Black Ops Scans from OXM

David said:
balance comes before realism. always.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. And I seriously doubt realism would cause any problems in balance.

And so much for balance, the UMP45 is used probably 3 to 1 times more often than any other gun.
 
SSgt. Garrett said:
Mino said:
SSgt. Garrett said:
Mino said:
I really wish CoD developers would stop with the unrealistic bull*censored.2.0*. A crossbow? What the flying *censored.3.0*? I've never cared much for the single player anyways, but when CoD4 was coming out, everyone was talking about the comparative realism of the game (compared to Halo 2/3 and Gears of War, which were the hot games then), including in multiplayer. But since WaW, the game has taken a decidedly unrealistic tack, with idiotic perks and weapon attachments. Where's the gritty realism? Hardcore certainly doesn't have it.

Although more class customization will probably make me buy this game.
Cod has always been unrealistic, adding perks just makes the game more fun. Also how are weapon attachments unrealistic... scopes are real.
I'm not talking about graphics, I'm talking about gameplay. If you attempted half the stunts people pull in MW2, your ass would be gunned down in an instant. And it's not enough to just make people die more easily. Also, stop magically transferring bullets when you throw away a magazine that still has ammunition!

As for the unrealistic perks, I'm talking about some, not all of them. CoD4's were far more realistic (with the exception of Bomb Squad.) In MW2 you have people that can lunge impossibly far with a knife (Commando), survive any fall (Commando Pro), sprint endlessly (Marathon), carry virtually infinite amounts of equipment (One Man Army), or take several headshots without dying (Painkiller). As for unrealistic perks, you have grenade launchers and masterkey shotguns on weapons they are not compatible with, heartbeat sensors and thermal scopes that don't actually exist, impossibly extended magazines (the P90 simply can't hold more than 50 rounds, for example), and akimbo.

Edit - Also, the whole idea of a secondary weapon is a failed idea, this isn't Halo. Pistols or compact machine pistols only, please! I will say that since this is a supposedly futuristic game, heartbeat sensors and thermal sights are alright, I suppose.
Well I was also talking about game-play, not graphics.

Uh yes, of course it's unrealistic you can't do half the stuff you can in MW2 in real life.
The first few sentences your typed are just stating the obvious that the game is unrealistic.

Yeah you have a point those perks are a pain in the arse but painkiller is a death-streak not a perk. Uh, I'm not 100% on this but aren't grenade launchers real? If so how aren't the unrealistic?

A failed idea, that's your opinion, I like it. Although some of the secondary guns are powerful enough to be primary.
There is no important difference between the perks and death streaks: they're both something people choose and they both impart unrealistic abilities. And yes, the M203 is real, and was originally designed for use on the M16 and M4, as well as some other rifles. However, it is not compatible with the other rifles seen in the game. The AK-47 uses a different launcher called the GP-25, and if you've ever used it you'll notice it looks different and loads from the front instead of the back.

And the idea to migrate shotguns and launchers to the secondary weapon slot is a failed idea because, especially when coupled with Scavenger, it gives people far too much access to ordinance that was originally supposed to be used sparingly and carefully. Giving people a weapon like the SPAS-12, which is effective at quite a long range AND a ranged weapon is just overkill. And this is from someone who loves the SPAS-12.
 
Back
Top