Originally posted by CA5U4LTY
1.) When you take away footsteps, its actually making the game less realistic. I should expect that footsteps should at least be as audible as they sound in real life, or comparatively. But in BO its not even close. The sounds of the texture of ground your on don't even match the appearance of the kind of ground your walking on either; so tacky and cliche for a modern video game. Its like taking away one of our most keen and sensitive senses that we use in real life to detect motion and depth perception, too.
I hate the realism argument, mainly because the argument itself is invalid and people only put the argument forward for things they're in favor of.
If CoD is based around realism, why are there perks and killstreaks?
Because it's not.
Originally posted by CA5U4LTY
2.) Its not sound whoring so much as it is utilizing the sound that should be provided in real life. And the sound IS always there in the game; so you shouldn't rage at other people for the mere fact that you can't hear it. You can get the same effect from a decent home surround sound system, but not all of us student gamers have $3000 dollars (or pounds in your case) to spend, especially when there is barely enough money in this rental cot to buy some noodles. Choke the 100 bucks and its a worthy investment. And I guarantee you won't be raging once you get one.
This argument annoys me too. Just because one has more money they should not gain any sort of advantage.
This is coming from someone who has enough money in his paypal to order some AX720s but has been holding off because of the sound in Black Ops.
Originally posted by CA5U4LTY
3.) Cod4 had the same hit counters as MW2. Overpowered? Well, yes, if you are comparing it to Halo. I, for one, migrated to COD because of the hit markers. If you liked the hit counters in COD4, there wasn't really much to dislike about MW2 except the new spawn algorithm, which wasn't well thought out, and the maps were over-complex. Even through all that, I still found it easy to look over those problems and enjoy what really matters in the game; the formatic shooter part of it.
It's universally accepted in the CoD community that MW2's weapons were more powerful(even by a little, in CoD it all adds up), had less recoil and became generally easier to handle.
Originally posted by CA5U4LTY
4.) There have not been, and never will be, 4 million people playing at once. There is a difference between having 4 million players "online" and 4 million people "in-game". You are only using the COD severs when you are IN a server, but having the game booted or just sitting in a lobby does not clog the servers.
I'm not going to argue this point purely because I know very little of servers, so I'm going to bow out of this one.
Originally posted by CA5U4LTY
I don't dislike the game as a whole, but there are certain things that just irk me. They should be improving the chain, especially when COD has so much high stakes and expectations, but so far BO feels in many ways like a step backwards
Most people consider this game to be the most balanced in the series.
The only people upset about the sound are those that wasted their money on a headset prior to release.
The only people upset w/ the damage and recoil of the weapons are the ones who have become too familiar with MW2s skill-less weapons.
I could go on but I cba, long story short this game is easily on a par w/ COD4(besides sniping haha) and is a mile better than both WaW and MW2, which were both colossal disappointments.