ward's offerings simply because they have a more
refined and polished solo campaign. If I were a multiplayer fanatic, I
would probably prefer World at War because that game's multiplayer
seems a lot more solid (plus, like you said, Nazi Zombies is a pretty
creative addition to the suite). However, I have to base everything on
the solo campaign which was overall better and a lot more professional
feeling in Modern Warfare than in World at War despite Jack Bauer's
involvement in the latter game.
> COD4 no doubt was a excellent game , but so was WAW it was VERY good
> in its own-right , its hard to compare because COD4 had no 4 player co-
> op campaign or a separate zombie bonus mode that was really a
> glorified chat room where you can hang out with new buddies and kill
> zombies.
>
> I know most of the people that purchased the extra maps were just
> because of the zombie mode, and Treyarch ran with it and each
> successive map got much more intricate and well thought out.
Nazi Zombies is a veritable gold mine. There will be a lot of
disappointed online gamers if the new game doesn't include this or a
similarly creative mode.
> I don't like the whole Treyarch vs. Infinity Ward fanboyism, I mean I
> look at both games and enjoy them both very very much.
>
> BUT COD4 can I play 4 player co-op with anyone?anytime ? in the world?
> and as a bonus turn on modifiers called "death cards" that make the
> enemies into tougher combatants who only die with head-shots? NO or
> is there a blistering fast zombie mode with infinite levels of zombies
> and a modifier to your weapons that makes a COLT pistol a grenade
> launcher or a magic box that spits out a chain lightning gun? NO
>
> I think Treyarch really offered something very well done and quite
> unique, and I would hate for a gamer to miss out just because IW isn't
> stamped on the box.
>
> COD4 was one of the top tier games of this gen and of all time I will
> say that, but I still like WAW overall better, and the weakest part of
> WAW was the MP because you already had that on COD4 with the perks and
> balance , but COD4 doesn't have zombies , zombie dogs, mysterious
> teddy bears , and mysterious alien laser guns in the campaign and what
> not.
I think most would agree that the weakest part of World at War was the
solo campaign. The overall consensus amongst gamers - both more
experienced and newer, more mainstream gamers - is that Infinity
Ward's solo modes are better. I'm not saying a gamer says to
themselves that "Infinity Ward is better" but that Call of Duty 2 and
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's campaigns were better received by the
public.
> I think what WAW offered was a game for both casual and very hardcore,
> a casual player could hang in a room of zombies and just play pick up
> guy or whatever, there was less stress than the l33t veterans of COD4
> and it was more accessible , on the same token a hardcore headshot
> master could play in the same room and not feel like he's playing on
> casual.
That's an interesting perspective...
> I don't think WAW's success just rode on the coattails of COD4
> otherwise it wouldn't have stayed in the higher levels of MP
> popularity as it did for so long on Nelsons MP chart.
Absolutely not. Treyarch's multi-player modes have always been very
popular. Granted, they've been built on what Infinity Ward already
did, but if you significantly improve someone else's work, it's still
an improvement... :-)
> Sure zombies has since long died and the game is sitting on the shelf
> but I will no doubt buy Treyarch's new game if they even mention the
> word zombie or campaign co-op, they get me and I get them and so do
> over 11 million people.
>
> Saying it didn't sell well compared to one the juggernauts of this era
> is not too shabby IMO.
I think there really isn't a lot of point in chastising a game for not
selling as well as the best and third best selling games of this
generation.
> I just wish people could remove their "OMG IW is jesus" glasses and
> take a look at the other games out there, they might find maybe just
> maybe they drank a little too much kool-aid off the IW shelf.
>
> And on the subject of Vietnam games there's been some kool ones on the
> XBOX 1 already , I remember the tunnel rats missions and the RPG-like
> pre entry camps before you went into the jungle, vietcong where
> popping out of the brush left and right, it was a fun game.
Battlefield: Vietnam is the only Vietnam War game that was well
received both in terms of critical response and sales. Every other
Vietnam War game was both a flop and a critical failure.
> I remember a buddy saying "man there's too many Vietnam games" and now
> today we have people saying" why aren't there more Vietnam games" or
> can a Vietnam game be done? ROFL
If they were all good, people wouldn't have complained. It's precisely
because almost every one was barely tolerable by most that gamers
remember "that time when there were too many Vietnam War games."
> I've even seen in the comments section for Modern Warfare games and
> they say "OMG I want WW2 games modern is boring"
There's little point in trying to gauge the overall public opinion
from the words of a few outspoken users in an online forum. If you
bother to read and write in the comments sections of video game
related websites, you've already distanced yourselves from the typical
mainstream gamer.
> It' just cycles like that it a natural course of human thinking and
> communication.
>
> Conflict Vietnam was a very solid game
Are you referring to the Conflict: Vietnam that has Metacritic
aggregates of 55/60/58 (PC/360/PS2) and Gamerankings aggregates of
60.62/66.24/64.85?
I've read a few times that it was the best Vietnam War game on the
Xbox in 2004, but that's not really saying much in the end considering
how poorly all the console Vietnam War games both sold and were
reviewed.
The impression I got is that while some of the games did an adequate
job of creating an atmosphere, they were all pretty much gameplay
messes.
Luther Root
>
> A difference of 900k is a difference of almost a million or in perhaps
> a clearer form 22.5%.
>
> Would you rather pay $60 for a game or $46.50 for it? :-)
>
> If you scored 96% on a test, wouldn't you rather have an A+ than a
> C? :-)
I say again, I was guessing and my guess was within the ballpark. I'm
not really interested in debating the semantics of statistics.
> I don't think people were expecting a Modern Warfare level game at
> all. After all, Activision has been quite consistent about releasing
> one Call of Duty game per year while alternating between Infinity Ward
> and Treyarch. While gamers may not specifically know the identities of
> the two different developers, it's quite clear to people that there
> are indeed two different developers working on the game.
If most gamers do not know the identities of the developers, how is it
"quite clear" that they are two different developers?
Moreover, in virtually every COD5 ad there was a reference to COD4
which implies Activision was trying to pass-off a connection with the
Infinity Ward product.
> The bulk of Call of Duty sales is likely to come from people who like
> to play competitive multi-player matches online, and in that respect
> World at War did not fail at all.
COD4 was praised equally for its fantastic single-player campaign and
the MP aspect. COD5 only had a decent MP component, so the people who
bought in in the anticipation of both or a single-player campaign were
disappointed, yourself included.
> In fact, I can almost guarantee you that Activision felt the sales of
> World at War *exceeded* their expectations seeing as how World at War
> with 10.33 million on the 360 and PS3 *crushed* Call of Duty 3's sales
> of 3.05 million on both systems.
And I guarantee you Activision expected COD5 to sell as much as it
did, as the touted sequel to the GOTY.
> So no, World at War was absolutely not a flop or failure by any
> reasonable standards or expectations.
I disagree.
The alMIGHTY N
> On May 7, 12:13 am, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > A difference of 900k is a difference of almost a million or in perhaps
> > a clearer form 22.5%.
>
> > Would you rather pay $60 for a game or $46.50 for it? :-)
>
> > If you scored 96% on a test, wouldn't you rather have an A+ than a
> > C? :-)
>
> I say again, I was guessing and my guess was within the ballpark. I'm
> not really interested in debating the semantics of statistics.
That's a pretty big freakin' ballpark - 25% is not close by any
reasonable standard - but, okay, you were guesstimating, and yes, it's
still a significant difference in sales.
> > I don't think people were expecting a Modern Warfare level game at
> > all. After all, Activision has been quite consistent about releasing
> > one Call of Duty game per year while alternating between Infinity Ward
> > and Treyarch. While gamers may not specifically know the identities of
> > the two different developers, it's quite clear to people that there
> > are indeed two different developers working on the game.
>
> If most gamers do not know the identities of the developers, how is it
> "quite clear" that they are two different developers?
You don't have to know the names Infinity Ward and Treyarch to realize
that there have to be two different teams working on the series.
First, there's an entry in the series *every* year. When a series like
Gears of War has a two-year delay between the games (and about two and
a half years by the time the third game comes out), when Metal Gear
Solid 4 comes out about half a decade after its predecessor, and when
there's approximately three years between Halo games, you have to know
that one team can't possibly put out a Call of Duty game every single
year.
Secondly, what other series alternates between two completely
different time periods with each entry (that is only a year apart)?
> Moreover, in virtually every COD5 ad there was a reference to COD4
> which implies Activision was trying to pass-off a connection with the
> Infinity Ward product.
I honestly don't remember seeing anything out of the ordinary. You see
"from the studio that brought you Shrek" in commercials for "How To
Train Your Dragon," but I don't think most people mistakenly think
that it's the same team and expect the same level of quality.
> > The bulk of Call of Duty sales is likely to come from people who like
> > to play competitive multi-player matches online, and in that respect
> > World at War did not fail at all.
>
> COD4 was praised equally for its fantastic single-player campaign and
> the MP aspect. COD5 only had a decent MP component, so the people who
> bought in in the anticipation of both or a single-player campaign were
> disappointed, yourself included.
I'm absolutely not included there. I'm not a fan of the single-player
campaigns for Treyarch's offerings, but that's not because I expected
them to be able to match Infinity Ward.
> > In fact, I can almost guarantee you that Activision felt the sales of
> > World at War *exceeded* their expectations seeing as how World at War
> > with 10.33 million on the 360 and PS3 *crushed* Call of Duty 3's sales
> > of 3.05 million on both systems.
>
> And I guarantee you Activision expected COD5 to sell as much as it
> did, as the touted sequel to the GOTY.
If the game sold to their expectations, how is it a flop or a failure?
Further, it's not a sequel to Modern Warfare and wasn't positioned as
one. Note that the game is *not* called "Call of Duty 5: World at
War." Activision wanted to clearly differentiate the two different
lines of the game. It's no longer simply one Call of Duty series -
there's the historical Call of Duty games that Treyarch does and the
Modern Warfare series that Infinity Ward is/was in charge of.
> > So no, World at War was absolutely not a flop or failure by any
> > reasonable standards or expectations.
>
> I disagree.
It's a good thing you're neither an analyst or a member of management
or the board, then.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
Hence "enough innate variety", heh! Still, take what I say with the
caveat that I know that a lot of this is subjective, as far as what
sufficient variety constitutes. I'm not sure what it was that worked
about Half-Life 2, but perhaps that early '80s vibe with the music,
settings and hazy lighting.........
>
> Returning to the topic, Killzone 2 had pretty much homogenous
> environments, yet was very good game, mainly to a great FP mechanic,
> in particular its highly realistic cover system.
I was not _that_ enamoured with Killzone 2, although it did have
enough unique character and entertainment value for me to not throw it
on the "trade it in" pile [still need to get through that last boss
fight, though]. I preferred the original in some ways, actually, even
though it was sluggish, choppy and a bit on the buggy side. Killzone
had both some pretty decent atmosphere, AND level variety to boot
(urban areas, trenches, swamps, jungle, alpine mountains, and a
frickin' space station). Killzone 2 was clearly more within its
respective system's capabilities, but the controls are still a little
on the "off side", and it got a bit tiresome at times.
Luther Root
>
> > I say again, I was guessing and my guess was within the ballpark. I'm
> > not really interested in debating the semantics of statistics.
>
> That's a pretty big freakin' ballpark - 25% is not close by any
> reasonable standard - but, okay, you were guesstimating, and yes, it's
> still a significant difference in sales.
No, the difference between 3M and 4M sales less than total COD4 sales
is only 7 per cent.
>
> > If most gamers do not know the identities of the developers, how is it
> > "quite clear" that they are two different developers?
>
> You don't have to know the names Infinity Ward and Treyarch to realize
> that there have to be two different teams working on the series.
I am skeptical that casual to semi-hardcore gamers would know that it
was developed by different teams, or even aware of the proper
development cycle for a game.
> I'm absolutely not included there. I'm not a fan of the single-player
> campaigns for Treyarch's offerings, but that's not because I expected
> them to be able to match Infinity Ward.
I'm assuming you paid close to full price for the game. You said you
weren't a fan of its single-player campaign, and didnt play the MP
much, so you weren't disappointed?
> If the game sold to their expectations, how is it a flop or a failure?
From a developmental point of view and from perspective of the overall
direction of the franchise the game was a disappointment, especially
if you only dabbled in the single player campaign. If it sold
according to Activision's projections, that was attributable as much
to the "Call of Duty" brand, the success of IW's product, and
Activision's marketing campaign.
> It's a good thing you're neither an analyst or a member of management
> or the board, then.
Well, neither are you, but we are arguing an opinion over a game,
which quite frankly I don't feel that strongly about.
The alMIGHTY N
> On May 7, 7:40 am, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > I say again, I was guessing and my guess was within the ballpark. I'm
> > > not really interested in debating the semantics of statistics.
>
> > That's a pretty big freakin' ballpark - 25% is not close by any
> > reasonable standard - but, okay, you were guesstimating, and yes, it's
> > still a significant difference in sales.
>
> No, the difference between 3M and 4M sales less than total COD4 sales
> is only 7 per cent.
I see what angle you're coming from. Fair enough.
> > > If most gamers do not know the identities of the developers, how is it
> > > "quite clear" that they are two different developers?
>
> > You don't have to know the names Infinity Ward and Treyarch to realize
> > that there have to be two different teams working on the series.
>
> I am skeptical that casual to semi-hardcore gamers would know that it
> was developed by different teams, or even aware of the proper
> development cycle for a game.
There's no need to be. Most people know games take a long time to
make, and most people know that game series don't tend to flip back
and forth between two completely different settings and environments.
> > I'm absolutely not included there. I'm not a fan of the single-player
> > campaigns for Treyarch's offerings, but that's not because I expected
> > them to be able to match Infinity Ward.
>
> I'm assuming you paid close to full price for the game. You said you
> weren't a fan of its single-player campaign, and didnt play the MP
> much, so you weren't disappointed?
Of course I'm disappointed, but it's a general disappointment with
Treyarch's overall offerings. And it's an expected disappointment -
more that Treyarch's titles still aren't as good as Infinity Ward's,
but I don't expect them to be. At no point did I think that World at
War would be as good as Modern Warfare even when I heard they'd be
using the same engine.
> > If the game sold to their expectations, how is it a flop or a failure?
>
> From a developmental point of view and from perspective of the overall
> direction of the franchise the game was a disappointment, especially
> if you only dabbled in the single player campaign. If it sold
> according to Activision's projections, that was attributable as much
> to the "Call of Duty" brand, the success of IW's product, and
> Activision's marketing campaign.
I doubt that Activision or Treyarch would agree with you. It's clear
to me that you can't look at this objectively without the bias of your
own personal disappointment with the title.
Activision in no way expected Treyarch's World at War to be able to
sell as well as Modern Warfare. While I'm sure any publisher and
developer would hope every one of their games would sell like
hotcakes, they're also smart enough to be realistic. They know how big
a hit Modern Warfare was because of the brand new direction as much as
the improved graphics and touted multi-player offering.
World at War brings an even better multi-player suite as well as
technically capable graphics, but people have long expressed a desire
to get away from the World War II fad which is why Infinity Ward went
in a whole new direction. There's no way Activision and Treyarch
thought that by making another title set in World War II again, they'd
somehow still be able to match up with Modern Warfare, a runaway hit.
> > It's a good thing you're neither an analyst or a member of management
> > or the board, then.
>
> Well, neither are you, but we are arguing an opinion over a game,
> which quite frankly I don't feel that strongly about.
No, you're arguing using the opinion of the game. I'm probably in the
same or similar boat as you as far as my personal opinion of the game,
but I'm not talking about my personal opinion, I'm talking about the
business.