MW2 vs Black Ops

Which Call of Duty do you like better?

I'm deffently going with Black Ops because I don't like mw2

MW2


Black ops is not great..

MW2. Black Ops is ssssoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo boring. The story mode is lame, and hard to understand. Multiplayer is just stupid. If they took more time on Black Ops, it probably would've been waaayyy better. If they put the customizable options that they have in Black Ops into MW2, that would be game of the year.

They are the EXACT same.

The story was much better in Black Ops. Black Ops has zombies. Suprisingly enough, I got bored of multiplayer in Black Ops far more quickly than in MW2. In MW2 I actually racked up about 8 days and in Black Ops I have like...3. And I don't have any intention of playing it anymore. Also, Ascension easter egg gave me a bit of a challenge and MW2 multiplayer was decent enough (if you cross out the hackers and unbalanced gameplay) so I'd have to give it to both of 'em.

P.S. Black Ops sold more than MW2 but is rated lower
P.S.S. Black Ops holds #1 in sales and MW2 holds #2

Thats because Black Ops was sooooooooooooo hyped up before its release. Like atleast 20 of my friends sold or traded in Black Ops.

Modern Warfare 2. Honestly, im just keeping black ops cuz of zombies, and even thats getting boring.
In black ops, the weapons are less varied. And killstreaks don't count toward other killstreaks, which some people depended on. I mean, 11 kills without dying? thats hard! my best is only like 10!
They also ruined sniping in Black Ops. the only good sniping place is WMD and the other snowy place (not summit)
But, the special wager matches are fun, the killstraks are great if you can get them, and i can't wait until a MW3!
(as you can see, I am an Avid game critic)

4 FPS either CoD or similar to it are coming out this year.

Activision w/ Sledgehammer Studios (makers of Dead Space franchise) are making an official CoD

Activision w/ Infinity Ward & Raven Software are making MW3

Epic Studios (makers of Bulletstorm) are making a super-parody of MW franchise and the game is made JUST to put down / make fun of Activision's work. Free to download, PC only 700MB

Respawn Studios (started by the founders of Ininity Ward, former heads until fired) are making an FPS for EA. This FPS is meant to be either a CoD Killer or at least rival the series.

THQ and Kaos Studios(creators of Freedom Fighters) are making an FPS called Homefront.

There could be more but these are the games I've heard confirmed so far. Also, IDK if Activision has actually bought out Bungee Studios (makers of Halo franchise) but does anyone know for sure?

Gr33n wrote:

They are the EXACT same.

Black Ops took off all the stuff I hated on MW2 but I agree, they barly change every game.

CoD4 was a HUGE difference than CoD3. the first Modern Warfare actually revolutionalized FPS gaming.

No it didn't. It didn't revolutionize anything but the series. it had online, which had been done, and a crappy campaign, which had been done.

Gr33n wrote:

No it didn't. It didn't revolutionize anything but the series. it had online, which had been done, and a crappy campaign, which had been done.

Yes it did. It wasn't game of the year for no reason. Also, name one FPS shooter game that could compete with CoD 4 back then?

Black ops had an amazing storyline.

Look up some PC shooters. Also, game of the year is a joke, it means nothing. Typically they pick the bloodiest game out there, no matter the ratings.

Gr33n wrote:

Look up some PC shooters. Also, game of the year is a joke, it means nothing. Typically they pick the bloodiest game out there, no matter the ratings.

To be honest, CoD:4 is not even gory. If gore was the case, Dead Space would be game of the year every year because your mums hates it.

Not the point. To revolutionize, it has to be something never done before. Everything in MW had been done.

CoD 4 has hardly any blood / gore (compared to condemned 2)...PC shooters? Name one that could compete with CoD4 in 2008. Don't forget, Red Dead Redemption won GOTY 2010, God of War 3 was also released 2010. Still think they pick the bloodiest game out there? CoD 4 took EVERYTHING from the past shooters and made it 10x better. It introduced a brand-new FPS engine that kicked serious ass in 2008 and is still used today. Revolutionize doesn't mean introducing something brand-new. It means changing something dramatically in a good way.

Nothing was dramatically changed lol. As I've said, it's been done before. Not to mention the Halo series and I believe Gears.

CoD4 was a really good game. I getting tired of cod though. The games barly change and the multiplayer gets boring. Black Ops campain was suprisingly good though. Probibly most people that don't like it hates it because they don't understand it.

Halo CE VS CoD4
CoD4 wins graphic-wise, gameplay-wise, and pretty much everything else. Besides, sales figures and ratings side with CoD4, and Halo is a Sci-Fi FPS while CoD4 is Modernized FPS. Do MW do you run around with a plasma rifle shooting aliens in the face? I don't think so.
Gears of War isn't even an FPS. lol and PC shooters suck, it's hard to find a PC exclusive shooter that is actually decent.

But it wasn't back then. It really isn't too hard today either, butthats a different story. And I never said Halo beat it, but it is proof MW didnt revolutioonize anything.

LolICU wrote:

MW2 multiplayer was decent enough (if you cross out the hackers and unbalanced gameplay)

Rofl. Um games that are hella unbalanced are complete shit? especially online where all the fucking idiots noobs use everything that is unbalanced to their advantage? The point of a game is to challenge others to see who is better and have fun in the process, not to choose all the OP shit so you can win and brag about it.

Blahs wrote:

They also ruined sniping in Black Ops. the only good sniping place is WMD and the other snowy place (not summit)

If you're saying they have no camping spots, isn't that a good thing?

If you're talking about the new aiming system.... Epic fail. They made it more balanced, but sniping in CoD will never make sense until they fix it completely. If you watch any kill cams on BO or MW2 when you r killed by a sniper noob (or if you ARE one), 90% they miss and get a one shot kill on you. Sniping in CoD doesn't, and never has, made any sense.

The big thing I have against sniping is that it takes no skill and its way too unrealistic, even for a video game. you have like a 0.01% chance to switch from running full speed to aiming a sniper rifle steadily at a soldier over 100 feet away and shoot and kill him in less than a second (AKA quick-scoping) Even in Black ops, I see people who scope for about half a second, and kill me. I'll watch the kill cam, and don't even appear on the screen uh yah wtf?

Anyway, Black ops is prefered because its so much fun playing with the balistic knife, which is the only weapon in the game that takes a lot of skill to aim.

DaFatChikin wrote:

LolICU wrote:

MW2 multiplayer was decent enough (if you cross out the hackers and unbalanced gameplay)

Rofl. Um games that are hella unbalanced are complete shit? especially online where all the fucking idiots noobs use everything that is unbalanced to their advantage? The point of a game is to challenge others to see who is better and have fun in the process, not to choose all the OP shit so you can win and brag about it.

Blahs wrote:

They also ruined sniping in Black Ops. the only good sniping place is WMD and the other snowy place (not summit)

If you're saying they have no camping spots, isn't that a good thing?

If you're talking about the new aiming system.... Epic fail. They made it more balanced, but sniping in CoD will never make sense until they fix it completely. If you watch any kill cams on BO or MW2 when you r killed by a sniper noob (or if you ARE one), 90% they miss and get a one shot kill on you. Sniping in CoD doesn't, and never has, made any sense.

The big thing I have against sniping is that it takes no skill and its way too unrealistic, even for a video game. you have like a 0.01% chance to switch from running full speed to aiming a sniper rifle steadily at a soldier over 100 feet away and shoot and kill him in less than a second (AKA quick-scoping) Even in Black ops, I see people who scope for about half a second, and kill me. I'll watch the kill cam, and don't even appear on the screen uh yah wtf?

Anyway, Black ops is prefered because its so much fun playing with the balistic knife, which is the only weapon in the game that takes a lot of skill to aim.

Umm yeah sniping in black ops takes skill. Also, the amount of hitmarkers you get from just about every sniper rifle in CoD disagrees with just about everything you said. From what I see of your CoD posts the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that you are just plain terrible at Call of Duty. Also, I think the majority of the Black Ops base prefers being sniped any day rather than being knifed over and over by a ballistic. What would you describe as realistic sniping in an FPS anyways?

LolICU wrote:

Halo CE VS CoD4
CoD4 wins graphic-wise, gameplay-wise, and pretty much everything else. Besides, sales figures and ratings side with CoD4, and Halo is a Sci-Fi FPS while CoD4 is Modernized FPS. Do MW do you run around with a plasma rifle shooting aliens in the face? I don't think so.
Gears of War isn't even an FPS. lol and PC shooters suck, it's hard to find a PC exclusive shooter that is actually decent.

but you have to realize that Halo CE was released in 2001, and COD 4: MW was released in 2007. also, halo CE was released 2 years before the first COD. in technology-wise, they are pretty equal. halo revolutionized FPS's, and was most likely the inspiration of COD.

I like both, but if I had to choose I'd say MW2. I really like MW2 because the graphics are good, the weapons are balanced, and it takes fewer shots to kill (to me) than BO.