Without trolling, is this game not that good?

#21OnDiscDLCPosted 11/14/2012 4:57:35 AM
Cod fanboy mentality: If someone says something negative about the game, they're obviously a troll. Because we all know Cod is perfect and never has any flaws!
#22tehSlippyPosted 11/14/2012 5:07:42 AM
Wayyy too early to tell. It isn't like MW3 where (IMO) it was obvious within the first day how poor the game was.

Also, unless I am mistaken, TreyArch are good with post-release support.
#23EvanW1109Posted 11/14/2012 5:08:42 AM
The people I hear complaining so far (in-game anyway) basically complain about how much worse their k/d is in this compared to MW3. That is NOT a valid complaint when you are level 13. Sometimes you have to gain a few levels and unlock the equipment that work with your playstyle. That is what I had to do. I didn't start playing well until I got used to the maps, scorestreaks, pace, and new equipment. That was about level 25 or so. People aren't giving this game the TIME to tell you if it is good.

Granted, some of the scorestreaks are undefendable without running quickly indoors, but that's how some have been in the past too.

There are SOME lag issues. Mainly I get these when I group with a lot of other people. With just one or two others, the lag isn't bad.

There are some server issues. Sometimes you'll sit in a FULL room with the game telling you it needs more players to balance. Best thing is to back out and get into another room. So that has an easy way to get around it.

So basically, the game is too new to really say how good it is or not. You can compare graphics and lag compared to other games, but that comes down to what tv you are using and your internet connection as well.
#24paint87Posted 11/14/2012 5:15:24 AM
sgr8 posted...
omegaGogeta posted...
@sgr8 I do believe Zombie maps are supposed to be dark to give a sense of foreboding.


In Bo1 some were dark but not like this. Its not enjoyable for me. I suppose Nuketown Zombies will be a lot of fun tho.


Nuke town is dark to
---
ducks better scat when the gat goes click-clack
#25Soul_IntruderPosted 11/14/2012 5:22:49 AM
The only other CoD multiplayer I've played was MW2 and so far, I'd say this game is easily better. Most maps have a nice balance of close quarters and long range areas. The locations are more interesting and varied and they just look better aesthetically.

I have been playing almost exclusively with LMGs so I can't say yet if the weapon variety/balance is better than in MW2.
#26shadowsofdawnPosted 11/14/2012 5:30:20 AM
They need to fix the freezing issue, because if you get that it almost makes the game unplayable.

As far as the actual game though, its really good. Great maps, good class customization, decently balanced weapons, hard to earn but useful killstreaks.
---
\o/ Administering jolly ass-whoopings everyday.
.||
#27ploodiePosted 11/14/2012 5:42:32 AM
My first impression - glad I got it, even for $60... sometimes, it's fun to get in on a game on launch day - and this one is every bit as fun as any of the previous entries.

MAPS: Graphics are outstanding - I always think Treyarch gives more thought to making their maps detailed and designed well, whereas IW seems to just create a grid and throw a bunch of boxes and random buildings in it.

MULTI: Didn't really delve much into the unlocking scheme yet, but it looks to be pretty robust, like the previous BO, but more so - again, IW seems content to keep the exact same loadout structure for each of their games. Some of the changes are interesting - I think changing the Streak system to being based on points rather than kills is a HUGE benefit - you won't have as many people in Domination playing TDM, for example. Love the Quadrocopter ... not sure about making games like Domination into "two halves" though, maybe I like it, maybe I don't - it just seems weird to work hard to get control of the map, only to have it all reset half-way through...

You can't deny one thing - Treyarch tries WAY more innovative things than IW ... maybe they don't all work, but they are trying!

ZOMBIES: Honestly, not blown away with it yet - the map(s) are butt-ugly, for one ... and I only played Survival mode on the sectioned maps, which got boring fast because they are small and featureless - right before I went to bed, I tried one round with the bus and the connected routes, and that looked like it would be way more fun, but I died early on and was tired, so...

CAMPAIGN: Didn't touch it yet, but if its even HALF as good as the original BO, then it will be miles better than any of the MW games campaigns. And from what I've heard, it's possibly BETTER than the first BO, so... the opening cinematic was tear inducing, that's a good sign...


All told, it's early on - but my first impression was definitely positive. If nothing else, it's not a total disaster.
#28Lord_TenseEyePosted 11/14/2012 5:43:26 AM
MrSpaM111 posted...
exile2000 posted...
I understand that its COD and heated debates do rage in this series but Im not seeing much praise from the boards. I havent picked this game up as of yet, is it good/bad? Worth the $60?


The people complaing about it either dont own the game or are just trolling. If you like COD its worth the money basically.


A lot of the complaints are legitimate so you are lumping together anyone that voices a concern with the game as a troll or you think they don't have the game.

I've made a few topics and posted a few complaints, all of them legit. Does that mean I don't have the game?
#29sion041391Posted 11/14/2012 5:45:10 AM
Nerf some of them smgs they outclass AR
#30JustThink1stPosted 11/14/2012 5:54:14 AM
Hey there, actual honest and impartial person here. The game itself is excellent. There are some fixes they need a patch for but overall it's a very well done game much better then MW3. So if you like COD in general, it's a worthy addition.
---
"I'm not scared...I'm singing. My screaming song."
"You're a total wuss."