Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gears 2?

Its like $10USD at any used game store.

Or did you mean gears 3?

Either way I didn't care for Black Ops, multiplayer was worse than MW2 and looked worse. (seriously compare the two side by side, Black Ops looks likes gak on some maps)

The multiplayer has less kinks in it than MW2. If you notice, people drop a lot faster in singleplayer and multiplayer due to the character model differences. Black Ops has simpler character models which allows for less lag when it comes to reading where bullets hit. Now, maps like Nuketown suffer from their spawn system. Nothing like spawning right next to an enemy in the middle of a deathmatch.

halonachos wrote:The multiplayer has less kinks in it than MW2. If you notice, people drop a lot faster in singleplayer and multiplayer due to the character model differences. Black Ops has simpler character models which allows for less lag when it comes to reading where bullets hit. Now, maps like Nuketown suffer from their spawn system. Nothing like spawning right next to an enemy in the middle of a deathmatch.

The detail of the character model has nothing to do with hit boxes/hit registration.

It does when the processer has to deal with the graphical details. It creates a bit of lag because of it.

halonachos wrote:It does when the processer has to deal with the graphical details. It creates a bit of lag because of it.

Okay. I misread how you meant that. Of course, unless your hardware is too low to run the game it shouldn't be a problem. Connection lag is a bigger issue in hit registration than FPS lag.

Yeah, the lag that causes you to 'miss shots' or the whole 'I put a whole clip into him and he didn't die' thing is due to connection issues.

Overall I felt that Black Op's campaign was easier because the enemies died faster, found out that the simplified character models got rid of some 'lag' issues with the bullets.

I'm not really sure it matters. Ever since CoD 2, it's been a relatively simple feat to kill people in CoD, except mabye CoD:WaW cause I didn't play that one much

BFBC2 at its launch is a wonderful example of a game with crappy hit registry related to the poor manner in which it detected hits in relation to player connections.

halonachos wrote:and the story for GoW consists mainly of grown men grunting. Black Ops has people who can actually speak the english language in it.

This is what I was disputing. Can you read? You clearly didn't say "Gears has a lot of grunting", it's "the story for GoW consists mainly of grown men grunting".

I asked if you had actually played the campaign because you would have to be a moron to not notice the story going on and think they were just grunting the whole time. You later complain about their voices, they sound like rough soldiers as intended, so why is this such a problem? It negatively affects the story... How?

halonachos wrote:So if you note, I said that neither game had a truly unique storyline and that they grunt a lot in GoW. To which you replied that you disagree with my statement. THis doesn't mean that you disagree with a portion of the statement, it means you disagreed with my entire statement. You then continued to say that you find it pretty epic, but its not the best, but not the worst. You say nothing in agreement with my statement saying that neither has a unique story, you just said that you disagreed with my statement.

It would be okay for you to say that I assumed incorrectly that you said that GoW has a unique story if you said that you agreed in that first reply. Unfortunately you didn't say that, you said that you disagree with me so I could say that you disagree with me in the fact that 1)Neither game has a unique storyline and 2)There's a lot of grunting in GoW.

Also, saying that something is "Anything but realistic" means that you think it is unrealistic.

And yes, there is a saying about assuming, something about whether or not a person has played a game you know.

Given that I mentioned the latter and not the former, I'd think you would have the brain power necessary to deduce that I wasn't saying Gears had a unique story, clearly I was wrong.

Yes. The story and gameplay of Call of Duty is unrealistic. "But oh! They're based off real guns and settings!" That doesn't make it realistic, do you understand? I have an airsoft gun, the model is based off a real gun, so it's realistic, right?! No, it's still just an airsoft gun.

I've played through all of the Call of Duty series, why? Because I don't judge a game without playing it. I've played all of them to know that the first Modern Warfare was the only one that wasn't complete gak. Black Ops? Complete gak. If you think the storyline of that is realistic, you need some serious help.

Again, to make sure you see it, I'll reiterate.

The Fragile Breath wrote:So please, do me a favor and actually respond to what I'm saying or don't respond at all.

Edit: I'll point you to this.

Just because you don't believe in being specific, its not my fault. Being very broad and vague in an argument is just bad form.

Comparing an airsoft gun to a real gun is different from comparing a virtual representation of a gun to a real gun. Both try to emulate the look of the real gun, but the virtual gun tries to virtually emulate the damage of said gun. So both of those were made to do two completely things you see.

Airsoft gun= Looks like a real gun, but purpose is to let people mimic battles.

Call of Duty= Looks like a real gun, tries to emulate actual gun in a virtual world. Its also kind of like how the people in the game look like real people and why the world in the game tries to mimic real world locations. Its a virtual representation of a real thing.

Call of Duty story= Tom Clancy, ever heard of him? Yeah he also wrote the story for Modern Warfare. Brainwashing exists, Vietnam exists, Sepcial Forces exists, those things do exist. Some guy named Mason going to different countries and seeing dead people who urge him to kill a Nazi scientist, most likely did not happen.

GoW= Well people exist. Alien race overpowering and destroying the human race, no. Giant landcruisers that allow humans to drill into the tunnels of said aliens, no. A secret trick where shooting cowboy hats makes eveyone wear cowboy hats, no.

Call of Duty is more realistic than Gears of War, just like Arma2 is more realistic than Call of Duty. Its all relative, and you totally took my simple critique overboard with all of that argument that was probably some latent fanboyism. Its okay though, some people don't like being told that they're going way overboard.

Seriously dude, take a chill pill and stop trying to be so condescending by saying that I think CoD: Black Ops is realistic. I never said it was 100% realistic, I said that it was more realistic than Gears of War. Some people like shooters that have a fictional story set in real life conditions and featuring real life objects, some people like 100% science fiction.

This is absolutely absurd.

Talking to a wall would be more productive than talking to you, seriously, you don't get things. When did I say Gears was realistic? Never.

halonachos wrote:Also, saying that something is "Anything but realistic" means that you think it is unrealistic.

Explain this one to me, because CoD is sure as hell unrealistic. The "based on reality" guns, time, and settings don't make it realistic.

As for gameplay of Call of Duty being realistic, have someone shoot you with a real gun. Do you recover in seconds? No. If someone repeatedly shoots you in the foot, do you drop dead instantly? No.

I see you also completely missed the point of my comparison.

Are you going to actually start disputing my arguments or are you just going to keep plugging your ears and talking aloud about how you're right? I don't need to chill, I just have a problem with people arguing to themselves and pretending that I'm the one they're disproving.

The Fragile Breath wrote:This is absolutely absurd.

Talking to a wall would be more productive than talking to you, seriously, you don't get things. When did I say Gears was realistic? Never.

halonachos wrote:Also, saying that something is "Anything but realistic" means that you think it is unrealistic.

Explain this one to me, because CoD is sure as hell unrealistic. The "based on reality" guns, time, and settings don't make it realistic.

As for gameplay of Call of Duty being realistic, have someone shoot you with a real gun. Do you recover in seconds? No. If someone repeatedly shoots you in the foot, do you drop dead instantly? No.

I see you also completely missed the point of my comparison.

Are you going to actually start disputing my arguments or are you just going to keep plugging your ears and talking aloud about how you're right? I don't need to chill, I just have a problem with people arguing to themselves and pretending that I'm the one they're disproving.

You want realism? Play Arma2 or Flashpoint. We play games to have fun.

Black Ops had me laughing, the Rolling Stones have songs in it (What got me hooked), its fun and it has Nazi zombies. Gears never interested me.

Want a really fun game? Lost Planet 2.

Want a game of the year? Portal 2.

The Fragile Breath wrote:This is absolutely absurd.

Talking to a wall would be more productive than talking to you, seriously, you don't get things. When did I say Gears was realistic? Never.

I never said that you did.

And talking to a wall would be more productive than talking to you as well, although the wall probably wouldn't be crude and insult my personal being.

The phrase 'anything but...' means that an object has all of the qualities except for the one mentioned. Such as "Your later posts have been anything but polite." for example.

Again, Call of Duty tries to be realistic. The harcore game mode is a bit better at it as it gets closer to actual gun damage and its effect on people, it does miss some points that other fine games such as the original Rainbow Six games and SOCOM series hit at. Shooting a person in the leg or foot may or may not kill them, it depends on the individual. Also, the fact that blowing someone's foot off may cause that someone to pass out is missing in the game, probably because it isn't that fun in mainstream gaming.

What is absurd is the fact that you think I think that you think Gears of War is realistic. What is absurd is that there is no gray area for you in realism and that as soon as a game has a single touch of fiction in it the game can no longer be considered realistic in the least.

I haven't played Gears of War 2... but it would still get my vote since COD:BO is more of the same for me... I'd rather just play Battlefield 2.

djphranq wrote:I haven't played Gears of War 2... but it would still get my vote since COD:BO is more of the same for me... I'd rather just play Battlefield 2.

Or would you rather play Battlefield 2142?

halonachos wrote:

djphranq wrote:I haven't played Gears of War 2... but it would still get my vote since COD:BO is more of the same for me... I'd rather just play Battlefield 2.

Or would you rather play Battlefield 2142?

Actually I haven't tried 2142 yet. A buddy of mine has played it and he seemed to like it but we usually play BF2 or TF2... actually he's mostly playing LoL now a days.

Sadly I didn't get to play 2142 either, that was the first game my laptop couldn't play.

Apples and oranges, imo.

I vote for Gears though.

halonachos wrote:

Just because you don't believe in being specific, its not my fault. Being very broad and vague in an argument is just bad form.

Comparing an airsoft gun to a real gun is different from comparing a virtual representation of a gun to a real gun. Both try to emulate the look of the real gun, but the virtual gun tries to virtually emulate the damage of said gun. So both of those were made to do two completely things you see.

Airsoft gun= Looks like a real gun, but purpose is to let people mimic battles.

Call of Duty= Looks like a real gun, tries to emulate actual gun in a virtual world. Its also kind of like how the people in the game look like real people and why the world in the game tries to mimic real world locations. Its a virtual representation of a real thing.

Call of Duty story= Tom Clancy, ever heard of him? Yeah he also wrote the story for Modern Warfare. Brainwashing exists, Vietnam exists, Sepcial Forces exists, those things do exist. Some guy named Mason going to different countries and seeing dead people who urge him to kill a Nazi scientist, most likely did not happen.

GoW= Well people exist. Alien race overpowering and destroying the human race, no. Giant landcruisers that allow humans to drill into the tunnels of said aliens, no. A secret trick where shooting cowboy hats makes eveyone wear cowboy hats, no.

Call of Duty is more realistic than Gears of War, just like Arma2 is more realistic than Call of Duty. Its all relative, and you totally took my simple critique overboard with all of that argument that was probably some latent fanboyism. Its okay though, some people don't like being told that they're going way overboard.

Seriously dude, take a chill pill and stop trying to be so condescending by saying that I think CoD: Black Ops is realistic. I never said it was 100% realistic, I said that it was more realistic than Gears of War. Some people like shooters that have a fictional story set in real life conditions and featuring real life objects, some people like 100% science fiction.

Give me Vegas 2 over modern warfare any day

happydude wrote:

Give me Vegas 2 over modern warfare any day

I have yet to try Vegas 2... does it play like the old Rainbow Six games where they give you the map and then you make waypoints? or does it play more like Ghost Recon?

djphranq wrote:

happydude wrote:

Give me Vegas 2 over modern warfare any day

I have yet to try Vegas 2... does it play like the old Rainbow Six games where they give you the map and then you make waypoints? or does it play more like Ghost Recon?

It doesn't play like the older versions however you can still map out routes. Nothing is as satisfying as rappelling upside down behind a mofo and popping him square between the eyes like a spetznaz spiderman lol. It is an awesome title and fairly cheap too!

halonachos wrote:I never said that you did.

And talking to a wall would be more productive than talking to you as well, although the wall probably wouldn't be crude and insult my personal being.

The phrase 'anything but...' means that an object has all of the qualities except for the one mentioned. Such as "Your later posts have been anything but polite." for example.

Again, Call of Duty tries to be realistic. The harcore game mode is a bit better at it as it gets closer to actual gun damage and its effect on people, it does miss some points that other fine games such as the original Rainbow Six games and SOCOM series hit at. Shooting a person in the leg or foot may or may not kill them, it depends on the individual. Also, the fact that blowing someone's foot off may cause that someone to pass out is missing in the game, probably because it isn't that fun in mainstream gaming.

What is absurd is the fact that you think I think that you think Gears of War is realistic. What is absurd is that there is no gray area for you in realism and that as soon as a game has a single touch of fiction in it the game can no longer be considered realistic in the least.

What a surprise, you're putting more words in my mouth.

It really wouldn't, because you haven't actually been talking to me at all this entire time, since you haven't been responding to my points and essentially just keep restating the same things.

I'm being "anything but polite" because this whole conversation has been one frustrating loop.

You've yet to address the fact that I said it's kind of a moot point to say something is "more realistic" when the story is totally out of whack and unrealistic. I don't care that it's a real setting, real guns, "realistic damage" for the guns, the story is still ridiculous. Even if the gameplay is somewhat realistic, put it to a crazy story and it loses its realism. I'm not going to argue against hardcore mode, as that is a lot closer, I don't personally like it, but I give them props on it.

So tell me, what was the point of bringing up the realism of Gears? No one ever says it's realistic, so there's no need to dispute it. However, people are constantly talking about how "real" the CoD series is, so there is reason to dispute it. I never said "CoD isn't one bit realistic", I said it's still unrealistic. To me, if you want a realistic game and are going to talk about how real it is, go for the full thing, don't stop halfway.

halonachos wrote:What is absurd is that there is no gray area for you in realism and that as soon as a game has a single touch of fiction in it the game can no longer be considered realistic in the least.

This statement is too funny to me. You can go ahead and tell yourself that, but no. If you want to discuss realism, we should discuss different things, because your statement is untrue, you just think it's true because you can't understand why I think CoD is unrealistic.

You guys should probably cut the personal attacks and maybe tone down the fanboy reasoning as to why one game is better than the other.

This is starting to look like an xbox360 vs ps3 flame war.

Also, arguing about the realistic properties of just about any game is... probably not worth your time.

daedalus-templarius wrote:You guys should probably cut the personal attacks and maybe tone down the fanboy reasoning as to why one game is better than the other.

This is starting to look like an xbox360 vs ps3 flame war.

Also, arguing about the realistic properties of just about any game is... probably not worth your time.

flawless victory !

daedalus-templarius wrote:You guys should probably cut the personal attacks and maybe tone down the fanboy reasoning as to why one game is better than the other.

This is starting to look like an xbox360 vs ps3 flame war.

Also, arguing about the realistic properties of just about any game is... probably not worth your time.

Bah, if I was going to do a 360 vs PS3 flamewar I would bring something better than Black Ops to the fight. Something like Resistance or Ratchet and Clank.

I do miss the realism of the Tom Clancy games, especially the original Rainbow Six. Setting up way points, incapacitation as well as death, and the ability to choose between Hollow Point and FMJ rounds... good times.