If you read my review of Black Ops for PS3, you'll note I was none too happy about it. For convenience sake, I've linked it here: http://n4g.com/channel/call...
It's now been over a month since Black Ops has been out. I've played it intermittently, always drawn back by the promise of having fun in the latest COD outing, and every time I've gone back, I've turned it off in frustration only a game or two after.
Last night when a few mates came over for a rainy Saturday night indoors, I had a revelation. You see, we bill these nights, in jest, as simply 'pwning noobs'.'Come over and pwn noobs' I'll sms to them when we're asking each other what's on for Saturday night. We tell the girlfriends we're having 'boy's night', and 4 or 5 of my friends come over, we sit in my bedroom with beer and wine, and we get a little drunk, passing the controller on after a few deaths on shooters. It's a great way to catch up, sit around and just chill out with friends.
A few games will get a run over the course of the night. Killzone 2, Bad Company 2 in the beginning. But the staple of these nights is always the fast an frantic action of Call of Duty online. But last night at about 9pm when I went to pop Black Ops into the PS3 there were 4 voices of uniform protest. 'Not Black Ops, it's shit!'; 'The graphics are worse!'; 'You can't stay in a lobby, it keeps disconnecting!'; 'It lags too much!'.
All four of my friends present are PS3 owners. All four bought Black Ops day one, like me. All four feel like they got burned. So I didn't put Black Ops into the PS3, I put in Modern Warfare 2- a game I hadn't actually played since purchasing Black Ops. The game loaded up, we were immediately put into a full team deathmatch lobby, and a game started in Highrise.
We all started singing the same praise. We noted first, how smoothly it ran compared to the frame-fucked stutter sessions of Black Ops. It was smooth as silk! You could actually target your enemies, line them up in your sights! See them running, and all animated smoothly! The resolution, oh the resolution! It was crisp! Things just didn't blend into the distance, you could see your enemy, not just a pile of brown and green pixels! People started getting care packages and killstreak rewards. AC130's, Predator Missiles, and all sorts of explosions everywhere, and the game handled it without missing a beat! Frames weren't skipping so players just appeared and disappeared in front of you. Bullet hits weren't delayed but a half second. It all came together so nicely.
We all just sat and played for the next few hours, and came to the same conclusion. Black Ops is a con. We were sold an unfinished inferior product. We bought it on the back of our experience with Modern Warfare 2- which we realised how much we had missed- and surmised Black Ops gives Call of Duty a bad name. Treyarch couldn't reach the hurdle Infinity Ward set, and they missed it by a longshot.
Over a month on and it's still not fixed. Treyarch and Activision haven't bothered patching the PS3 version to fix its numerous issues. It's still the same stuttering mess it was on launch day. It's got more bugs than the Amazon jungle. In short, I just can't play it anymore. I'm listing it on eBay.
Yet it's still one of the highest praised games released all year. Spike TV lauded it with the best shooter of the year award- which in my opinion definitely should have gone to Bad Company 2. Numerous websites canvassing GOTY contenders slip Black Ops into the discussion. It's rated highly by nearly every major gaming website, but its one of the most disappointing releases of 2010.
So here's my humble opinion. The only conclusion I can draw is that gaming journalists are not independent media sources. They are cash for comment advertising officers. This opinion is nothing new, plenty hold this view.
Gaming 'media' outlets are too afraid to bad mouth big releases like Activision's cash cow, because the publishers spend so much money on advertising. If they give a bad review- they risk a advertising accounts, they risk losing 'exclusive' interview privileges. They risk losing getting things like review copies, or invites to 'reveals' and other big corporate events. Many gaming 'journalists' are not journalists at all. They're closer to a salaried cheer squad, who's livelihoods and lifestyles revolve around having their backs scratched by the industry in return for the ego trip of 'exclusive' treatment.
I've no doubt the same thing happened with Modern Warfare 2. In-fact it was widely reported at the time. But the difference was, Modern Warfare 2, despite some minor flaws, was a good game. It just wasn't and isn't possessed of the same fuck ups that Black Ops is. 'Nuff said.
Digital Foundry : Bethesda's Starfield was generally a well-regarded RPG, but the game's 30fps target on consoles was the subject of some controversy. The game's massive scope arguably justified that 30fps refresh rate, with only high-end PCs capable of hitting 60fps and higher, but now Bethesda has changed course and opened the floodgates on Xbox Series X consoles following significant optimisation work. Players can now independently select performance and visuals modes at arbitrary frame-rates. How exactly do these new combinations fare, and is 60fps really a possibility after it was explicitly ruled out before?
An inside look at Assassin's Creed Shadows, Ubisoft's ambitious open world Japan where your every move is affected by weather, season, and lighting systems.
Sony has launched the PSN Store "PlayStation Indies" sale this May 15, and this one is full of smaller titles at a discounted rate.
I dunno, if you get on a server were everyone has a 4 bar connection, lag is less of an issue than in MW2 from my own experience, and at least you can set the matchmaking to local.
The framerate can be sluggish, but, again from my experience, only when someone has a napalm strike called in or maybe from chopper gunners/gunships. I haven't had frame drop issues from dogs surprisingly, i though that would be the worst.
I find it kind of funny how you complain about these two issues in Black Ops and then sing the praises of Bad Company 2. Now I love Battlefield and have ever since BF2, and though I loved its latest addition, almost everygame I played was plauged but intense periods of lag, framerate issues when lots of sh*t is getting blown up, the latency on which (the destruction) must have been up around 100ms.
Some sites undoubtedly do get paid off by publishers, but the majority of them probably just have had different experiences to you.
"Black Ops is a con. We were sold an unfinished inferior product. We bought it on the back of our experience with Modern Warfare 2- which we realised how much we had missed- and surmised Black Ops gives Call of Duty a bad name. Treyarch couldn't reach the hurdle Infinity Ward set, and they missed it by a longshot."
Many bought BlackOps because they felt MW2 gave CoD a bad name and hoped that Trey would do things differently.
Trey wasn't supposed to reach IW's hurdle, but rather, was supposed to run in the opposite direction.
Seems they ran too far and butchered the engine in the process. =/
A few patches have been released and I believe a new one is on way for PS3. Trey does seem to be providing support, so thats a good thing... perhaps.
Although I do agree, the scores were generally higher than they should've been. Just gotta decide which outlets you trust.
I trust PCGamer and they gave it around 6.5/10. I'm happy with that.
It can also be that some reviewers play the game on one system (360 for example) and do a quick play session on another system (ps3) and take a few impressions and publish the score for both systems.
... though it seems some exclusively PS3 reviewers gave the game a perfect score. =/
Online experiences do tend to vary from person to person.
I love the MP. Had little issues with lag and framerate. Had many issues with freezing though.
I love the game, a lot like you I find it to be a good fun social game.
The PS3 version did get screwed but I'm riding it out until they bring in the patches that are meant to fix freezing. Frameate was bad at first for me but has improved since.
As for reviews: they NEVER detail multiplayer. Ever. They likely played with bots and will generally praise the wealth of content or the new killstreaks, etc. Matters like balance, lag, etc. are rarely addressed, and I think if reviewers had such a prominent issue with such things they would report it.
I would give BO a solid 8.5 When you tie in the overall package I can understand how it scored 9.0s
For PS3, the game sucks period. For 360, it still sucks online (though not half as hard). I personally play CoD games for the thrilling single-player, a department which was very well done for my 360 version of Black Ops.
And, I'm sorry, but MW 2 still sucks hard balls. Equal balls as the PS3 version of Black Ops, just in different ways.
100% correct