• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Call of Duty:Black Ops Declassified (Gamescom 2012)

I just think it's unfair to write this off based on the developer who has never been given a chance to make a great game, and a franchise that is historically hideous. I don't think the game will be good if I had to guess, but I think people are being very condemning, based on so little.

they had the chance to make StarCraft: Ghost. guess what happened!
 
I don't mean to keep stirring the pot here but you say "a franchise that is historically hideous" as if that is some sort of majority opinion or something. I don't think it's absurd to hold the opinion that CoD is a very average looking series, and in fact many would even say it's well above average (trying not to play the "look at reviews" card here but it's getting a bit more difficult). Still, I do think you need to consider the high framerate that the series is known for as well.

When I woke up this morning I never would have guessed that I'd be defending CoD's graphics at some point today. :p
Yes, the framerate matters greatly, and we don't know what framerate this will be when it ships. MGS:PW HD went from like 20fps to 60 over the course of a few months based on public showings. And if this game has really only been in development for three months as some are suggesting is possible, it's only a third through development.
 
There's some devil's advocate in my posts I guess. I just think it's unfair to write this off based on the developer who has never been given a chance to make a great game, and a franchise that is historically hideous. I don't think the game will be good if I had to guess, but I think people are being very condemning, based on so little.

I'll agree with that. But isn't the pessimism to be expected for this game at this point? Especially here of all places!?

I'm hoping the multiple player is at least competent, because 4 v 4 seems right, and something that the system and engine should theoretically be able to handle.

However, the campaign is all but guaranteed to be rubbish in my eyes. The CoD formula is just way played out and not my taste.
 
Yes, the framerate matters greatly, and we don't know what framerate this will be when it ships. MGS:PW HD went from like 20fps to 60 over the course of a few months based on public showings. And if this game has really only been in development for three months as some are suggesting is possible, it's only a third through development.
I would be absolutely shocked if this game ran at an average framerate of anything even slightly above 30 fps. Deep down in your heart you would be as well, I'm guessing. :)

I know I'm being very harsh on the game and it may be somewhat preemptive but everything we've seen and heard so far sounds and looks dreadful. The developer, the videos and screenshots, the features, the lack of coverage before today; it just all reeks of garbage cash-in and I think it's fair to treat it as such until we're given a reason not to.
 
Nihilistic is developing it? Yeah... fuck that noise.

I liked Resistance Burning Skies, but only to the extent that I was tolerating it based solely on it being both the first twin-stick FPS shooter on a handheld + online competitive FPS multiplayer experience I've played on a handheld. Unless they're pushing 8vs8 and a full featured online multiplayer experience that rivals the console COD titles, I am passing on this.

EDIT: So it says this game will only feature 4v4 in the blog post? Yeah... pass.
 
Resistance Burning Skies had mediocre level design but great controls. They're a great fit for a Call of Duty game.
 
Again, could be, but it was still Activision that gave the first speech hyping the game up. This is a pretty big embarrassment for both of the publishers involved, regardless of how exactly things played out.
In my opinion, that specific presentation is just typical PR speak, such as "endless possibilities using the NGP features". It doesnt really hype the game itself that much. It would be different if they had hyped more specific things such as "on par with the console versions" and "big budget game".

It is not like they havnt mentioned CoD Vita several times though, so there have been hype in that way for sure, but they havnt said anything (at least from what i've seen) that it would be a big budget game and specific things like that. But yeah, i expected it to be a bit better from the little we've seen so far at least, i fully agree on that.
 
All I wanted was a ps3 port, with shittier graphics and low iq to keep it at 60fps like mortal kombat, and some kind of persistence on the mp side between the handheld and ps3 version. Not a reskinned F-grade resistance. Who's bright idea was it to give it to nihilistic? This is damaging to the brand and to the platform.
 
Resistance Burning Skies had mediocre level design but great controls. They're a great fit for a Call of Duty game.
I wouldn't say it had great controls. Maybe when going through the single player it felt fine, but playing online and needing to be as fast and efficient as possible, the controls really start to hold things back. The game had tolerable controls. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
The graphics in the trailer do not look bad at all. What the hell do you guys think the Vita is capable of?
 
Just like I predicted a few days ago in the other thread, it's a watered down experience that nobody will want. Game looks like shit and only has 4vs4 multiplayer over WiFi on tiny maps like Nuketown (and the other snow map looked like the "WMD" map from Black Ops).

This will not be a system seller for the Vita, anybody interested in CoD is gonna get the console versions.

Everyone has been predicting it since the moment it was announced.
 
Anyone that was saying that a COD was going to save the vita must have meant that a reasonable copy of what the consoles are doing put on the Vita feature complete would have been something worth purchasing. A watered down version, missing the features which makes COD popular shit onto Vita by a dev with a questionable pedigree isnt going to save anything but be a bullet point in some handheld warz 2012 discussion.
 
There's this one thing that I don't get. There are developers who are making batter looking games for iPhone with:
  • less disposable memory for the game,
  • less processing power from the CPU side and
  • less processing power from the GPU side?
Just, how? Are they developing this in Java, C# or something? This is just awful and equally damages the publisher, developer and the consumer.

Sorry for the rant. It's just blowing my mind, in the worst way possible.
 
I have zero faith in Nihilistic to produce anything other than a mediocre game after playing Resistance and seeing the trailer for Declassified.

I feel sorry for those who spend money (lmao $50 msrp) on this game.
 
Just curious, have there been any patches/updates for Resistance: BS for balancing, bugs and/or glitches? Because the idea that a CoD game wouldn't be patched is the biggest dealbreaker in the world.

Hell IIRC Resistance: BS's online didn't work at all at launch.

Even CoD on *Wii* got patched!
 
There's some devil's advocate in my posts I guess. I just think it's unfair to write this off based on the developer who has never been given a chance to make a great game, and a franchise that is historically hideous. I don't think the game will be good if I had to guess, but I think people are being very condemning, based on so little.

"Has never been given a chance to make a great game?" Do you honestly think that Sony wanted Playstation Move Heroes to turn out as poorly as it did? Do you think that either EA or Marvel wanted Marvel Nemesis to be unfun? I could go on and on, but putting the blame on the publisher of Nihilstic's games is being pretty unfair, when Nihilistic has had every opportunity to make their games fun, despite budget concerns, and they haven't.
 
There's this one thing that I don't get. There are developers who are making batter looking games for iPhone with:
  • less disposable memory for the game,
  • less processing power from the CPU side and
  • less processing power from the GPU side?
Just, how? Are they developing this in Java, C# or something? This is just awful and equally damages the publisher, developer and the consumer.

Sorry for the rant. It's just blowing my mind, in the worst way possible.
It's because they have assets made for PS360 and cut them down to fit a lower end platform rather than create new stuff with its specs in mind. The results are going to be shoddy. If you have a detailed 2048x2048 texture and scale it to 256x256 it will look awful, if you make a 256x256 texture from scratch you can make it look alright for what it is. Similarly for cutting down high poly models vs making a new low poly model from scratch. Compare Wii's COD ports with something like Red Steel 2 or Metroid Prime 3 which were made with that (or similar, GC) hardware in mind, at least their single player parts since they don't have online modes. You could probably get better results if you carefully hand edited every asset you downgraded but at that point you'd almost spend as much as you would when making all new stuff, quick and dirty is the way to go for such cheap ports.

It's not like every iOS game looks better either. I think MC3 looks about as bad as this, just in different ways. Maybe screenshots look sharper but the level design is pretty bland and boxy from the little I played (the controls are crap, maybe you can get used to them but that doesn't make them good, like I wouldn't play Super Mario Bros. with a dance pad just because that one guy managed to speed run it with one, I really wanted to like gyro controls too, but other games do them a lot better - sadly no FPS games yet though - and they aren't suitable for prolonged play in every environment). It doesn't run smooth on iPad2 level hardware either.
 
One of the main reasons why a second stick was implemented for the Vita is so that the platform could more adequately handle FPSs. I'm pretty sure just about everyone was expecting quite a few of them on the system, and obviously the potential for them to be decent is there now that the tech and hardware are up to par.

As an aside - somewhat - what are the n-space DS CoD titles like? Obviously they're in no way up to the console releases, but do they play okay in their own environment? Better or worse than Dementium/Moon?
 
All I wanted was a ps3 port, with shittier graphics and low iq to keep it at 60fps like mortal kombat, and some kind of persistence on the mp side between the handheld and ps3 version. Not a reskinned F-grade resistance. Who's bright idea was it to give it to nihilistic? This is damaging to the brand and to the platform.
Let's do some maths then.

BlkOps is 960x544 on PS3, that's a little over 500k pixels, that resolution might be familiar, as it's actually the native resolution of the Vita. That's a not far off half 720p (720p being just over 900k). Uncharted GA's resolution is 720x408 (just less than 300k), so to roughly match the performance with a notably graphical drop Uncharted is a third of what it was on PS3. A third of BlkOps on PS3 is 150k, or more specifically the PSP resolution of 272p.

And Uncharted was Sony's technical show piece for the system, Activision don't give a shit about the Vita.
 
Looks bad, sub-native res, laggy, and 4v4 online.

So, what say you CoD will save the Vita believers?

Considering this stuff was released at the same conference where the killzone trailer was shown, I would be embarrassed if I was Activision. Maybe they thought they made a good choice at the start. The nervousness should have set in after the reactions to Resistance.
 
this is the box if anyone cares..

119426123473n8ztd.png


1194320120870-a-psvitq4sj1.png
 
Will it be 60fps? That could justify the bad visuals.
Hard to see in the trailer in my opinion, but my guess would be 30fps to be honest. 60fps is one of the key "features" in CoD for consoles, but the Wii version have 30fps, same with the DS versions (if not lower), and split screen in Black Ops and Modern Warfare 3 as well, so less than 60fps has been done before.


This is very early code/footage right? I mean that's the only reason why most of the enemies don't respond to being shot to hell.
The game is out in 3-4 months. I'm not sure what you mean that the enemies arent responding to being shot though? The fall down quickly from what i can see.
 
If the single player is as good as burning skies i'll be getting this game......hoping there will be the zombies mode in the game
 
they really couldn't port the real thing over? yeah, i know ports are bad etc, but in case of a CoD game a port of the real thing was much better with cross play features. not like this.

they managed to port CoD4 to Wii after all, this should be possible.
Better comparison would be Black Ops as it looked and ran better than cod 4 on the wii. But its funny how the Wii has 10 players and this has 8.

edit:
Anybody else notice that the bullets don't actually feed through the LMG in that gif? They just kind of shake?
lol
 
Anybody else notice that the bullets don't actually feed through the LMG in that gif? They just kind of shake?
That happens in one of the PS3 KZs too. I guess it's theoretically possible that those guns fire at 33ms a round, or a multiplication of that.
 
Top Bottom