Users who Dugg This
Engineer09
4987 Followers
Siraj Ahmed
1034 Followers
Anees Saddique
1638 Followers
Agha Ali Abbas
1372 Followers
Mariam Jessy
2164 Followers
Traffic Booster
-28 Followers
Amit Tripathi
48 Followers
bobosmitor
5469 Followers
justatoolMar 11, 2011
I think the reason why Black Ops has high sells is because many people think it is the sequel of MW2, same happened with MW1 and World at War. Personally, I don't think it's better than MW2. But that's just my opinion..
jeworldMar 11, 2011
It's been this way for every COD release since 4. I agree that MW2 > Black Ops.
elcalrissianMar 11, 2011
BF 2 > BFBC2 > any COD multi
spread the love for FPS games. COD's always been about single player (which is still baller)
smurfzMar 11, 2011
Black Ops is the best one in the franchise in my opinion.
epanicMar 11, 2011
Yeah, it is the best !
themadrandyMar 11, 2011
I agree with justatool. I mean everyone thought it was going to be MW2 on steroids, and it is to a degree. But personally I think MW2 is better. Its more fast paced, and although its not perfect, that is what makes the game fun. It is more challenging than Black Ops. The challenge is what we want.
seroevoMar 11, 2011
The non-Call of Duty games make sense, but it blows my mind that there is even one CoD game in the top 5 let alone two.
In that, how is it possible? Are there that many people buying CoD games that have never played shooters before?
fonderplagueMar 11, 2011
Short answer: Yes.
I'm sure I'll be dugg down to oblivion but CoD games are shooters that appeal to casuals.
I don't know one person my age that loves CoD that has played Quake or CS.
spazattack5000Mar 11, 2011
Black Ops has attracted more casuals than any of the previous games I think. The reason I say that is because the level of competition on that game is the lowest I have ever seen on a FPS. Any game where my KDR is over 1.00 is too easy. When it pushes 2.00 the competition simply sucks as I am not good at console shooters.
fonderplagueMar 11, 2011
Hence why you see some legit players at 2.50 mark.
spazattack5000Mar 11, 2011
Yet when I played CS, anyone who would be near 2.00 is f**king boss.
octoddMar 11, 2011
Your thought process was right but the comparison is WAY off. CS is a casual shooter on the PC that takes little skill. Quake is a game for the highly skilled.
heathenlyMar 12, 2011
Not sure exactly what you're talking about. With multiplayer titles, at least, it's the quality of the other players that challenges you. If the other players are good, it takes more skill, if they suck, it takes less skill. The only way a comparison like this would make sense is if you were talking about single player gameplay, which wouldn't make sense, as CS is a multiplayer game.
And this whole discussion about which generic FPS takes "t3h m0st sk1lls" is pretty damned lame to begin with. We don't need 10,000 almost identical military shooters. That doesn't include quake, by which I assume we're talking about Q3, but Q3 ties with Goldeneye for the most overrated video game of all time. It had nice, tight controls, but had the most incredibly repetitive gameplay. At least the UT series showed a tiny shred of creativity.
But regardless, you bastards don't deserve good games, buying up these generic shooters like they're delicious pancakes. They're not delicious. They're discs of plastic, not soft and moist pan fried batter, coated in butter and delectable maple syrup. God I want pancakes.
nikowolfMar 12, 2011
your obviously retarded because golden eye and quake 3 were revolutionary to fps. those games began a lot.
heathenlyMar 12, 2011
First off, you slobbering, slope-browed vacant-eyed knuckle-dragging moron, it's "you're", which is a contraction of "you" and "are", and secondly, no. Quake 3 was massively massively generic, aside from being an early "arena" style game. Goldeneye was actually a decent game, just not one that lived up to the massive hype surrounding it. It was merely a serviceable shooter on a console, which was a rare thing at the time. Haha, get it, rare. But, I digress, f**kstick. Same issue with, GASP, Halo. Better PC titles existed at the time, but were overshadowed by console games that were merely passable.
To conclude, you are both wrong and have a brain which would rattle in a flea's skull. I'm going to go make pancakes.
heathenlyMar 12, 2011
First off, you slobbering, slope-browed vacant-eyed knuckle-dragging moron, it's "you're", which is a contraction of "you" and "are", and secondly, no. Quake 3 was massively massively generic, aside from being an early "arena" style game. Goldeneye was actually a decent game, just not one that lived up to the massive hype surrounding it. It was merely a serviceable shooter on a console, which was a rare thing at the time. Haha, get it, rare. But, I digress, f**kstick. Same issue with, GASP, Halo. Better PC titles existed at the time, but were overshadowed by console games that were merely passable.
To conclude, you are both wrong and have a brain which would rattle in a flea's skull. I'm going to go make pancakes.
nikowolfMar 12, 2011
lol i thought about what you said... about quake being generic and your right. it is generic. that's one of the reasons why the game was so great. the game was a frame work that a lot of people could use to design their own map and set up their own games. no there was no other game at the time that matched the fast paced, customizable and fluid action of quake 3 at the time with the exception of Unreal tournament. but you wouldn't know that because your a jackass.
nikowolfMar 12, 2011
yeah it was so massively generic that there was nothing else like it. and "your" one of those fags that resort to insulting minor text errors that probly shouldnt talk because you have no friends. so yeah... f**k off :P
heathenlyMar 13, 2011
1/10 for the attempted witty retorts. Give up now while you only look as stupid as you do, rather than as stupid as you could.
nikowolfMar 13, 2011
lol "your" the one that looks more the idiot every time you say something. its obvious that your not nearly as smart or as cool as you think you are and im sure also not as bearable to be around. meant to be witty... lol your that stupid.
elcalrissianMar 11, 2011
actually, when im a CS mood, i play MW2. quick. mindless. shooting.
when I actually want a complex and strategic online FPS experience, BF is the only way to go.
Two game styles.
Closed AccountMar 11, 2011
Too bad it brought nothing innovative to the FPS industry.
Bad Company 2 did though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5lnzScc6ZE
agmlauncherMar 11, 2011
Christ, who cares about innovation??? There isn't a single more overused, overrated quality of the gaming industry than "innovation".
Innovation by definition is change which solves an existing problem or does something better, not change for the sake of being different. "Innovation" in the gaming industry is 99% change, and 1% innovation, and that's why genres like RTS shat out terrible games like World in Conflict and all of it's no-base/no-economy clones which all fizzled out into nothing. They were trumpeted as being awesome because of how "innovative" they were, but they actually sucked ass and nobody cares about them anymore because of how shallow they are.
FPS is the same way. Sometimes a formula just works, and radically changing it for the sake of being "innovative" (aka different) would ruin it. Who gives a s**t if a game is innovative or not, as long as it's well executed?
I've seen countless games which prioritized innovation above execution, as if innovation was a free pass for actually getting the gameplay right. It's pathetic, and it's why for every title like Black Ops, there are dozens of other titles that nobody gives a crap about.
Closed AccountMar 11, 2011
Christ does.
I cant beleive you wrote an entire paragraph on this PoS of game:
agmlauncherMar 11, 2011
I didn't write it about Black Ops, I wrote it about the attitude that innovation = good. Innovation is overused and abused by people who wouldn't know good gameplay if it bit them in the ass.
Closed AccountMar 11, 2011
I assume you do, right?
Black Ops was a rehash of MW2. If you knew anything about the game industry you would understand why people like me are offended by games like Black Ops and rejoice in games like Bad Company 2 and BF3. It's okay, Agmlauncher, go ahead and spend 60 USD on a rehash of a year old game. I guess good gameplay is all up in yo' S.
nikowolfMar 12, 2011
lol people like you ha. if you want to talk like that than all fps games are just a rehash of wolfenstein... if you bought cod just for the multiplayer then yeah i guess its just a rehash but some people actually like story content. sorry seasaint but your opinion just makes you sound like a jack ass...
heathenlyMar 12, 2011
Yes, innovation is terrible! Those bastards keep making new things. It should all be Space War clones. I want a gravity well and two triangular ships that shoot at each other, but now we have all these games with 3d graphics and different genres with a variety of interesting gameplay elements. Who the f**k wants that bulls**t?
Honestly, bitching about innovation? Yes, the things you do differently should be fun, and useful, but I'm kind of glad some of the industry takes a chance and tries something new. If you're happy to eat the same old s**t warmed over, that's all well and good, but I'd like new experiences, thanks.
I also like that you say "innovation is overused." That's perhaps the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say in the past five or six years. "Doing things differently is overused!" Is there foam taped over all the sharp corners in your house, by chance? Perhaps the sharpest tool you're allowed to wield is a butter knife?
elcalrissianMar 11, 2011
You know BFBC2 had it's 1-year later Black Ops.
It was called BFBC2 Vietnam and it cost me $20.00
I think that's why people here are annoyed with COD's lack of innovation. Selling another full price game for what's basically a new map pack and patched gameplay features is lame.
If I want a real sequel, change it up please
agmlauncherMar 11, 2011
That makes ZERO sense. If you enjoyed the first game, then why on earth would you want the sequel to be completely different? Why not just go off and play a totally different type of game then?
elcalrissianMar 11, 2011
I guess my main point was $20 for new maps weps and same gameplay.
Is blackops a new engine? it's a re-skin of an existing game, dont charge full price.
agmlauncherMar 12, 2011
That's a different argument though. Whether you feel the game warrants full price or not is completely separate from changing a proven and successful gameplay formula just for the sake of being different.
By the logic that you don't want to pay full price for a re-skin and new maps, I don't want to pay full price for something which is different from what I like. Sure, MAYBE it could be better, but chances are it won't be and I sure as hell don't want to spend $50 to find out.
nikowolfMar 12, 2011
i guess what a lot of people are forgetting is the single player game. the single player for black ops was actually a pretty fun experience. modern warfare 1 single player was amazing. being that its a completely different story its a different game. multiplayer definitely is lacking in innovation, infact much of the ideas that were introduced actually degraded the game. the whole money thing was dumb. you didnt have to work to get anything anymore just buy it and that was it. can battlefield 2's single player compare? absolutely not being that its pretty much just a multiplayer game.
nikowolfMar 12, 2011
i agree of what your saying. the multiplayer just wasnt that good for black ops. if it wasnt for the singleplayer i wouldn't be that happy about paying for black ops. if it wasn't for the ps3 server hacks id rather play mw2.
nikowolfMar 12, 2011
i dont think that word means what you think it means. next time actually read the dictionary.
in·no·va·tion (n-vshn)
n.
1. The act of introducing something new.
2. Something newly introduced
agmlauncherMar 12, 2011
Wow, thank you for using a generic and completely meaningless definition.
How about you put it into some REAL, USEFUL context?
Innovation implies a change made to improve something, not merely a change or something new. The key concept here is improving something, as in, a problem has been identified and your innovation is a solution to it.
The trouble is, game studios like to "innovate" without having an actual need to. They just do it for the hell of it, and usually end up producing steaming piles of garbage like World in Conflict.
nikowolfMar 12, 2011
i guess that meaningless definition is messed up because its "the"definition... you don't just change the meaning of words to suit your needs... studios don't "innovate" to solve problems. studios "innovate" to come up with something different so they can possibly give the user a new and maybe unique experience. innovative games stand out. sometimes they are better and sometimes they are not, but at least its original. since you give your own meaning to words I'm sure you'll find your own meaning for the word original...
bizmowackaMar 11, 2011
Black Ops looks like it was made 5-6 years ago. Also, there is nothing more annoying than throwing a grenade into a group of enemies only to have it disappear when you die.
It may be the best selling; but its far from the best title in the franchise.
hyperblackchiMar 11, 2011
While I'm certain that the nature of Modern Warfare 1&2 helped to contribute, I personally believe it's all in the name...Black Ops...it sounds genuinely fun, we know very little about actual black operations, I'm certain this piqued a lot of gamers attention...
nikowolfMar 12, 2011
that was just dumb
frayedknotjeffMar 11, 2011
Rainbow Six FTW.
prolikewhoaMar 11, 2011
Here come all the hater comments. Insert game > Black Ops.
elcalrissianMar 11, 2011
Fester's Quest > COD
prolikewhoaMar 11, 2011
Multiplayer modes/features is much improved over MW2. I love the Pure modes. No helicopter BS. Just shootin'.
nikowolfMar 12, 2011
really so when people call the attack helicopter and chopper gunner and warship its only an illusion? they are actually all the same short of a few exceptions. if anything the newer features suck. to pro out perks your forced to play other games? thats just a dumb attempt to get people to play the other games modes which are uninteresting. currency system = stupid. exclusion of stopping power... really? what about the continued bias towards submachine guns and assault rifles? moving to 15 prestiges, whats goin on with that?
stewartwflillMar 11, 2011
MW1 was amazing to me at first. Then EA and DICE made Bad Company and I realized how underdeveloped COD games were. I bought MW2 because I thought they would have advanced SOMETHING but no. Bad Company 2 confirmed without a doubt how BEHIND the COD series is and yet people still are addicted to COD games because that's all they know. These are the same people who thought Halo and Goldeneye were the only two previous shooters to date. Now Battlefield 3 is going to come out and hopefully draw people away from that God awful series. I'm all for competition which creates innovation but when you're feeding a company billions of Benjamins to just add guns and kill streak options but not the actual GAMEPLAY then there is a serious problem. As much as EA gets ragged on for Madden, they know any game their name is on needs to be an innovative product. Look at NBA Elite. They completely rebuilt that game because their product wasn't innovative anymore. The demo demonstrated their "innovation" clearly failed and they pulled it off the shelves and are starting from scratch again. I respect that because they know their customers only deserve a top notch game year after year and not just more bells and whistles added to it. Battlefield 3 looks to be a decade ahead of the COD series and this time it's not going to go unnoticed.
nikowolfMar 12, 2011
wow can we say spokesperson or what? EA like any other company isnt interested in whats top notch just whats going to sell. NBA Elite was pulled because it was garbage. dont fool yourself.
theonewhoknowsMar 11, 2011
How can you say that without knowing how well future games will sell?
disastormMar 11, 2011
I love how their concept of US history starts at the late 90s. At the bottom of the article they said they started recording numbers in the late 90s. There have been games before that that have outsold Black Ops.
nikowolfMar 12, 2011
like what?
disastormMar 21, 2011
http://www.vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=&publisher=&console=&genre=&minSales=0&results=50&sort=America
Most of those (the ones above 14 million in America) I guess are bundled titles so maybe they aren't counting that, which would make the only game that legitimately beat Black Ops, Tetris for the Gameboy which was not a bundled title. However, it is interesting that it looks like Wii Play may have actually sold better than Black Ops, howver since game sales are always estimated, Wii Play is probably too close to Black Ops to know who has more sales.
disastormMar 21, 2011
hm nevermind it looks like tetris was packaged for gameboy didnt know that. Also I wasn't aware that the newer Wii's also package Wii Play. In that case, I suppose Black Ops is the best selling non-packaged game.
texanrudeboyMar 11, 2011
Miley Cyrus and Bieber sell well also....... popularity does not equal quality
double979Mar 12, 2011
That's a lot of tweens to filter away from Battlefield.
eliotpearsonMar 12, 2011
Not a lot of love for Black Ops with the comments. I know I am going to get flamed and down voted for this, but I feel Black Ops is a better title than MW2. I feel a lot of things that were broken in MW2 were corrected in Black Ops... boosting for one. The lone wolf approach doesn't work so well in Black Ops and that I what I like about it.